Dear Dr. Ovrut,
I read with great interest a KRT story in my local newspaper concerning your
work to determine how our universe was formed. It's exciting science.
I wish to address with you a single term from the following quote attributed
to you: "...'the theory has to be raked over by our colleagues,' said Penn
physicist Burt Ovrut."
I believe that the word "theory" should be replaced by "hypothesis."
You may consider this a minor bit of semantics, not worthy of clogging your
e-mail. But I bring this to your attention because the misuse of the word
theory has led to far too many problems in the sciences. In the biological
sciences, the word theory is about as close to a "law' as we come.
Evolutionary theory is an example.
The lay public considers a theory an educated guess. And thus the continued
(and in my opinion erroneous) use of theory when hypothesis is really
called for creates problems for all of science. We hear the comment about
Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolution being "only a theory" by those who are
creationists, as though evolutionary theory is simply a guess by a bunch of
people with whom they disagree.
The headline by the editors says " 'Colliding universes' theory may shoulder
aside 'Big Bang'. Would it be appropriate to consider using hypothesis in
the future? Or do physicists consider a theory differently than biologists?
Perhaps this is a personal crusade to wean the lay public from their
misinterpretation of what is a scientific theory. But when scientists use
the term loosely, and it's used in the popular press, it perpetuates the
confusion.
Thanks for your consideration.
Jim Perry
James W. Perry, Ph.D.
CEO/Campus Dean
Professor, Biological Sciences
University of Wisconsin-Fox Valley
1478 Midway Road
Menasha, WI 54852-1297
920.832.2610 (voice)
920.832.2674 (FAX)
www.uwfox.uwc.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://iubio.bio.indiana.edu/bionet/mm/plant-ed/attachments/20010412/80b2a08a/attachment.html
