| Sidor om ämnet: < [1 2 3 4 5] > | Only a theory Trådens avsändare: Oliver Walter
|
|---|
| I agree with some of your points, Oliver. | Dec 16, 2013 |
We would just have to find out more about the "natural pressure" since no one, as far as I know, has ever had any clear idea about that -- perhaps Bergson might have been closer to the truth than anyone else.
As to the word "theory" -- a theory is a theory, after all: something assumed, however, it has acquired the status of something axiomatic, almost, in such languages as English. It has the same double meaning in such languages as Polish, as I said before, because most likely, i... See more We would just have to find out more about the "natural pressure" since no one, as far as I know, has ever had any clear idea about that -- perhaps Bergson might have been closer to the truth than anyone else.
As to the word "theory" -- a theory is a theory, after all: something assumed, however, it has acquired the status of something axiomatic, almost, in such languages as English. It has the same double meaning in such languages as Polish, as I said before, because most likely, it was translated from such languages as English as a calque, even if it originally came from somewhere else -- some other meaning encoded in a Greek word.
http://www.icr.org/article/3383/
And, yes, perhaps I have stretched it a little bit by calling the treatment of "theory" in the forst meaning of the word as something axiomatic, but many people take such theories as the Evolutionary Theory as some absolute truths, so they should get educted that theories are basically theories that can be refuted, even if they involve slightly more supportive arguments and research than mere hypotheses.
[Edited at 2013-12-16 11:38 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Samuel Murray 
Nederländerna
Local time: 19:51
Medlem (2006)
Engelska till Afrikaans
+ ...
Oliver Walter wrote:
People could, just about conceivably, turn into winged creatures (after all, other animals have done it!), but it would probably take at least another million years of evolution...
I know you probably meant "million years" hyperbolically speaking, but I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the e-coli experiment of 20 years equates to about 1 million years in human terms (which is a gross oversimplification, but the reality is even worse). So, in the time that e-coli could not evolve into anything else but e-coli (with some other traits), I don't think that humans could evolve into anything else than... humans (with some other traits).
Samuel
| | | |
One thing that evolution tells us is that anything is possible, given enough time. I would say that humans evolving wings would be child's play if you compare that to what some single-celled organism did to become us.
| | | | Oliver Walter
Storbritannien
Local time: 18:51
Tyska till Engelska
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Direction of evolution | Dec 16, 2013 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
So, in the time that e-coli could not evolve into anything else but e-coli (with some other traits), I don't think that humans could evolve into anything else than... humans (with some other traits).
But don't forget (you probably knew it already) e-coli, shrews, kale etc. do not decide that they want to evolve into some identifiable other creature or plant;
(a) it takes far too long, and
(b) the direction in which evolution occurs depends on the details of the environmental pressures that lead certain descendants (they can be regarded as slightly better adapted) of previous generations to survive better (produce more offspring) than the others. This is not the result of the creatures "wanting" to evolve in any particular direction. The only way that something like that happens is in artificial selection in which humans do the "wanting" and select certain animals or plants for reproduction in preference to others.
Oliver
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray
Nederländerna
Local time: 19:51
Medlem (2006)
Engelska till Afrikaans
+ ...
| But they do want to evolve | Dec 16, 2013 |
Oliver Walter wrote:
But don't forget ... e-coli, shrews, kale etc. do not decide that they want to evolve into some identifiable other creature or plant.
Yet ironically, this is what children are taught to believe. The giraffe wanted to reach the higher branches, so he evolved a longer neck. Etc.
| | | | Phil Hand
Kina
Local time: 01:51
Kinesiska till Engelska
| Actually taught? | Dec 17, 2013 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
Yet ironically, this is what children are taught to believe. The giraffe wanted to reach the higher branches, so he evolved a longer neck. Etc.
Any teacher - particularly any science teacher - who teaches that should be ashamed of themselves. That kind of a story is often told, and I don't have a problem with telling children untrue stories: I'm deep into the Father Christmas fantasy at the moment. The Just So stories by Kipling are full of this kind of tale, and they are fine as stories. But as facts about the world, this kind of story is untrue, and should never be taught to children as real stuff.
