Re: Explaining explain

[Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca>]

> Mark Sylvester wrote:
>
> > > Bob Sciamanda writes:
> > > I would also drop the word "theory" in favor of the word "model".  The word
> > > theory connotes a candidate for some absolute, objective "truth"; whereas a
> > > model is used to convey useful information without the pretense of being
> > > unique, complete or ultimate - in physics it is a useful way of describing
> > > reality in human terms.  This is the burden of paper of mine in Nov/Dec 1996
> > > Quantum.  It is reproduced @ http://www.edinboro.edu/~sciamanda/prelude.html
> > >
> > > -Bob
>
> > I must say I experience the opposite problem with the word "theory". People
> > tend to use it to mean "opposed to the facts", as in "That's all very well
> > in theory, but..." This is reinforced when they hear that the "Theory of
> > Relativity" proposes all sorts of uncommonsensical ideas about time and
> > space. What else would one expect of a theory?
> >
> > Mark.
>
> Good point, Mark.  However this disparaging use of the word "theory"
> as in "it's ONLY a theory"  emphasizes that a theory is a candidate
> for some absolute and objective truth, but argues that this particular
> one doesn't (as yet, perhaps) cut it.  It implies that there exists, and
> we are searching for, the "true" theory, rather than for more useful models.
> I am concerned with the question of what we claim to be searching for.

It wouldn't be the only glaring discrepancy between the parlance of Joe
Sixpack and the scientists. Consider the meaning of the phrase "in general"
or "generally" in popular vernacular. I means "usually", and implies the
existence of exceptions to the proposition. In science "in general" or
"generally" or "in the general case" means "always" and denies the
possibility of existence of exceptions.

We speak different languages. If we change our language to conform to
theirs we will be working with a less rigorous, less precise instrument.
We will render older literature obsolete because it will become
inaccessible to newly taught scientists. We may then be able to
communicate our ideas to Joe sixpack with less misunderstanding, but we
will understand less of what it is we ought to be communicating!

I think that the better approach is to educate more of the population to
understand our language. When Joe Sixpack becomes an unimportant minority
through uplifting education of the masses I will be a happier person. I
do not want to repeat the Christian missionaries' mistakes here, and I
realize that is a danger. Nonetheless, I am committed to the ideal that an
educated populace is a Good Thing.

Bob has the right idea, I believe.

Leigh