Facts, Theories, Hypotheses, and Wild-Ass Guesses

Right. It's lesson time, people. Time to set the record straight. How many times have you heard some slack-jawed mouth-breathing Fundamentalist fuckwit dismiss evolution with the mindless statement "it's just a theory" before going on to ramble about crocoducks[1] and young earth creationism? Far too often. These people get a free pass for their activly anti-science (hell, actively anti-intellectual) rants because people generally don't have a good grasp on the difference between the sloppy way the average person uses vocabulary and the rather more formal way that scientists use vocabulary[2]

So lets start off with a few definitions, shall we?

From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, by way of Dictionary.com, we get the following definition of fact:

Main Entry: fact
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum deed, real happening, something done, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere to do, make
1 : something that has actual existence : a matter of objective reality
2 : any of the circumstances of a case that exist or are alleged to exist in reality : a thing whose actual occurrence or existence is to be determined by the evidence presented at trial

Now, from the Random House Dictionary, also by way of Dictionary.com, we get this excellent discussion of the difference between a theory and a hypothesis:

A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

So, is evolution a fact? By the literal definition of "fact", no. But - and you, there in the back, close your mouth and shut the hell up about creationism - there are precious few facts in science outside observations. It is a fact that the Earth orbits the Sun, for example[3].

Theories, while not facts, explain facts. They make predictions. They are abandoned - slowly and painfully at times, but still abandoned - if they fail at explaining existing facts and their predictions are consistently demonstrated to be wrong. A theory is as close to a fact as most scientists are willing to get in their fields.

A hypothesis is what most lay people mean when they say theory. Hypotheses are what you get when someone notices something, and proposes an explanation for that observation. It's conditional. It needs to be demonstrated and tested, and it's a poor hypothesis if it cannot be tested.

Is that not enough? Is there a dismissive creationist (or some other flavor of scientific denier) in your life? Ask them the following:

1. Is matter made up of atoms?
2. Do germs and viruses cause disease?
3. Do the continents move over time?
4. Do you believe that gravity is what holds you to the surface of the planet?
5. Is your body composed of cells?
6. Is evolution real?
   

That is, in order: atomic theory, germ theory of disease, the theory of plate tectonics, the theory of gravity, cell theory, and the theory of evolution. If they say no to all of these, back away slowly. Make no sudden moves. Get to a safe location and phone for help.



[1] What's funny about this is that, with the discovery of anatosuchus in 2003, there is a real crocoduck. So fuck you, Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort.
[2] Well, that and because the news media - which in theory investigates and reports - can't actually tell the difference between their collective asses and a fact with the help of two hands and a detailed diagram. If it isn't being spoon-fed to them as a press release, they don't know what to do with themselves.
[3] If you are a geocentrist, do yourself and me both a favor and just don't bother. From the tenor of this blog entry, you may have worked out that I don't care about your brand of batshit insanity.