Evolution is just a theory

Did you have a question? If you are asking if this makes sense, then yes.

Hi Dr. Bo, 

No question, I just searched for this specific equivocation fallacy in the search bar on your site and nothing popped up. I also googled searched it as well and nothing really pooped up either. So, since 'its just a theory" is a common response from science deniers, I figured I would put it in here for search engines for people to find. 

Equivocation is in the online reference - I typed equivocation in the search bar and it came up as: "Using an ambiguous term in more than one sense, thus making an argument misleading." In Bo's book, it is defined as "When an unclear phrase with multiple definitions is used within the argument; therefore, does not support the conclusion. Some will say single words count for the ambiguity fallacy, which is really a specific form of a fallacy known as equivocation."

Your example is not a complete argument. It is the antecedent or premise. We have to guess from the tone that the consequent would be "Therefore it is not true". When you make the full argument, I believe that this is an equivocation fallacy, based on the ambiguity of the word "theory" (as you point out), combined with the ambiguity of the word "just".

I was also going to point out that it is there, but you saved me the effort. What confuses me though, is that the original "question" has a link to it

[To Michael Hurst]

No, is what I meant is I could not find the specific, "evolution is just a theory" example of equivocation. Same with "climate change is just a theory" etc. Google or search the site for "evolution is just a theory equivocation fallacy." Not much pops up.

Yes, its not the full argument, but the argument comes up enough for people to know how the argument goes if they are googling it. 

"Evolution (or climate change) isnt a fact, its not true because its just a theory not a fact."  Thats how the argument is usually presented. 

It's such a common misunderstanding of theory that I struggle to believe that people still say it, and yet I see it all the time.

I disagree with your description of an everyday theory as a wild guess. 

They are often quite scientific in thier own way. 

For example: I noticed a had a few small cuts on the first two fingers of my right hand. They were painful (that's how I noticed them) and I was mystified as their origin. I immediately formed two theories: Either I had a problem with my skin and it was cracking open somehow, or some object I used day-to-day had sharp edges and this was causing the cuts. Since they looked like very clean incisions and not really like cracks, I favoured the everyday object theory. Over the next couple of days more cuts appeared. I examined various objects I use around my home to see if any of them had sharp edges. I found nothing, and began to consider visiting the doctor to investigate the skin condition theory further. Then it hit me - The taps above my kitchen sink. I checked and found that they are covered with a metallic coating that was peeling away along the edges and it was indeed very sharp. I felt I had found the cause but it was not until I had used a cloth to cover my hand when turning the tap for few days, and the existing cuts healed, and no new ones appeared, that I was able to confirm that my everyday object theory was correct.

This was quite a scientifc process. I made an observation: the cuts. They posed a question: where were they coming from? I formed a couple of theories: a sharp object I was handling or a skin condition. I made further observations to test one of them, and found a likely source. I conducted an experiment, observed the results, and found that my everyday object theory was the correct one.

Is this what you meant by a theory in the everyday sense, or have I misunderstood you?

[To Daniel]

You confirmed your theory. Before you confirmed it, would you be comfortable in acknowledging that you didn't know for sure, it was just a theory?

That's not at all the same as a scientific theory. To say that evolution is just a theory is nonsensical; that is the highest standard in science. 

Edit: also a wild guess is a guess based on no knowledge or information. You stated that you made an observation and then formed a couple of theories, and then started looking for information. That sounds pretty much like a wild guess to me. I think the problem here is that wild makes it sound almost reckless, which could be a further equivocation. 

Evolution is a theory. It is not a proven fact. There is enough substantial evidence, mostly circumstantial based on observation, that support the theory that it is generally, although not universally, accepted as true. But there really isn't any direct irrefutable proof, and very little experimentation, so it is still a theory. That is why it is called the Theory of Evolution. Gravity is also a theory, even though we all know from personal experience that it is true.

A hypothesis, and subsequently a theory, is something which explains a fact. Evolution can be described as a change in allele frequencies in a population over time, this is a fact. It is unequivocal. Go look at ALFRED and try to show that the data doesn't support this. 

