7 misused science words
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 8 years ago
In an on-going effort to enlighten others:

Enjoy!

http://www.scientificamer...rds&page=2

By Tia Ghose and LiveScience

Hypothesis. Theory. Law. These scientific words get bandied about regularly, yet the general public usually gets their meaning wrong.

Now, one scientist is arguing that people should do away with these misunderstood words altogether and replace them with the word "model." But those aren't the only science words that cause trouble, and simply replacing the words with others will just lead to new, widely misunderstood terms, several other scientists said.

"A word like 'theory' is a technical scientific term," said Michael Fayer, a chemist at Stanford University. "The fact that many people understand its scientific meaning incorrectly does not mean we should stop using it. It means we need better scientific education."

From "theory" to "significant," here are seven scientific words that are often misused.

1. Hypothesis

The general public so widely misuses the words hypothesis, theory and law that scientists should stop using these terms, writes physicist Rhett Allain of Southeastern Louisiana University, in a blog post on Wired Science. [Amazing Science: 25 Fun Facts]

"I don't think at this point it's worth saving those words," Allain told LiveScience.

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for something that can actually be tested. But "if you just ask anyone what a hypothesis is, they just immediately say 'educated guess,'" Allain said.

2. Just a theory?

Climate-change deniers and creationists have deployed the word "theory" to cast doubt on climate change and evolution.

"It's as though it weren't true because it's just a theory," Allain said.

That's despite the fact that an overwhelming amount of evidence supports both human-caused climate change and Darwin's theory of evolution.

Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing.

3. Model

However, theory isn't the only science phrase that causes trouble. Even Allain's preferred term to replace hypothesis, theory and law -- "model" -- has its troubles. The word not only refers to toy cars and runway walkers, but also means different things in different scientific fields. A climate model is very different from a mathematical model, for instance.

"Scientists in different fields use these terms differently from each other," John Hawks, an anthropologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, wrote in an email to LiveScience. "I don't think that 'model' improves matters. It has an appearance of solidity in physics right now mainly because of the Standard Model. By contrast, in genetics and evolution, 'models' are used very differently." (The Standard Model is the dominant theory governing particle physics.)

4. Skeptic

When people don't accept human-caused climate change, the media often describes those individuals as "climate skeptics." But that may give them too much credit, Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University, wrote in an email.

"Simply denying mainstream science based on flimsy, invalid and too-often agenda-driven critiques of science is not skepticism at all. It is contrarianism ... or denial," Mann told LiveScience.

Instead, true skeptics are open to scientific evidence and are willing to evenly assess it.

"All scientists should be skeptics. True skepticism is, as [Carl] Sagan described it, the 'self-correcting machinery' of science," Mann said.

5. Nature vs. nurture

The phrase "nature versus nurture" also gives scientists a headache, because it radically simplifies a very complicated process, said Dan Kruger, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Michigan.

"This is something that modern evolutionists cringe at," Kruger told LiveScience.

Genes may influence human beings, but so, too, do epigenetic changes. These modifications alter which genes get turned on, and are both heritable and easily influenced by the environment. The environment that shapes human behavior can be anything from the chemicals a fetus is exposed to in the womb to the block a person grew up on to the type of food they ate as a child, Kruger said. All these factors interact in a messy, unpredictable way.

6. Significant

Another word that sets scientists' teeth on edge is "significant."

"That's a huge weasel word. Does it mean statistically significant, or does it mean important?" said Michael O'Brien, the dean of the College of Arts and Science at the University of Missouri.

In statistics, something is significant if a difference is unlikely to be due to random chance. But that may not translate into a meaningful difference, in, say, headache symptoms or IQ.

7. Natural

"Natural" is another bugaboo for scientists. The term has become synonymous with being virtuous, healthy or good. But not everything artificial is unhealthy, and not everything that's natural is good for you.

"Uranium is natural, and if you inject enough of it, you're going to die," Kruger said.

Natural's sibling "organic" also has a problematic meaning, he said. While organic simply means "carbon-based" to scientists, the term is now used to describe pesticide-free peaches and high-end cotton sheets, as well.

Bad education

But though these words may be routinely misunderstood, the real problem, scientists say, is that people don't get rigorous science education in middle school and high school. As a result, the public doesn't understand how scientific explanations are formed, tested and accepted.

What's more, the human brain may not have evolved to intuitively understand key scientific concepts such as hypotheses or theories, Kruger said.

Most people tend to use mental shortcuts to make sense of the cacophony of information they're presented with every day.

One of those tendencies is to make a "binary distinction between something that is true in an absolute sense and something that's false or a lie," Kruger said. "With science, it's more of a continuum. We're continually building our understanding."
Top
Posted by Garrett Stein (+26) 8 years ago
This is a great little read, I'd like to see more of a little bit of everything in classes these days. Seems like most students just get a watered down teach for the test education and they're missing out on such a broad and available pool of knowledge.

