Science and democracy

[purchasemonkey]

   I am currently reading Chris Mooney's The Republican War on Science, which is, as one might be able to guess from the subtle connotations of the title, somewhat partisan in its analysis of governmental censorship and/or influence upon science in the last thirty years.

It has gotten me thinking about how science is and is not democratic. One of

Comments

two more things

[palecur]

ideologues. Not idealogues. Yes, it's English being a tricky whore again.

About the theory of evolution in particular, I have always found it useful to point out that the 'Theory' part is not about whether or not evolution happens; that's been placed pretty firmly into the 'observed fact' column. When we say 'Theory of Evolution' we mean 'theory about how Evolution works,' much the same way as when we talk about the theory of gravity we don't mean gravity is a theory. We mean gravity is an observed fact, and we have a theory about how it works.

I've thought for a long time..

[ophymirage]

Science (SCIENCE!) needs to come up with another damn word. Because your average idiot American doesn't have enough scholarly background to understand that "theory" can have two (almost entirely opposite) meanings, one of which is quite specialized. (More to the point, they'll claim that having to know that falls into the 'librul elitist latte-drinking' category that makes them uncomfortable.)

if we get a different word, one that doesn't have the 'Wild-Ass-Unproven-Guess' annotation that 'theory' carries for the average American, we might avoid at least some of those stupid debates.

Re: I've thought for a long time..

[kid_lit_fan]

It took several years* of Steve saying "I don't think you mean theory, I think you mean hypothesis" to get it into my head.

*Not constantly, that would be exhausting for both of us. You know what I mean.

Re: Steve

[purchasemonkey]

   Yeah, but you and Steve both rock ass. As such, you fundamentally get it. Go go well-informed skeptics!

Re: I've thought for a long time..

[sgeorge1701]

To change the word would mean caving to intellectual terrorists.

Nope - it is education that is the answer - not accommodating intractable foes.

Steve

Re: word to your mother!

[purchasemonkey]

   I was going to respond exactly the same way to ophymirage (except I probably wouldn't have said "intellectual terrorists," because I don't like using the "T-word" in the current political climate, and because they're not intellectuals =) but you beat me to it.

I won't stop saying "I feel nauseated" rather than "I feel nauseous," either.

Re: word to your mother!

[sgeorge1701]

Ahh! But Islamic Terroists (IslamoFascists) aren't ISLAMIC!

The Koran FORBIDS the taking of innocent life - even Accidentally tromping a farmer's crops could lead him to starvation and that is forbidden!

Since, the Islamic Terrorists aren't Islamic!

Therefore, Intellectual Terrorists aren't Intellectuals!

Although, I just don't like the term: IntellectoFascists. It sounds like a really lame garage band.

S

Re: two more things

[purchasemonkey]

   Thanks for the notes (peer review! peer review!). I made the corrections for "ideologue" (my own stupid fault) and replaced "relativism" with "absolutism" in the case which created the confusion (I meant to identify relativism and contrast it with its opposite, but used "relativism" again when referring to absolutism).

Your example of how to explain "theory of evolution" as compared to "theory of gravity" is a good one. I might extend it briefly by explaining to those who know a little that, just as scinetists are not entirely sure HOW gravity works, the theory of WHAT it does is pretty sound, just as we quibble about how exactly "natural selection" proceeds, but not whether or not it is happening.