The theory of evolution is what describes this fact. 

"But there really isn't any direct irrefutable proof"

Science doesn't deal with proof, that's a mathematical concept. 

 "and very little experimentation"

That is the loudest I've laughed in a long time. There are millions of scientific papers pertaining to evolutionary theory. There has been more experimentation on this subject than anything else in all of science. The amount of evidence supporting the theory means that for all intents and purposes the theory is as good as a fact as you'll get in science. Scientists typically use careful language and avoid making claims, however you can find scientists who refer to evolution as "fact and theory" or even "fact not theory".

"so it is still a theory"

So in a thread about the equivocation involved in saying "just a theory" and replying directly to me saying that a theory is the highest standard in science, you say this? Still a theory does not make sense at all, there is nowhere to go (unless it's falsified).

No, there is no theory of gravity, there is only a law of gravity. 

[To Bryan]

First, an hypothesis does not "explain a fact". Here is the definition from Webster:

Definition of hypothesis
1a: an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument
b: an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3: the antecedent clause of a conditional statement

"The scientific theory of evolution by natural selection was conceived independently by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in the mid-19th century and was set out in detail in Darwin's book On the Origin of Species..." Yes there is "evolution" in the sense that species change over time and the theory that this is due to natural selection ;and genetic mutation has generally been accepted as true, at least by secularists. There have also been other explanations, most proven to be false. 

Similarly, there is Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation, which basically says objects attract, but it does not say what it is, or why it works. "Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915), which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass."

So in both of these cases we have two words that are based on some indisputable fact (things fall, species change over time), but have theories to explain what they are or why they are. 

Yes, there have been tests of the theory of evolution. I clearly overstated the proposition, but the bulk of testing the theory of evolution has been via observation. But I won't respond to any further comments from you on this subject, I do not care to be the source of mirth for you. I'm not going to get into a back-and-forth with you, I've seen before how pointless that can be. You seem to have it in for me, but I have better things to do. 

[To Michael Hurst]

I'm sorry that you think that I have any interest other than the discussion at hand, or that you think I attacked you previously, especially given that I felt that you attacked me initially and then I went out of my way to be polite and conciliatory, and in no way attacked you. 

You're obviously under no obligation to reply to me, however I am going to respond to your post with citations, and I hope you read it as I'm taking time to explain this for you.

You claim that a theory isn't subsequent to a theory, and I'm truly baffled as to where you're getting this from. There are numerous sources which explain the scientific method. Here is an example:

"Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that doesn't fit into a currently accepted scientific theory.
In other words, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon."

Source

The same page touches on facts:

"Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists' explanations and interpretations of the facts."

And as theory begins as a hypothesis, you can see that my comment regarding hypotheses and theories explaining facts is consistent with this.

My comment is also consistent with the Wikipedia entry for fact in science:

"In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts."

I'm aware that Newton had a law of gravity, I literally said this in the post you're replying to. Yes I'm somewhat familiar with the theory of relativity covering gravity, you can find me discussing this a few days ago with Colin P, but I was responding to your claim that there is a theory of gravity, when there isn't. 

"but the bulk of testing the theory of evolution has been via observation"

I often suggest people look up observation in the context of science:

"Observation is the active acquisition of information from a primary source. In living beings, observation employs the senses. In science, observation can also involve the perception and recording of data via the use of scientific instruments. The term may also refer to any data collected during the scientific activity."

All scientific experiment or study requires observation. I don't know what other method you could use. 

"But I won't respond to any further comments from you on this subject, I do not care to be the source of mirth for you."

You don't have to respond but I don't know why you wouldn't. I hesitate to finish that sentence with "if you're open and honest" as you would probably infer that I'm suggesting you aren't, even though I said "I don't know", just like I previously said " I imagined that you wouldn't want to come across as", not that you did. And I can assure you I didn't think you did, but have seen others who did. 

"I'm not going to get into a back-and-forth with you, I've seen before how pointless that can be."

You shouldn't need to go back and forward with me as everything I said was correct. If you can show me otherwise I can assure you I would acknowledge it, so that wouldn't be pointless, unless you are arguing for the sake of it (not an attack). 