Fun Fact:

Another commonly miss used term or in this case proverb is "Blood is thicker than water.". Which is usually assumed as a statement of family over others. It's actually the opposite stemming from "The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb." In a form of those you shed blood with over those you were born into.
Top
Posted by Elizabeth Emilsson (+797) 8 years ago
Wow! I am feeling very enlightened.
Top
Posted by Brandon Loomis (+96) 8 years ago
I didn't find anything educational about it at all, just agendas being pushed. Couldn't they have just given the definition?
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 8 years ago
The whole purpose of the article was to show how these scientific terms are misused or misunderstood by the layman. How is that pushing an agenda?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1905) 8 years ago
"How is that pushing an agenda?"

It's called thinking, Wendy. The 'baggers and other righties are against that sort of thing.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 8 years ago
The article had the word 'evolved' in it. Everyone knows that's a bigger liberal lie than climate change...
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 8 years ago
"The whole purpose of the article was to show how these scientific terms are misused or misunderstood by the layman. How is that pushing an agenda?"

The scientific terms (and data) are being deliberately misused by the "scientists" to sell the mantra to the "layman", who is dumber than a post to start with. They need the useful idiots to keep their pockets lined. The agenda is money and control. Mr. Lindzen discusses the agenda and how it stays fueled.


http://www.jpands.org/vol...indzen.pdf
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 8 years ago
One of the more important parts of Oddjob's article:

Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D., is professor of atmospheric sciences, emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Contact: [email protected]

REFERENCES
1. Greenberg DS. Science, Money, and Politics: Political Triumph and Ethical
Erosion. University of Chicago Press; 2003.
2. Kolbert E. Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change.
Bloomsbury USA; 2006.
3. Budyko MI, Izrael, YA. Anthropogenic Climate Change. Tucson, Ariz.: Univ.
Ariz. Press; 1991:277-318.
4. Edvardsson S, Karlsson KG, Engholm M. Accurate spin axes and solar system
dynamics: climatic variations for the Earth and Mars. Astronomy Astrophysics
2002;384, 689-701. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020029.
5. Lindzen RS. Climate dynamics and global change. Ann Rev Fluid Mech
1994;26:353-378. Available at: www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/166_Cli_
Dynam.pdf. Accessed Jun 29, 2013.
6. Meyer W. Catastrophe denied: the science of the skeptic's position. Climate
Skeptic, Jan 24, 2010. Available at: www.climate-skeptic.com. Accessed Aug
5, 2013.
7. Lindzen RS. Climate science: is it designed to answer questions?
Euresis Journal 2012;2:161-193. Available at: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/
papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf. Accessed Jun 22, 2013.
8. Lindzen RS, Science and politics: global warming and eugenics. In: Hahn
R, ed. Risks, Costs, and Lives Saved. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press;
1996: 85-103.
9. Medvedev ZA. The Rise and Fall of T.D. Lysenko. Columbia University Press;
1969.
10. Cicerone R, Humphreys J. Professor Cicerone talks about climate change.
Today Programme, BBC Radio 4, Jul 13, 2012. Available at: https://sites.
google.com


Speaking of definitions, the word "emeritus" typically denotes an individual who has hung around campus long enough to get a building named after themselves.

It is also interesting to note that 30% of the references cited were the authors own work. Was that work peer-reviewed? I am always a little skeptical of such practice. Also, citing work from the early nineties, when so much less was known about the subject is suspect in my mind.

The truth is that a lot of academia is a publish or perish proposition. George Vance and K.J. Reddy made a living during the 80-90's at the University of Wyoming researching selenium in mining. That's where the research dollars were at. Someone at Montana State will get a bunch of money to research Wheat stem sawfly's after the horrific damage that occurred this year. That's the way the system works.

The truth is climate change is occurring. I personally think that we should call this phenomenon what it truly is, namely desertification. The authors premise that "Climate Change Alarmism" is primarily about fleecing the public for cash is felonious. Certainly, additional revenue is necessary to continue the research. However, most attempts at explaining science to the public are aimed at technology transfer where the public can be educated to make needed changes to protect our environment.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 8 years ago
Why are some people so threatened by the idea that someone else might know something they don't?
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 8 years ago
Your question of references is valid, Richard, and you should start by looking at your own. The article you linked to opens with this:

"Simply denying mainstream science based on flimsy, invalid and too-often agenda-driven critiques of science is not skepticism at all. It is contrarianism ... or denial," Mann told LiveScience.

A quote from Michael E. Mann, a documented agenda-driven liar and data manipulator. Pretty hard to take seriously, anything that follows after that.


"Climate change" is real. It's happening. It's been happening for nearly 4 billion years. In many cases, catastrophically, with and without human beings. It will continue to change into the indefinite future, with, and most likely, without human beings.

"Anthropogenic climate change" is highly debatable and more than worthy of honest discussion and valid scientific investigation. Unfortunately, there is very little that is "honest" and "valid" going on in a scientific community that has been corrupted by greed and hubris.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1905) 8 years ago
"Climate change" is real. It's happening. It's been happening for nearly 4 billion years."

Don't you mean 8,000 years, oddjob?
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 8 years ago
Geez, Bob.

You really need to stop hanging out with the Wesboro Baptists. It's obviously impaired your ability for rational thought.
Top