Help For The Layman

[mik3cap]

Do you think people would have a better understanding of the situation if evolution is referred to as a "scientific model" rather than a "scientific theory"? "Theory" apparently has too many connotations for the average uninformed person to grasp. Is it not accurate to refer to evolution as a model, the same way that there's a "standard model" of particles and their interactions in physics?

I know it's not possible to convince average uninformed persons of religious conviction of anything. But I'm hoping that maybe we can get the fence-sitting folks less convinced of absolute rightness a bit more over to the side of overwhelming evidence if we change the language slightly. Of course, I suppose it's possible for anti-science folks to just come up with a dismissive "Well, it's just a MODEL, that means it's like a TOY, it's not reeeeal..."

Comments

[arachne8x.livejournal.com]

Plenty of people with religious conviction can be convinced of things. Please don't make statements about everyone of faith based on your frustration with fundamentalists.

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

I think he meant, "convince people to reject any of the products of their magical thinking."

The word model usually implies something that can be calculated within a range -- like a cell-based weather system or a random point-mutation model of genetic ancestry. But if you're not targeting a scientific audience...

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

So a model is generally more quantitative and measureable than a theory?

If there's even a slight bit of flexibility in the definition that can allow it to apply to evolution, I say we go for it. Too many people say "just a theory" and don't understand that's just plain inaccurate when applied to evolution.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

I should not have assumed that people would get that I was making an intersection of the "average uninformed person" and the group "those of religious conviction". I'm happy to correct my wording to "those average uninformed persons of religious conviction" because that's exactly what I meant.

I know there are plenty of religious people who are also informed that evolution has overwhelming evidence in support of its existence, and those people generally think that their religious beliefs can co-exist with the evidence. I'm more concerned with the people who are erring on the side of belief than on the side of fact because they don't have the facts.

[arachne8x.livejournal.com]

I figured as much, but its good to be specific since I know many faithful people who would be really offended by that statement. :)

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

I hope they have more beliefs than convictions!

[arachne8x.livejournal.com]

I understand where you are coming from on your definitions of those two words, but most people of faith I know use them interchangeably. :) I remember once talking to a friend who had grown up in a very fundamentalist family and even went to a college that taught creationist conforming geology. It wasn't until he switched schools that he was even exposed to different ideas. Many many people who may even have "convictions" can learn to accept new ideas. Just don't get so fed up that you forget to address them too.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

"Interchangeability" of words is pretty much the entire root of my frustration here. People are being much less accurate with their language, and other people are taking great advantage of that to further their political and power mongering ends. And people being kept in ignorance makes me particularly sick and sorrowful.

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

If you would like to take this opportunity to enlighten me and other readers on a certain point, that would be great, but if not, please don't feel you have to respond.

By favoring religious convictions, it would seem to me that you're a proponent of what I would call "magical thinking" -- that is to say, you believe and act on concepts that you have no objectively understandable reason to consider true. Is that so? If so, how would you address the criticism that you're part of the problem, because you legitimize the type of thinking employed by people who hold more onerous views?

[arachne8x.livejournal.com]

I don't favor either. I am not a proponent of "magical thinking" I am a physical scientist with a master's in marine geophysics.

My point in this case is not to legitimize the idea of people basing their understanding on science on religious doctrine, my point is that the OP is running a huge risk of alienating people who are clever, thinking, scientists because they believe they have religious convictions.

To put it another way, when people speak about a subject with righteous indignation and claim that "X" group is unreasonable, you run a great risk. The risk you run is that many of the people who you might find sympathetic to your argument aren't listening because you have already offended them.

Let's not split hairs and say that "religious convictions" means someone who believes doctrine over documented evidence, because I assure you, many forensic scientists, paleogeologists, and the like will call themselves people with "religious convictions" and still believe in evolution.

I'm not touting creationism or doctrine driven science! I'm saying be careful what labels you throw out, because many church going, faithful, but also incredibly clever scientists I used to know would have stopped listening long ago since you already assume they can't be "reasoned with."

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

Yes, probably a majority of moderates do not let their views interfere with their judgment in scientific subjects. Yes, it may be imprudent from a pragmatic standpoint to call out moderates on their views. We're in strong agreement on those points. But just because it isn't pragmatic to alienate moderates doesn't mean that the beef with moderates causing profound social harm isn't legitimate. It just means you have to pick your battles. :)

But yeah, we're in agreement on the subject of the wording that started this discussion.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

As an anti-religious person, I'm somewhat okay with alienating people who have any kind of religious beliefs. I think the harm that comes from any tolerance of religion is incalculable, and that society and humanity need to cast aside superstition in order to further the species. If children can grow up and give up Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, people can also learn to give up gods and ghosts. I think the hypocrisy of calling people who believe in the Tooth Fairy crazy and calling people who believe in Jehovah saintly is the most ridiculous thing ever.

If society decides to make me an outcast because I don't want to tolerate doctors who believe prayer will heal me, or pharmacists who won't prescribe birth control, or presidents who invade countries because god said so (and yes, even scientists who think a magic man lives behind the curtain of the natural order, an idea that goes completely against scientific reasoning)... well, fine by me! I reject that society, and will watch with sadness as it sinks yet again into another dark age brought on by religious nutjobs who believe in magic.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

Also, I think there's a major difference in degree between religious belief and religious conviction, hence my use of that word. A person with conviction will almost always be fundamentalist.

[purly.livejournal.com]

Or a paradigm.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

That word's either too overused or too little understood by the masses to be of any worth.

[purly.livejournal.com]

I think you're underestimating "the masses" understanding of basic English. IMHO, disagreeing with evolution does not equate to having a poor vocabulary.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

It's not about vocabulary. It's about understanding scientific jargon - and I don't expect non-scientists to understand all the jargon.

People can disagree all they want, as long as they don't disagree on the basis of "just a theory". Because evolution isn't just a theory... a century of comparative anatomy and several decades of genetic science and the entire foundation of biology make it fact. I'd rather people debate the "cause" of evolution than its factual basis, which isn't really up for debate even a tiny bit.