Just on the gravity/evolution thing: I think Samuel and Lilian were both missing a bit chunk of gravity. You said we can experience it directly, but what we experience is actually just a force. We feel pulled down, we know stuff falls down. That's a long way from "gravity", which is a theory (Oliver's sense 1) that the pulling down is related to the mass of the two bodies. Even pre-Newton and pre-Einstein, gravity was an elaborated theory, not just an observation.
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
Indien
Local time: 23:21
Medlem (2006)
Engelska till Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | The creationist theory is a very Christian thing | Dec 17, 2013 |
This discussion has gone so off-the-mark from the original post that it would perhaps be pardonable to squeeze in the viewpoint of other religions on the evolutionary issue. Among the Hindus, evolution is a cyclical phenomenon, and so for them creation is repeated over and over again endlessly.
The original creation begins to deviate from godly principles and gradually evil becomes predominant in the world, at which stage the Creator decides to destroy everything and make a fresh be... See more This discussion has gone so off-the-mark from the original post that it would perhaps be pardonable to squeeze in the viewpoint of other religions on the evolutionary issue. Among the Hindus, evolution is a cyclical phenomenon, and so for them creation is repeated over and over again endlessly.
The original creation begins to deviate from godly principles and gradually evil becomes predominant in the world, at which stage the Creator decides to destroy everything and make a fresh beginning. The result is pralay (which has a close parallel in the Flood of biblical stories where Noah rescues two specimens of each species and begins creation again. It is even possible that the Noah story of the the Bible owes its origin to this much older Hindu myth about creation and pralay).
Scientists, have drawn a parallel between this cyclical nature of creation, and the current scientific theory of the evolution of the universe, which too is cyclical. As I understand it, the universe functions like a pendulum, with at one stage all matter concentrating into a huge ball which then explodes, due to intense gravitational pull triggering off nuclear explosions. This propels the matter in all directions giving rise to the expanding phase of the universe. The large pieces then begin to capture the small pieces near them through gravitation pull and each such capture increases their gravitational strength. Eventually they turn into black holes which gobble up matter and recreate the original ball of matter which again explodes, and the whole thing is repeated, somewhat like the Hindu belief of cyclical creation.
In Hinduism (and also religions like Jainism and Buddhism derived from it), speciation is also used as a prop to morality and ethics, which leads to the karma theory, where every bad action done by a person has to be atoned for in a later life by suffering. This is how the will of god is enforced. So if you lead a really bad life, you will have to get reborn in a lower level of creation as a worm or a dog or a slug and suffer your way through your bad deeds. The human life is supposed to be the highest form, and even among the human form, the the male brahmin ascetic is the highest version of it, with women, soldiers, traders and servants having a lower position in the creationary ladder. The reason is, as an ascetic you lead a pious life with little scope for evil deeds, and the chances for purifying your soul are high. A completely purified soul becomes one with the soul of the creator (brahman) and that is the end of the karmic cycle of births and rebirths, which in Buddism is known by the term nirvana.
Coming back to the linguistic part of the discussion, given this different understanding of evolution among different religions, it is more than likely that non-Christian societies would not associate the same meaning with the word "theory" used in the evolutionary sense and therefore, this discussion cannot be extended beyond Christian societies where the creationist interpretation of evolution is so fundamental to religious belief.
[Edited at 2013-12-17 08:03 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | |
My question is: do other languages use the same word to represent both these senses of the English word "theory" and therefore allow creationists the same opportunity to cause confusion or mislead?
This is true also for greek.
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray
Nederländerna
Local time: 19:51
Medlem (2006)
Engelska till Afrikaans
+ ...
Phil Hand wrote:Just on the gravity/evolution thing: I think Samuel and Lilian were both missing a bit chunk of gravity.
I think its important when you read any comment I make about gravity that you read it as a specific response to whatever it was that I quoted, and not as a general commentary on the overall theme of the thread.
[Edited at 2013-12-17 09:31 GMT]
| | | | Neil Coffey
Storbritannien
Local time: 18:51
Franska till Engelska
+ ...
| Refutable and refutable... | Dec 17, 2013 |
LilianBNekipelo wrote:
As to the word "theory" -- a theory is a theory, after all: something assumed, however, it has acquired the status of something axiomatic, almost, in such languages as English.
