Nobody really cares if the glass is half empty or if it is half full, as long as there is enough water in the glass to quench one’s thirst.
The reason the question is so easily dismissed is because it is a philosophical question with little practical importance. The answer to the question — if there is one — has no effect on our daily lives. The same is true for the philosophical problem of inductive reasoning, yet the strictly philosophical problem may have led to a very real social and political problem stemming from a misunderstanding of the word theory.
Theory is used colloquially to mean a guess or a hunch, but when the word is used in a scientific context, it takes a whole different meaning. A scientific theory is subject to a strict set of criteria, which are remarkably similar to those for a scientific law. However, nobody seems to question scientific law, yet the primary difference between a theory and a law is that laws describe, while theories explain.
Both theories and laws rely upon inductive reasoning, which cannot lead to complete certainty about anything. Keep in mind, that philosophers will try to get you to question existence itself if you let them, so this shortcoming of inductive reasoning is not much to fret about. In reality, scientific theories and laws are as close to certainty as we can get.
Need proof? Pull out your smartphone or GPS and see if it still works. If it does, the validity of numerous scientific theories and laws are still holding strong. If it doesn’t, try turning the device off and on again and see if that fixes the problem.
Scientific theories with hot public interest such as climate change and evolution are measured against the same rigorous criteria as the theory of relativity, which enables GPS technology.
It is important to understand these theories not just from a scientific perspective, but because they have an effect on our society. Our politicians must understand the theories of evolution and climate change to justly legislation on related issues.
Citizens must be knowledgeable of these theories to be responsible citizens of the world. Not to mention our children, who need to be educated on these theories so the next generation can remain at the forefront of scientific progress and grow into intelligent, responsible citizens.
Be wary if ever someone tries to use the semantics of the word theory as a case against evolution or climate change. If they offer an alternate argument, that’s fine, but if there existed any significant scientific evidence to disprove them, they would no longer be called theories.
Why is the public is so resistant to join the unanimity in science in the acceptance of evolution and climate change? Perhaps, it is a simple misunderstanding of the word theory. Perhaps, it is a general public mistrust for the field of science. Perhaps, doing so would raise too many questions about peoples’ beliefs and the way they live their lives. But those are just theories.
Phillip Vukelich can be reached at [email protected]