Mine is envy vs jealousy.
I definitely never unsubscribed from a YouTube channel just for that...
Submitted 4 months ago by dogsoahC@lemm.ee to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://files.catbox.moe/r7lrpv.jpg
Comments
ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 4 months ago
Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Jealousy is just envious because it didn’t make it onto the Seven Deadly Sins.
Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 4 months ago
The word theory has become (or at best is becoming) a clusterfuck of whatever, much like the word literally.
And we don’t even have (normal/easy/exact) replacements for those words.
Those words were already the scientific terms for nerds. But normies normied them into normedom, literally theorised into a fuck.Zwiebel@feddit.org 4 months ago
I like the word “model”, I think it’s a better fit even. We’re modeling reality. Some models turn out to be shit, while others are well tested giving confidence that they mimic reality well.
Ranger@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 months ago
But isn’t model used differently in different disciplines?
hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 months ago
SomeMost models turn out to be shitFtfy
gandalf_der_12te@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 months ago
Yeah I like that.
I use “theory” for theoretical things, like theoretical physics and math, that can be proven (in a mathematical way).
I use the word “model” for practical things, like practical physics. Models don’t need to be proven, but their accuracy can be more or less helpful, depending on the context.
kaffiene@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Yes I agree entirely.
kaffiene@lemmy.world 4 months ago
The word predates science
AFallingAnvil@lemmy.ca 4 months ago
But that’s just a hypothesis…a GAME hypothesis.
I’d sub
Wogi@lemmy.world 4 months ago
That entire universe of channels is more accurately described as “whatever” hypothesis.
I kinda wonder how they’re doing with the new hosts. Not enough to check, but it’s more than 0.
Empricorn@feddit.nl 4 months ago
Damn it, you beat me to it!
bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 4 months ago
Read the other day that there actually isn’t any official distinction. It’s just colloquially used that way in some scientific circles but definitely not all. Probably not by etymologists.
dogsoahC@lemm.ee 4 months ago
Normally, I’m all for language changing over time. If some word is used a certain way, so beit. But not here. Not in a case where people can end up saying dumb shit like “Evolution is just a theory.” I will physically fight people on that, If need be.
lauha@lemmy.one 4 months ago
Theory meaning “unproven assumption” is one of the definitions in Merriam-Webster so it is not a new definition.
You’re just angry word means something you don’t want it to mean. Just like the literally-figuratively crowd.
PyroVK@lemmy.zip 4 months ago
I remember seeing somewhere that the “colloquial” usage is actually the original and that the scientific community is the one that changed it. I do agree that the evolution argument is stupid but it’s hard to blame the non scientific populace for not knowing the distinction. The evolution denier just don’t have a lot else to stand on.
joyjoy@lemm.ee 4 months ago
Evolution is just a theory
And so is gravity, and the concept of colors.
victorz@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Could you explain the difference to me? 🙏
snek_boi@lemmy.ml 4 months ago
I appreciate your passion for scientific literacy - it’s crucial for combating misinformation. However, I’d like to share some perspectives that might broaden our understanding of scientific knowledge and how it develops.
First, it’s worth noting that the distinction between “theory” and “hypothesis” isn’t as clear-cut as we might think. In “The Scientific Attitude,” Stephen McIntyre argues that what truly defines science isn’t a rigid set of rules, but rather an ethos of critical inquiry and evidence-based reasoning. This ties into the “demarcation problem” in philosophy of science - the challenge of clearly defining what is and isn’t science. Despite this ongoing debate, science continues to be a powerful tool for understanding our world.
Your stance seems to align with positivism, which views scientific knowledge as objective and verifiable. However, other epistemological approaches exist. Joseph A. Maxwell’s work on critical realism offers a nuanced view that acknowledges both the existence of an objective reality and the role of human interpretation in understanding it.
Maxwell defines validity in research not just as statistical significance, but as the absence of plausible alternative explanations. This approach encourages us to constantly question and refine our understanding, rather than treating any explanation as final.
Gerard Delanty’s “Philosophies of Social Science” provides a historical perspective on how our conception of science has evolved. Modern views often see science as a reflexive process, acknowledging the role of the researcher and societal context in shaping scientific knowledge.
Larry McEnery’s work further emphasizes this point, describing how knowledge emerges from ongoing conversations within communities of researchers. What we consider “knowledge” at any given time is the result of these dynamic processes, not a static, unchanging truth.
Understanding these perspectives doesn’t diminish the power or importance of science. Instead, it can make us more aware of the complexities involved in scientific inquiry and more resistant to overly simplistic arguments from science deniers.
By embracing some psychological flexibility around terms like “theory” and “hypothesis,” we’re not opening the door to pseudoscience. Rather, we’re acknowledging the nuanced nature of scientific knowledge and the ongoing process of inquiry that characterizes good science.
What do you think about these ideas? I’d be interested to hear your perspective and continue this conversation.
gandalf_der_12te@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 months ago
where people can end up saying dumb shit like “Evolution is just a theory.” I will physically fight people on that, If need be.
Then again, why bother? If people want to say dumb shit, what concern is it of yours? It’s the same when people say “the earth is flat”. It’s not, but I would never fight someone over it. That’s just not worth my time in most cases.
