Semantics of scientific theory

Scientific theory too often becomes a matter of debate and opinion in the public arena when there is no debate to be had. The two most obvious examples of this are the evolution-creation debate and arguments about climate science. Much of this debate arises not because of deficiencies in the science, but because of confusion in the terminologies used, particularly differences in the type of language used by scientists and the general public to describe the scientific method.

Colloquially, and to most people, a theory refers to a prediction or an idea. In science, a theory is not just an idea that people float out into the scientific literature, but is actually the best available explanation, well-supported by the evidence, that correctly accounts for all elements of a given phenomenon. Evidence that contradicts a current scientific theory invalidates the theory in its current form, and it must be rejected or revised to incorporate the new evidence.

So why are scientific theories – the best available explanations based on the evidence – demoted to mere opinions in public forums? Much of the basis of the argument against the theory of evolution, for example, is that “it is just a theory, not a fact”. This argument highlights how language and expression can distort the meaning of science and the debate quickly becomes one about semantics. As Massimo Pigliucci elegantly explains, “evolution is both a theory and fact” (emphasis from the original); it is fact because the fossil record demonstrates that present-day life forms are very different from those that lived millions of years ago (1). Detectable changes in life forms also occur over shorter time scales, in organisms with short generation times such as bacteria, for example, allowing us to observe evolution in action. The mechanisms that biologists have proposed to explain these changes over time form the theory of evolution (1). The amount of evidence contradicting creationism means that it does not qualify as a theory in the scientific sense of the word. But creationists have, and will continue to, exploit the confusion about this term to lend weight to “their side of the story”.

This brings me to my next point. The noble aim of (hopefully all) journalists is to report stories objectively and without bias. Unfortunately, because scientific theory is too often misrepresented as only one side of a debate, news reporters present both sides of the story as a matter of fairness. But do both sides deserve the equal treatment they usually receive?

Before scientific discoveries even reach the news desk, they are scrutinized by other scientists. Only if these scientists agree that the methods of the investigation are sufficiently rigorous can the discovery be published in a scientific journal and then covered in the media. If there was any room for debate about the issue, then the study would have been deemed inconclusive and the discovery would not be published. So why give “both sides of the story” – one supported by the science and the other just an opinion – equal and undue attention in news pieces? When scientific conclusions are presented as just one side of the debate, then rigorous science becomes worth no more than opinion, and all because the journalist wanted to seem fair. The general public must then choose which “opinion” they agree with, without the benefit of knowing the true weight of evidence that supports or contradicts each option. This is why there may be no controversy about issues such as climate change and the theory of evolution in the scientific community, but public opinion is often split close to 50-50.

Unfortunately this means that people can no longer publicly acknowledge a scientific conclusion. Instead this becomes their opinion, or more cringeworthy, their belief. Emotive language used to convey what was originally a completely objective and tested conclusion rapidly demotes the “opinion” to “propaganda”, and much of this transformation comes down to the use (or misuse) of the word “believe”. A quick google search reveals that countless people “believe in evolution”, and our current prime minister Julia Gillard has repeatedly emphasized her belief in climate change. The word “believe” carries with it distinct religious connotations of having faith in an idea (namely a god or a creation story) for which there isn’t necessarily any evidence. Religions require faith in order to accept their teachings and creation stories, but people’s belief in a scientific theory misrepresents science as an alternative faith, quite the opposite of science and its philosophy.

The use of the word “believe” in discussions about the theory of evolution and the validity of climate science adds an uncomfortable religious fervour to these debates. I suggest that it is this religious-like fervour from climate change advocates that has resulted in such skepticism of climate science. While reviewing a book from climate change sceptic Bjørn Lomborg, The Skeptical Environmentalist (2), Andrew Greely commented in the Chicago Sun-Times that environmentalists have “helped create a new religion whose devotees are compelled to accept false prophecy as unquestionable truth” (3). While reviewing the same book, Jonathan Adler in the National Review refers to the green orthodoxy of environmentalists. Religious analogies paint scientists and, in this case, environmentalists, as people pushing hidden agendas. This produces a level of distrust in ill-informed members of the public that is sometimes sufficient to sway their opinion away from the “side” that is rational, logical and supported by rigorous science. All this from a lack of understanding of the language used to describe science and the scientific method.

Science and its philosophies are some of the most important tools we have for gaining new knowledge as a society. But our failure to communicate this science to non-scientists effectively allows often influential individuals to remain irrational and ignorant about important issues and persuade others accordingly. Confusing terms need to be explained to the general public in ways they can understand, or be substituted with non-ambiguous ones. The media must also be ethical in their news reports and place the correct emphasis on the side of the story supported by the facts. And please, for God’s sake, don’t believe in science!

(1) Massimo Pigliucci, Nonsense on stilts: How to tell science from bunk (University of Chicago Press, 2010), 163.
(2) Bjørn Lomborg, The skeptical environmentalist (Cambridge University Press, 2001).
(3) Andrew Greeley, “Doomsday phophecies lack merit,” Chicago Sun-times, 9 December 2001.
(4) Jonathan Adler, “Dissendent from Denmark,” National Review, 8 April 2002.