But I think you may be seeing things the wrong way round. The "only a theory" meaning is the informal, non-scientific meaning of the word. When scientists use "theory" to mean something as you see it "axiomatic" (though as I said above, I think that's really the wrong interpretation of the intent of the term), they are using it in its normal, scientific sense. If lay people misinterpret the intention of the scientific term, then it is the lay people who are bastardising the scientific term, not the other way round.
Now, when you say "assumed" and "can be refuted", this is true. But to the field of evolutionary biology, the theory of evolution is "assumed" in the sense of "there's such a massive body of evidence in favour of it compared to any competing theory, that we may as well take it to be on the right lines and divert our research money towards working within the framework of that theory". It is refutable... if you come up with an equally *compelling* body of evidence against it and/or for a competing theory.
I'm not sure that's the same as a scientific theory being "axiomatic": all scientific theories are refutable, it's just that theories with a massive body of compelling evidence in their favour require an equally massive body of compelling evidence against them or in favour of the competing theory. Evolution deniers are very good at coming up with large volumes of hot air and spurious lawsuits, but seem less good at coming up with an actual coherent, genuinely competing, theory in a scientific sense. As I say, I'm not sure that's really grounds for saying that evolutionary biologists are being "axiomatic".
| | | | hermes17
USA
Local time: 13:51
Engelska till Franska
+ ...
| Neither Evolutionist Nor Creationist got it. | Dec 17, 2013 |
It is surprising that in this 21st century we still debating the way did long long ago, as if there is no "evolution" in our thinking process. The dichotomies around which people usually fight are not necessarily in contradiction as if only duality exists in Reality. The real brake to our understanding Reality and how it works come from our low level of perception; a state not acknowledged by most of us. Therefore we usually sense the need to "investigate" Reality though that is what research ba... See more It is surprising that in this 21st century we still debating the way did long long ago, as if there is no "evolution" in our thinking process. The dichotomies around which people usually fight are not necessarily in contradiction as if only duality exists in Reality. The real brake to our understanding Reality and how it works come from our low level of perception; a state not acknowledged by most of us. Therefore we usually sense the need to "investigate" Reality though that is what research basically is and for its sake create theories or instruments helping us see clear in a dark matter. However nothing is hidden in the spiritual Realm which is the only reality as it encompasses our own level and many others. We access to more clarity and more understanding by Evolving; not in accordance with the time but by transcending time itself through the best "Organ" we all are endowed with although at a childish level; the spirit. We need grow it in order to evolve and start seeing Reality as it is and end many debates. The Principle of polarity, which reconcile contradictions teaches us that people can be created and evolve at the same time. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Oliver Walter
Storbritannien
Local time: 18:51
Tyska till Engelska
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Back to the language question | Dec 19, 2013 |
The original purpose of this thread is not to discuss whether Darwin's theory of evolution or the "intelligent design" of the creationists is nearer the truth (even though the discussion has been interesting and revealing). It is- to point out that the creationists have treated the word theory in the term Theory of Evolution as though it means not "scientific theory" (i.e. accepted as valid by scientists until it is scientifically disproved or improved) but "tentative ... See more
The original purpose of this thread is not to discuss whether Darwin's theory of evolution or the "intelligent design" of the creationists is nearer the truth (even though the discussion has been interesting and revealing). It is- to point out that the creationists have treated the word theory in the term Theory of Evolution as though it means not "scientific theory" (i.e. accepted as valid by scientists until it is scientifically disproved or improved) but "tentative hypothesis" (and in fact untrue);
- to find out whether these two meanings of a single word are present in other languages and can therefore cause the same distortion of the fact that there exists a (scientific, accepted) theory of evolution.
Answers so far have indicated that a similar analogous distortion of meaning can be made also in:
Italian(Riccardo Schiaffino, page 1, 14 Dec)
Finnish & German (Heinrich Pesch, page 1, 14 Dec)
German (efreitag, page 1, 14 Dec)
Afrikaans (Samuel Murray, page 1, 14 Dec)
Polish (LilianBNekipelo, page 1, 14 Dec)
Br. Portuguese (Perry, page 2, 15 Dec)
Greek (Anna Spanoudaki-Thurm, page 4, 17 Dec)
From a little online research, I see that the meaning of theory as an accepted and testable explanation dates from approximately 1630, e.g. see the following:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=theory&searchmode=term
which states:
theory (n.)