2pt_perversion@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Descriptive linguists unite! Words evolve and that’s okay. Really science should pivot away and start calling more proven theories a different word if they’re upset about the confusion.
The etymology of the word theory comes from meaning more in line with “to look at or speculate” so even in that sense science kind of hijacked a word that was less inline with the modern scientific understanding of the word “theory” and descriptively transformed it themselves for use in their community. And that’s okay too.
tehmics@lemmy.world 4 months ago
I’ve ranted about this so much to people close to me. Scientific community just needs to adopt a new word like you say, theory is a lost battle
Reddfugee42@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Would courses like Music Theory also need to get a new name?
dogsoahC@lemm.ee 4 months ago
I accept it in colloquial discourse. I’m not happy about it, and I will smartass at everyone who isn’t asking, but I accept that I’m probably fighting a losing battle. But in science, it’s absolutely non-negotiable for words to mean what they mean, and not their own opposite.
frezik@midwest.social 4 months ago
Various fields have to adapt their terms all the time. For example, “idiot”, “moron”, and “mental retardation” were all official medical terms. Then they got used as an insult, and got so bad that the medical field had to abandon them.
2pt_perversion@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Tell that to conventional current vs electron flow. Science is ever updating with new information and the words we use to describe it will change over time as well, but I get what you mean. Prescriptive linguistics especially in formal settings like scientific writing is helpful for clear communication.
MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml 4 months ago
Counterpoint:
The language of science is specific because it is beneficial to have standards that allow explicit specificity. Scientific linguistics evolve differently from the way colloquial linguistics evolves due to different motivations and this difference is okay.
The real problem isn’t that scientific language is too strict but that we gatekeep scientific participation in every form, preventing most people from participating in such a way that scientific communication is not confusing. This is in addition to most scientific publications being unnecessarily written in inaccessible language. Specificity is helpful, but the excessive use of jargon and buzz-words to make yourself sound smarter through obtuse language is unhelpful for everyone involved. When jargon cannot be avoided, define it. If you cannot define it, reference a definition.
Clarity and accessibility in all scientific communication is the key to understanding.
Matriks404@lemmy.world 4 months ago
While theory and hypothesis are not the same if you are talking about science, in general everyday use theory is used a synonym.
In (wiktinary:)[en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/theory] 5. A hypothesis or conjecture. [from 18th c.]
Kanda@reddthat.com 4 months ago
But I’m a wannabe scientist, don’t come here with your colloquial language explanations
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 4 months ago
You’re talking to scientists not linguists
kaffiene@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Their comment was about everyday use.
NataliePortland@lemmy.ca 4 months ago
When someone uses “hesitant”
When they mean “reluctant”
Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 4 months ago
I suggest we use new words.
Hypothesis - the great pondering Theory - mystical workings of the orb
MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml 4 months ago
I support this. If you’re going to fluff a paper with a load of bullshit words and clunky phrasing, it should at least be fun.
As an addendum, I would like to abolish the use of the word “herein.”
weariedfae@lemmy.world 4 months ago
This is my biggest pet peeve and I will die on this hill.
Yes, I drive my family nuts.
victorz@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Deez nuts?
Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 4 months ago
Yes, they are the Deez family, and yes they have nuts. Enough doxing.
waigl@lemmy.world 4 months ago
How about when they say “a phenomena”?
victorz@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Or “a criteria”.
HottieAutie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 months ago
a data
victorz@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Mmh… Careful now…
bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 4 months ago
XOXOX@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Nobody in the history of humanity has been asked how pedantic they are.
rustydrd@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
How pedantic are you?
victorz@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Just a joke. It’s just a way to set up the joke. It doesn’t make sense, practically, but it isn’t supposed to be part of the funny bit. Or it is… It could be, in an ironic way.
🤷♂️ Take it with a pinch of salt.
Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 months ago
This is a personal attack.
psycho_driver@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Me when people treat theory as if its concrete fact that they themselves penned and proved.
LANIK2000@lemmy.world 4 months ago
And then say “it’s just a theory” to completely dismiss something they don’t like.
Paradachshund@lemmy.today 4 months ago
Hypothesize deez nuts
saltesc@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Hmm…
I conject deez nuts aren’t nuts.
I hypothesise deez nuts will break apart entirely differently in a nutcracker.
tests in nutcracker
I put forward the theory they deez nuts are a man’s testicles.
chillbo_baggins@hexbear.net 4 months ago
When some says nukeuller
buh@hexbear.net 4 months ago
Me when someone says “addicting” when “addictive” makes more sense
keepcarrot@hexbear.net 4 months ago
To me, addicting feels like it should be a verb, like cigarette advertising is addicting youth, whereas addictive is an adjective
kaffiene@lemmy.world 4 months ago
English is a juggernaut truck, it goes on regardless
Dippy@beehaw.org 4 months ago
Or conjecture
veganpizza69@lemmy.world 4 months ago
So you’ve met creationists.
dogsoahC@lemm.ee 4 months ago
Not in person, no. But I’ve had biology profs say that something was “just a theory”.
veganpizza69@lemmy.world 4 months ago
sigh
ItsMeForRealNow@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Hypothetheory
Boomkop3@reddthat.com 4 days ago
That bothers me too