theory hypothesis

The meaning of the word ‘theory’ has been diluted and misappropriated because of confusion and laziness: confusion on the part of most of us about what the word really means, and laziness of those who know what it means but use it interchangeably with the word ‘idea.’

If you look up ‘theory’ in the dictionary, you’ll likely see a range of meanings, from ‘scientifically acceptable general principle’ to ‘conjecture.’ ‘Theory,’ in the scientific world, does not mean ‘idea,’ ‘hypothesis,’ or ‘assertion.’ Scientifically speaking it means, from here, ‘a working set of rules that define a body of knowledge.’ Ideas, hypotheses, and assertions are merely that – they may warrant further consideration, but hold no inherent truth simply from having been thought. If it hasn’t been tested in the real world through quantifiable observation it’s just a guess; maybe a well-informed guess, but not a theory.

This problem arose due to science’s use of the word, which has changed greatly. While scientists used to feel safe declaring a fact believed to have universal truth a law, we’ve learned since then that there likely aren’t any such things. Hence, theories have shifted from the realm of ‘tested but still incomplete hypothesis’ to ‘tested and as close to universal as we are likely to get.’ But our language outside the laboratory has yet to catch up, creating a discrepancy between what different people mean when they use the exact same word.

Why is this important? Because people tend to be intellectually lazy (this is just a thought, not a theory, and a gross generalization at that, but a little testing would likely bear me out). This would be only mundane if we lived in a rational society that valued reason in public discourse and education, and kept our beliefs behind our front doors. Unfortunately, our society is so charged with public faith, partisan politics, and suspicion of intellectuals that laziness of thought is corrosive as it actively aids those that would undermine reason and promote pernicious agendas which require a lack of critical thinking to support. Additionally, science and technology are pervasive (and mostly beneficial) in our society, and un-scientific references using the same word can have a major impact on beliefs and policies that in turn affect our lives. If one believes that ‘theory’ means ‘idea’ than what’s to stand in the way of the acceptance of what a creationist has labeled as their theory? And, if they’re both theories, wouldn't creationism at least merit as much attention as evolution? This isn’t semantic quibbling – it’s a pivot point for the type of society we wish to foster. So, to get to the point of this little rant: in conversation, don’t use the word ‘theory’ when you mean anything less precise.