A few things on which I'd like to (re)focus: "Semantics", like "theory" and "evolution", is a word that can be subjectively loaded and consequently misunderstood or maligned (the word "quibbling" comes to mind). However, words and their definitions are at the heart of this discussion, and the dialogue that is had with Americans in these polls.
So, I heartily agree with what Jim Crants said about belief, faith, and logic. Scientists "believe" that logic and empiricism is a valid way of discovering truth. This might be the only valid point that creationists have, when they assert that scientists are biased because they subscribe to "philosophical materialism." This must be true, because this is, for most people, the essence of science! Still, most (all?) people are "philisophical materialists" when it suits them, or unconsciously--either in the use of technologies derived from scientific theory or just in the everyday navigation through the world using basic cycles of observation and inference. I must reassert that this unconscious hypocrisy (a strong word, but apt) springs from a lack of understanding of how those basic scientific processes--observation and inference--can grow into a reliable body of knowledge, i.e., a collection of usable, adaptable, interconnected "theories." Not just a misunderstanding of how a theory is used, but how it grows, changes, or is legitimately replaced. I am biased towards science as a way of knowing, only in the sense that I can see that is has worked in the past and continues to work, even in the confines of my own life (like in my methodical attempts to answer earlier today, "where is that smell coming from?"). However, science literate people need to first agree on the importance and definitions of words like "theories" and "laws" (two different things, by the way), and then not blur those lines in their discussions of science, and resist the attempts of others to dumb down or redefine these words--like creationists/IDers, pollsters, and certain presidents. So to sum up, asking whether someone "thinks" or "believes" something, like a theory, is taking away the breadth, and with it the power, of the theory. A theory is only as good as it works, but the "how" part of theories is not asked in these polls. If we ask questions like "do you think there is scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution (by natural selection)?," we are likely to get some unfortunate responses, but at least they'll be more expository, and less misleading, than asking about beliefs. I suppose, getting back to Jim's point, we could also just pair the "belief" poll question with one that asks whether you also believe logic and observations can inform you in your life and in science as a body of knowledge. Thanks! That's enough out of me. Jimmy Green On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 6:49 PM, William Silvert <cien...@silvert.org>wrote: > Which theory of gravity? Newton's or Einstein's? Or the as yet undiscovered > unified theory? > > Bill Silvert > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Schultz" < > matthias6...@yahoo.com> > To: "William Silvert" <cien...@silvert.org>; <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> > Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 9:36 PM > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Isaac Asimov quote/was Gallup poll on evolution > > > what if the gallup poll question had been "do you believe in the theory of >> gravity"? >> what you think the responses would have been? >> >> Matt >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> From: William Silvert <cien...@silvert.org> >> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU >> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 4:58:35 AM >> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Isaac Asimov quote/was Gallup poll on evolution >> >> I share the feeeling of Wendee and other respondents that "believe" is not >> an appropriate word. The problem is that we haven't really come up wth >> alternatives that reflect the inherent skepticism of science but that are >> also meaningful to the general public. Evolution is a credible theory, >> well-supported by evidence, etc., but none of these phrases have much bite. >> After all, there is still a lot of common reference to "scientific proof", >> and any attempts to revise our language to conform to the way that >> scientists think (or should think) will simply weaken our case and be jumped >> on by those who argue that the only thngs we really know are that g*d >> exists, that everything in the bible/koran/etc. is absolutely true, and that >> theirs is the only true faith. Knowledge is power, ain't it? >> >> Bill Silvert >> >
