I would suggest you try emphasizing the responsibility and opportunity of the general public to think rationally, as well. This would involve introducing them to widely-accepted explanations with the scientific community of scientific terms, processes and methodologies. You can, for instance, assist in leading people to sound definitional sources on matters of science. Rather than pounding on scientists as obsessively as you do, I recommend that you show some pro-activeness in steering regular non-science folks to easily-locatable general knowledge sites that explain the various aspects of science.
As an example, this article by Kim Ann Zimmerman, entitled, "What is a Scientific Theory?," on the "LiveScience" website, published 10 July 2012:
"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step--known as a theory--in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.
"When used in non-scientific context, the word 'theory' implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
"Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.
"A theory must include statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton’s theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently.
"A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.
"Theories are foundations for furthering scientific knowledge and for putting the information gathered to practical use. Scientists use theories to develop inventions or find a cure for a disease.
"A few theories do become laws, but theories and laws have separate and distinct roles in the scientific method. A theory is an explanation of an observed phenomenon, while a law is a description of an observed phenomenon."
http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.htmlAnd here's another highly-educational article entitled, "Using Appropriate Terminology," located on the "Understanding of Evolution for Teachers" website--which was created by the University of California Museum of Paleontology with support from the National Science Foundation and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute:
"In casual conversation we might say, 'I think the Niners are gonna’ win the big game,' rather than, 'I’ve got a hypothesis about who is going to win the football game this weekend.' Socially, the second version may seem stilted, but etymologically it is quite correct. While in the classroom, in contrast to our time off-campus, we should use appropriate terms, particularly when words have both popular and scientific definitions that are not necessarily in synch.
"Function Not Purpose
"The purpose of a hammer is to pound nails. One function of a hand is to hold a hammer. Designed tools have purposes. Structures and behaviors of living things have functions. This is an important distinction in the science classroom.
"Evidence Not Proof
"We often hear news stories in which the narrator refers to having 'enough proof.' This is an example of confusing the terms, 'proof' and 'evidence.' In addition, the term, 'proof,' is used in geometry and in courts of law, but does not belong in science. Scientists gather evidence to support or falsify hypotheses. Hypotheses and theories may be well supported by evidence, but never proven.
"Primitive and Advanced
"The average person might see an opossum as more primitive than a cat. Life forms that are more highly specialized tend to be viewed as more advanced. However, even though opossums retain some conspicuous ancestral features, they are well adapted to their omnivorous habit and are every bit as successful and modern as cats. Saber-toothed cats were even more narrowly adapted than present-day cats and a change in their environment put them on the fast track to extinction.
"Theory vs. Hypothesis
"A theory is an explanation. The validity of a theory rests upon its ability to explain phenomena. Theories may be supported, rejected, or modified, based on new evidence. Gravitational theory, for example, attempts to explain the nature of gravity. Cell theory explains the workings of cells. Evolutionary theory explains the history of life on Earth.
"A hypothesis is a testable idea. Scientists do not set out to 'prove' hypotheses, but to test them. Often multiple hypotheses are posed to explain phenomena and the goal of research is to eliminate the incorrect ones. Hypotheses come and go by the thousands, but theories often remain to be tested and modified for decades or centuries. In science, theories are never hunches or guesses and to describe evolution as 'just a theory' is inappropriate.
"Believe or Accept
“'Do you believe in evolution?' is a question often asked of biology teachers by their puzzled students. The answer is, 'No, I accept the fact that the Earth is very old and life has changed over billions of years because that is what the evidence tells us.' Science is not about belief—it is about making inferences based on evidence."
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/footshooting/Iterminology.shtml_____
This is not that hard, Henry. I recommend that you start engaging in realistic and productive ways of shedding light on basic scientific terms and principles--as they are readily and accessibly defined and explained--instead of getting bogged down, as you so often do, in the tedious exercise of straining at gnats and swallowing camels, which are largely of your own creation. (By the way, gnats and camels weren't "created': they organically evolved over long periods of time, through basic observable, testable, authenticatable processes involving mutation and natural selection).
Ya with me? Good.
Next.
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2014 07:36PM by steve benson.