Wired Article: Clive Thompson on Why Science Will Triumph Only When


http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-11/st_thompson


Clive Thompson on Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes
Law
By Clive Thompson Email 10.23.07 | 12:00 AM


Creationists and intelligent-design boosters have a guerrilla tactic
to undermine textbooks that don't jibe with their beliefs. They slap a
sticker on the cover that reads, EVOLUTION IS A THEORY, NOT A FACT,
REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF LIVING THINGS.

This is the central argument of evolution deniers: Evolution is an
unproven "theory." For science-savvy people, this is an incredibly
annoying ploy. While it's true that scientists refer to evolution as a
theory, in science the word theory means an explanation of how the
world works that has stood up to repeated, rigorous testing. It's
hardly a term of disparagement.

But for most people, theory means a haphazard guess you've pulled out
of your, uh, hat. It's an insult, really, a glib way to dismiss a
point of view: "Ah, well, that's just your theory." Scientists use
theory in one specific way, the public another -- and opponents of
evolution have expertly exploited this disconnect.

Turns out, the real culture war in science isn't about science at all
-- it's about language. And to fight this war, we need to change the
way we talk about scientific knowledge.

Scientists are already pondering this. Last summer, physicist Helen
Quinn sparked a lively debate among her colleagues with an essay for
Physics Today arguing that scientists are too tentative when they
discuss scientific knowledge. They're an inherently cautious bunch,
she points out. Even when they're 99 percent certain of a theory, they
know there's always the chance that a new discovery could overturn or
modify it.

So when scientists talk about well-established bodies of knowledge --
particularly in areas like evolution or relativity -- they hedge their
bets. They say they "believe" something to be true, as in, "We believe
that the Jurassic period was characterized by humid tropical weather."

This deliberately nuanced language gets horribly misunderstood and
often twisted in public discourse. When the average person hears
phrases like "scientists believe," they read it as, "Scientists can't
really prove this stuff, but they take it on faith." ("That's just
what you believe" is another nifty way to dismiss someone out of
hand.)

Of course, antievolution crusaders have figured out that language is
the ammunition of culture wars. That's why they use those stickers.
They take the intellectual strengths of scientific language -- its
precision, its carefulness -- and wield them as weapons against science
itself.

The defense against this: a revamped scientific lexicon. If the
antievolutionists insist on exploiting the public's misunderstanding
of words like theory and believe, then we shouldn't fight it. "We need
to be a bit less cautious in public when we're talking about
scientific conclusions that are generally agreed upon," Quinn says.

What does she suggest? For truly solid-gold, well-established science,
let's stop using the word theory entirely. Instead, let's revive much
more venerable language and refer to such knowledge as "law." As with
Newton's law of gravity, people intuitively understand that a law is a
rule that holds true and must be obeyed. The word law conveys
precisely the same sense of authority with the public as theory does
with scientists, but without the linguistic baggage.

Evolution is supersolid. We even base the vaccine industry on it: When
we troop into the doctor's office each winter to get a flu shot -- an
inoculation against the latest evolved strains of the disease -- we're
treating evolution as a law. So why not just say "the law of
evolution"?

Best of all, it performs a neat bit of linguistic jujitsu. If someone
says, "I don't believe in the theory of evolution," they may sound
fairly reasonable. But if someone announces, "I don't believe in the
law of evolution," they sound insane. It's tantamount to saying, "I
don't believe in the law of gravity."

It's time to realize that we're simply never going to school enough of
the public in the precise scientific meaning of particular words.
We're never going to fully communicate what's beautiful and noble
about scientific caution and rigor. Public discourse is inevitably
political, so we need to talk about science in a way that wins the
political battle -- in no uncertain terms.

At least, that's my theory.

Email clive@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis
    ... explained by evolution in small incremental steps, ... Science does not claim to know all the answers. ... species or new species? ... The scientists involved seem quite happy with it. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Grade My Work
    ... entitled "Science And Technology In Science" a final year module ... There are also examples of Darwinian evolution being used to justify ... deserving of special rights due to a uniqueness of our creation ... some concern amongst both scientists and non scientists, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... I would think that most scientists have no intention of being dishonest ... science. ... DNA strands. ... parts of the theory of evolution) that can be presented rather easily. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... I would think that most scientists have no intention of being dishonest ... science. ... DNA strands. ... parts of the theory of evolution) that can be presented rather easily. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Fundies worry about their own kids. Oh, the horror!
    ... If you assert that I am referring to science as a "new god" you are ... It was accepted because the evidence showed that the events ... We have observed evolution through mutation and natural selection ... You should try reading articles from scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)