*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[OngBonga]

An example when it comes to science is conformal cyclic cosmology, which myself and mojo have been discussing in the physics thread. This is pure theory, which is an important phrase in itself. It demonstrates that the word "theory", even in a scientific context, does not mean "a hypothesis backed up by evidence". If I argue that the universe started two weeks ago, that's a theory, even if it's complete and utter bollocks and can be proven so.

[MadMojoMonkey]

A word means what it's user meant when they used the word.

Many, many words have multiple definitions, sometimes those definitions are antonyms. Words are not a consistent system. Especially not English words.

An example when it comes to science is conformal cyclic cosmology, which myself and mojo have been discussing in the physics thread. This is pure theory, which is an important phrase in itself. It demonstrates that the word "theory", even in a scientific context, does not mean "a hypothesis backed up by evidence". If I argue that the universe started two weeks ago, that's a theory, even if it's complete and utter bollocks and can be proven so.

No. CCC is a hypothesis, not a theory... in scientific terms.

The theory of General Relativity is a theory because after Einstein proposed the hypothesis, it has been widely tested by numerous independent researchers using a wide range of methods, and exactly none of those tests showed that hypothesis to be false.

Scientifically, a theory is as close to fact as we have. In science, theory and Law are basically the same. A theory may be composed of multiple laws, or a theory may be a single law.

Colloquially, it's a very different matter. Colloquially, a theory and a hypothesis or a (subjectively) well-thought-out opinion are the same things. If someone says, "I have this theory about XXX," that's not a scientific opinion, not a well-tested and established proposal... it's a guess. Maybe a good guess, maybe a bad guess. Just a guess, though.

[OngBonga]

I mean, you're seemingly unaware of the contradiction in your post. On the one hand, you're arguing that words can mean whatever the user intends, and on the other, you're telling me what theory means.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I mean, you're seemingly unaware of the contradiction in your post. On the one hand, you're arguing that words can mean whatever the user intends, and on the other, you're telling me what theory means.

I'm telling you there are multiple definitions and those definitions are near antonyms of each other, and the context and usage matters a great deal.

I'm telling you that within the context of scientific theory... the definition is one thing. BUT beyond that context, it means something else.
Just make sure you understand the context of the user's intended meaning before you tell them they said something wrong. If you don't actually know what they meant to tell you, then you don't even know what they said, let alone if it's right or wrong.

EDIT:
Yeah... this

Also, if we have different ideas what a word means, we're not actually talking about the same thing.

[OngBonga]

Just listen to what people are saying and try to hear their intended meaning. Anything less is not communicating in good faith.

The problem is that it causes confusion. This discussion began with "conspiracy theory", and the use of the word theory here implies to poop and cocco "unproven", while you're saying that the word "theory" in a scientific context means the opposite.

Also, if we have different ideas what a word means, we're not actually talking about the same thing.

[OngBonga]

And why do we even talk of "string theory" if it's not a theory?

[MadMojoMonkey]

And why do we even talk of "string theory" if it's not a theory?

Because, as I said, the goal is a search for a theory. We don't have any scientific theories about strings, yet.
We have colloquial theories - scientifically called hypotheses - about strings... but they're not theories because they either cannot be tested or have been tested and shown to be in disagreement with already gathered data.

It's not a matter of whether those people working on string theory are doing one thing or another. It's just a matter of the "jargon" usage within a specific field's context being different from the "standard" usage. It's stupendously common for just about all fields to use jargon, and the fact that you're pretending this is weird or somehow the fault of those fields or even the words themselves is neither here nor there.


Just agree on what word makes the most sense to use in this context that grants the easiest synonymous meaning to all parties.
What's so hard about that?