1590s, "conception, mental scheme," from Late Latin theoria (Jerome), from Greek theoria "contemplation, speculation, a looking at, things looked at," from theorein "to consider, speculate, look at," from theoros "spectator," from thea "a view" + horan "to see" (see warrant (n.)). Sense of "principles or methods of a science or art (rather than its practice)" is first recorded 1610s.
That of "an explanation based on observation and reasoning" is from 1630s.
It now also occurs to me that the creationists/intelligent designers have also clouded the issue by misusing the word evolution in the term theory of evolution, so a similar question could apply to that word. With this distorted (in this context) understanding of "evolution" some of them appear to think that the theory of evolution implies that an animal alive today could undergo "evolution" and produce offspring of a different species. This is assuming (ignorantly or deliberately in order to cause confusion) that, for example, if a small local company undergoes "evolution" and becomes a large multinational company in ten years, the word "evolution" is being used with the same meaning as in the "theory of evolution" which, of course is not the case.
I have to conclude that such confusions of meaning are often going to be possible for many words because of the way languages develop. When new ideas, concepts, processes etc. arise, they will sometimes be named using existing words, and confusion and misuse will then be possible until (if it ever happens) a new and different word is used which clearly has the new meaning and the old word then has only the old meaning.
This situation has not been reached (in English, and evidently other languages also) for "theory", "evolution", "belief", "observation" and, no doubt others that don't occur to me right now. Therefore, if somebody wants to use a word and be sure that only the intended specific meaning is understood, it will have to be accompanied by other words to provide this demarcation.
(All this may be obvious to those who have studied linguistics or the history of languages. If it is, can somebody perhaps give a link to an online resource with a more informed statement of this situation?)
Oliver ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Neil Coffey
Storbritannien
Local time: 18:51
Franska till Engelska
+ ...
Oliver Walter wrote:
I have to conclude that such confusions of meaning are often going to be possible for many words because of the way languages develop.
...
This situation has not been reached (in English, and evidently other languages also) for "theory", "evolution", "belief", "observation" and, no doubt others that don't occur to me right now.
This is true: when you have a word that has both a formal, scientific meaning and an everyday meaning, confusion can easily occur. That's why we have things like Science Education so that people are made aware of the meanings of terminology when they are used as terminology (and why it doesn't help when political groups try to muscle their way into the classroom and play on the confusion rather than actually educating people to avoid it).
As I recall, Dawkins suggests the term "theorum" in order to liberate the word "theory" and let it simply take on its current informal meaning. (I think it's not actually a very good suggestion because it's too easy to confuse with "theorem", but the general idea could be: let's just use some other word instead of "theory" in the scientific sense.)
The other related word game in this area is the use of the word "Darwinist", "Darwinism" to subtly suggest that what is actually a mainstream scientific framework is somehow a political belief system like other isms.
[Edited at 2013-12-19 20:45 GMT]
[Edited at 2013-12-19 20:45 GMT]
| | | | Samuel Murray
Nederländerna
Local time: 19:51
Medlem (2006)
Engelska till Afrikaans
+ ...
Oliver Walter wrote:
The original purpose of this thread is ... to point out that the creationists have treated the word theory in the term Theory of Evolution as though it means not "scientific theory" (i.e. accepted as valid by scientists until it is scientifically disproved or improved) but "tentative hypothesis" (and in fact untrue)...
1
It is my impression that your belief about the "correct" use of the word "theory" as well as your opinion about how [most] creationists use the word are both based on the writings of Richard Dawkins. As I had done in my first reply, I now too have to question whether these tenets are true, for if they are not, then your entire argument falls flat.
Richard Dawkins is an anti-creationist, which means that the type of creationist he most often encounters is the type that is anti-evolutionist. Dawkins is also a popularist, which means that his encounters with creationists are likely mostly with the unsophisticated ones... the ones who believe that evolutionists believe that humans evolved from monkeys.
