Re: What are "principles" in science?

[John Denker <jsd@AV8N.COM>]

Mark Sylvester wrote:
> I don't know what support I should provide for distinguishing
> theories from empirical laws beyond referring doubters to a
> dictionary - I'm not proposing something different from standard
> usage within scientific circles. I am cautioning against the
> widespread further use of "theory" in common English to denote
> something uncertain or tentative as in "...that's all very well in
> theory".

I checked a half-dozen dictionaries, all of which support
the view that the word "theory" has two divergent meanings
 a) a mere conjecture or speculation, or
 b) a collection of results giving an overview and a
    refined understanding of a particular subject.

Both of these meanings are correct and evidently have been
for thousands of years.

Warnings are unlikely to change the "common English" nor
change the "widespread further use" of either form of the
word.  The common folk aren't paying attention to such
warnings.  Invoking Brower's principle of "think globally,
act locally", perhaps a more modest recommendation is in
order:  let the hoi polloi continue to use the word however
they like ... but we experts should entirely avoid using
the word "theory" when dealing with nonscientists, because
of the risk of being misunderstood or misquoted.

As Robert Cohen pointed out, this is particularly important
when talking about evolution, because the creationist camp
has such a bad track record of misquotation, distortion,
and bad-faith argumentation in general.

=========

Constructive suggestions: to replace the word "theory":
 -- for definition (a), the words "conjecture" or "speculation"
    make fine substitutes.
 -- for definition (b), it's hard to find a word that is strong
    enough.  With some loss of strength one can speak of the
    "laws" or "principles" of evolution, or the "observed facts"
    of evolution.