Reply #348: Maybe the problem is that I don't think scientifically in terms of "facts" [View All]

[bbqshoes]

Rather, I've been trained to think of everything in varying degrees of likelihoods and probabilities, and to rigorously question ALL assumptions or "facts". And my first post said "theory" in the sense of "best available model". In my mind, that's what science is, a constant updating of models, or maps, which do a consecutively better job of describing the territory of reality. Religious people are notorious for confusing the map with the territory, or the menu with the meal, so much so that they are totally wedded to their maps even when they are 2,000 years outdated and bear absolutely no resemblance to the observable evidence. However, I really have no way to "prove", say, that I am not a head floating a jar somewhere, hallucinating this entire experience, including DU, this thread, and the recent crap-fest of an "election"... (No such luck, I fear) Therefore, in my mind, to say something is a "theory" backed up with all the available evidence, particularly in a science context, does not weaken it, but rather means that it is the most intelligent explanation available. Again, I do realize how this translates into the minds of the public, much as the way the right uses "theories of global warming" to discredit something that is obviously f*cking happening. So, if you want to say Evolution(1) is not a Theory(1) --to get all Korzybyski on ya- that, to me, makes sense. But not everyone who uses "theory" in the context the thread author is being critical of is automatically a creationist.