2
I've checked the various terms in a number of Oxford science dictionaries, and I discovered that only two of the ones on my "shelf" actually define the word "theory", whereas almost all of them define the word "hypothesis".
Both the Dictionary of Chemistry and the Dictionary of Physics contain this entry:
laws, theories, and hypotheses:
- law: In science, a law is a descriptive principle of nature that holds in all circumstances covered by the wording of the law. There are no loopholes in the laws of nature and any exceptional event that did not comply with the law would require the existing law to be discarded or would have to be described as a miracle. Eponymous laws are named after their discoverers (e.g. Boyle's law); some laws, however, are known by their subject matter (e.g. the law of conservation of mass), while other laws use both the name of the discoverer and the subject matter to describe them (e.g. Newton's law of gravitation).
- theory: A description of nature that encompasses more than one law but has not achieved the uncontrovertible status of a law is sometimes called a theory. Theories are often both eponymous and descriptive of the subject matter (e.g. Einstein's theory of relativity and Darwin's theory of evolution).
- hypothesis: A hypothesis is a theory or law that retains the suggestion that it may not be universally true. However, some hypotheses about which no doubt still lingers have remained hypotheses (e.g. Avogadro's hypothesis), for no clear reason.
Clearly there is a degree of overlap between the three concepts.
The Dictionary of Biology had an interesting entry for "evolution":
evolution:
The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for at least the past 3000 million years. ... Darwin proposed a feasible mechanism for evolution and backed it up with evidence from the fossil record and studies of comparative anatomy and embryology (see Darwinism; natural selection). The modern version of Darwinism, which incorporates discoveries in genetics made since Darwin's time, probably remains the most acceptable theory of species evolution (see also punctuated equilibrium). More controversial, however, and still to be firmly clarified, are the relationships and evolution of groups above the species level. See also macroevolution; microevolution.
3
In all of my Oxford science dictionaries the word "theory" is used in various ways, and there is no single meaning of the word. It is not as clear-cut as Dawkins is trying to make it out.
The Oxford dictionaries I consulted distinguish clearly between evolution as a phenomenon (i.e. without calling it a fact or a theory) and natural selection as a theory (i.e. calling it a theory specifically, and contrasting it with other theories about evolution that are different from Darwin's).
Yet my experience with anti-evolutionists and anti-creationists alike is that they tend to use the word "evolution" specifically as a synonym for "natural selection" or "[modern] Darwinism", and so one should not be surprised if any discussion or book or lecture or video about evolution ends up being about natural selection specifically.
From a little online research, I see that the meaning of theory as an accepted and testable explanation dates from approximately 1630, e.g. see the following...
The reference you cite does not say "an accepted and testable explanation", however. That is your re-interpretation of what it says. It actually says "explanation based on observation and reasoning". Neither "accepted" nor "testable" is mentioned nor even implied in that resource.
Besides, what the word meant 500 years ago doesn't really matter, does it?
It now also occurs to me that the creationists/intelligent designers have also clouded the issue by misusing the word evolution in the term theory of evolution, so a similar question could apply to that word.
An interesting hypothesis... well worth looking in to... but... how exactly do the creationists use it, that is different from how the non-creationists use it?
I have to conclude that such confusions of meaning are often going to be possible for many words because of the way languages develop.
It may [also] have to do with the fact that popular press use scientific words in non-scientific articles, and then scientific words become part of everyday language, and gradually the way non-scientists understand those concepts change.
Nevertheless, I think we should not be quick to assume that Joe Public is unable to recognise that a single word may have different meanings in different contexts (e.g. biological evolution versus commercial evolution).
| | | | Oliver Walter
Storbritannien
Local time: 18:51
Tyska till Engelska
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | | Sidor om ämnet: < [1 2 3 4 5] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Only a theory | TM-Town |
|---|
Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
| | Pastey |
|---|
Your smart companion app
Pastey is an innovative desktop application that bridges the gap between human expertise and artificial intelligence. With intuitive keyboard shortcuts, Pastey transforms your source text into AI-powered draft translations.
Find out more » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
