Comments on: Danger in London’s Science Museum

By: Arun

Arun — Sat, 27 May 2006 14:37:05 +0000

There may have been a different attitude towards Newton’s Laws in the past that we do not remember after Einstein dethroned them. Now that we have a history of several scientific revolutions that overthrew previously established “laws”, the provisional nature of scientific knowledge is never far away from us. Perhaps not so in the past.

By: Stevem

Stevem — Fri, 26 May 2006 18:59:53 +0000

Ted, fair enough lol. Not in a good mood yesterday after a difficult day.

By: Trisha

Trisha — Fri, 26 May 2006 18:08:51 +0000

I agree that the word ‘law’ shouldn’t be substituted for the word ‘theory’ that would just cause more problems in the future.

The word theory does cause confusion with the general public though.

Ronan has a good point maybe we do need a new word that wouldn’t be ’spelled and pronounced the same way as a common English word that means wild-assed-guess’.

Either that or much better education of the methods and terminology of science.

By: Ted

Ted — Fri, 26 May 2006 18:07:27 +0000

“Dear Ted, so I am in a ranting BS sort of mood today. Big fâ€”â€”g deal. Around the physics blogsphere and blogs in general, the “BS police” would have an impossible task. Let’s hear your contribution. The first paragraph you put in quotes is exactly how the layperson public see Einstein. There is a subtle difference between saying the “laws of thermodynamics” as in the “laws of nature” and “Einstein’s Special Laws”, as in the sense of “the law as laid down by Einstein”. He of all people would have made the clear distinction. So I agree with what Clifford writes in that it makes science sound like a dogmatic enterprise and it is more worrisome than it seems.”

Please. Lighten up, Stevem. Someone call the Overreaction Police.

By: Clifford

Clifford — Fri, 26 May 2006 15:44:31 +0000

ronan:- In an ideal world, I would agree. But the real point is that language is full of ambiguities, not just in the scientific context. I trust the intelligence of the general public, actually. I don’t assume that they are stupid. They are people, just like me. They sort through ambiguities in other situations, and they are capable of doing it in this case. What they need is better information about what we do, not a PR campaign launching nice soft easy words for them because we think that they’ll be confused by “our” words. Until we’ve actually done a decent job of trying that -and we have not- I’ll not be convinced that we need to introduce a whole new dictionary.

Best,

-cvj

By: ronan

ronan — Fri, 26 May 2006 15:35:22 +0000

Unfortunately, ‘our’ words mean different things to different people. That means that our words are ill-defined. Perhaps not ill-defined to a specialist, but you aren’t talking about educating specialists.

Look at the “Free Software” movement. Stupid name, causes all kinds of confusion, and requires irritating speeches from an irritating geek in sandals to become clear. Because the word ‘free’ has two very different meanings (libero vs gratis), we are constantly tripped-up. Get this: I can require you to pay me to get a copy of my “Free Software”. This software is “Free Software” as in “freedom”, but you aren’t free to make changes and sell it in a proprietary package like you could with public domain software. The term Open Source had to be invented just to jettison much of the confusion.

No amount of public education is going to eliminate the casual use of the word ‘theory’. So you expect two soccer moms to say, “no, I meant theory in the scientific sense”? You can keep your jargon pure, or you can accomplish your objective of educating the public about science. Right now your jargon is impeding science education (and public policy), not because it uses unusual jargon terms, but because it uses English words instead of jargon terms.

Try coming up with a new term that means something like ‘really well tested law-candidate’. I do not recommend: gesss, junche, y-knot, or swag.

By: Clifford

Clifford — Fri, 26 May 2006 15:13:03 +0000

ronan:- That’s not a good approach, in my opinion. …and will be starting from scratch. We have existing words that we can use:- we just need to do a better job of educating people in basic science. That’s at the root of the problem. We don’t do it very well, as a society, so people are easily confused by the distinctions.

-cvj

By: ronan

ronan — Fri, 26 May 2006 15:04:01 +0000

Maybe we need a term that will demonstrate that Relativity (S&G) and Evolution are better tested, more accepted, and more likely to be “true” than a theory that came out last week and will be tested over the next 40 years. This new term could also (hopefully) not be spelled and pronounced the same way as a common English word that means wild-assed-guess. It might then be harder for politicians and preachers to deliberately confuse people as to the ’strength’ of a scientific whatsamajigit.

What’s with all the carrots? What do they need such good eyesight for anyway?

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 26 May 2006 14:44:48 +0000

For once I tend to agree with Lubos…

By: Ambitwistor

Ambitwistor — Fri, 26 May 2006 13:29:53 +0000

Aaron: or maybe midgets.