Comment by chx | Hacker News Reader

Comment by chx | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The report was not clear so I read the actual bill. https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/SB0235.pdf

This is the crux of the matter:

> a scientific fact is observable and repeatable, and if it does not meet these criteria, it is a theory that is defined as speculation and is for higher education to explore, debate, and test to ultimately reach a scientific conclusion of fact or fiction.

And once he defined this

> . Requirements for science instruction in schools. (1) Science instruction may not include subject matter that is not scientific fact.

First, he gets words wrong, in science theory means "a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses" -- source: https://www.fieldmuseum.org/blog/what-do-we-mean-theory-scie...

As for "scientific fact", there's simply no such thing. Source: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/im-a-sc...

Complete hogwash.

He's redefining "theory" as "fact," and also "hypothesis" as "theory" essentially, yeah?

If you use dual meanings for words. Smart people use theory to mean "fact" but politicians use it to mean "hypothesis" then they can discredit things through playing semantic games.

Even if we were that charitable why not discuss scientific hypotheses in a school? "This is what we know, this is what we suspect, this is what we do not know." -- best way to teach about the world and also to keep an open mind. I love that way so much more than teaching a subject as if we had answers about everything. Sure you need to be clear about it but that is no reason for a state legislature to get involved.

Except even scientists will often use "hypothesis" and "theory" interchangeably. For example Stephen Jay Gould's theory on punctuated equilibrium, kin selection (theory) vs group selection (theory), all the various names given to Williams/Dawkins/Ridley's theories on evolution, all the various theories relating ontogeny to phylogeny, and on and on. All these things are probably more properly referred to as hypotheses within the broader theory of evolution, where here the meaning of theory switches to be more in line with the "true" definition of theory.

But maybe this is just an idiosyncrasy of evolutionary biologists, I'm not familiar enough with other fields. But then again there are all of those mathematical "theories" like group theory, number theory, set theory, game theory, and on and on. Not sure how to categorize these.

Point is we (scientists/scientific communicators) often make this hardline distinction between the meaning of "theory" and "hypothesis" but regularly break our own rule.

I actually recalled some that aren't just evolutionary biology: string theory (physics) and rational choice theory (economics) neither of which really deserve to be called theories if we are sticking to the strict definition, but yet scientists do.

See my answer above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34702479

> But then again there are all of those mathematical "theories" like group theory, number theory, set theory, game theory, and on and on. Not sure how to categorize these.

"Theory" has a different meaning in mathematics than in science.

Reconcile "brings together many facts" and "no such thing as scientific fact".

If I release an object it drops to the floor. This is fact.

But this is not a scientific fact.

I read your cite. I don't think it showed there's much of a difference beyond "I said so".

Fact: The plate hit the floor and broke. Theory: The plate will always hit the floor and break. Conditions: On Earth.

Scientific facts do not exist, unless of course we become Gods.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com