"You seem to have it in for me, but I have better things to do."

As I said, I went out of my way to be polite. I did write something a little stronger as I felt attacked, but I didn't post it. And in this thread I completely disregarded your comments in the other thread and stuck to the point at hand and nothing else whatsoever. 

P.S. I just looked over my previous post again. You think I attacked you because I said I laughed at your comment? Sorry but I did. Don't you think you're being a bit oversensitive? As I said there has been more experimentation related to evolution than anything else in all of science. Don't you understand why that would be funny?

"Evolution is a theory. It is not a proven fact."

See, there is the confusion regarding the term "theory" vs "scientific theory."

A fact is a singular bit of demonstrable information (a fact), but it explains nothing by itself. You need a scientific theory to explain the facts i.e observations. A scientific theory is made up of all the facts and therefore is better than a fact. Because it explains all the observable and testable facts within that filed of study.

"But there really isn't any direct irrefutable proof, and very little experimentation, so it is still a theory. That is why it is called the Theory of Evolution."

A science theory is the highest level of science, there is nothing higher. So when you say, "thats why its still a theory" you are making no sense within the domain of science. 

A theory explains natural observed phenomena. A law describes a natural observed phenomena. 

"I immediately formed two theories:"

In science, those would actually be hypothesis, not theories. First hypothesis are formed, then they are tested to try and falsify them and whatever is left standing i.e 'the correct one" as you put it would be called a theory in science. But, in science it would be tested not by just you but by all the experts in that specific filed of study. 

So, when you use the word theory it is in the every day sense and really means hypothesis. But, in the every day sense it doesn't even need to be falsifiable like a basic hypotheses does. 

Theory in the every day sense is a totally different definition than in the scientific sense. 

I don't think you are in disagreement with Jason. He covers the validity and applicability of scientific theories. Gravity is a theory, but we all know it is true. But there are different kinds of theories. Along with scientifically supported and therefore accepted as true theories, there are completely bogus theories about all kinds of stupid things. Q-anon is a movement based on completely unsubstantiated wild conspiracy theories. 

The word "theory" may be one of the most ambiguous terms in the English language. It was once a universally accepted theory that the Earth was flat. That was replaced, although not universally, with another theory that the Earth was a sphere. This remained a theory until someone circumnavigated the globe going in one direction. Then it was  essentially still a theory, but it was scientifically proven, so became almost universally accepted as true. When we went to space and took pictures, it became an indisputable fact. 

[To Michael Hurst]

"Flat earth was the leading theory" 

That is in the everyday usage. over 2000 years ago they did not have a scientific method yet. You committed equivocation. 

"Conspiracy theory" 

Conspiracy theory is used in the general sense and is based on the conspiracy theory fallacy.

"Gravity is a theory, but we all know it is true. But there are different kinds of theories."

No, a scientific theory is a methodology and its the same for all scientific theories. 

Q-anon is theory in the every day usage, not in the scientific sense. 

"This remained a theory until someone circumnavigated the globe going in one direction. "

Wrong, circumventing the globe was just another way to test the hypothesis, and to be added to the theory.  

"Then it was  essentially still a theory, but it was scientifically proven, "

Wrong, proof is for math, science doesn't prove things, and a scientific theory once passing all the tests is exactly what "you" would call proof. 

I think the problem is that most people do not know what the methodology is for a scientific theory so they just equivocate with the term they know and it causes a lot of confusion as seen here. 

"Flat earth was the leading theory" That is in the everyday usage. over 2000 years ago they did not have a scientific method yet. You committed equivocation."

If you want to define it as "everyday usage" that is fine. I say that someone asked the question "What is the shape of the Earth?" and the answer was "It is a flat plane". That, to me, is a theory, particularly as it was later proven to be wrong by a different theory "It is a sphere". If you want to say I "committed equivocation", be my guest. I say you have committed the Definist Fallacy .

Whatever, I give up. What's frustrating is that we all agree that the theory of evolution is true. Some call it fact. But we are not in disagreement that it is true. We are quibbling, sometimes vitriolically, about small differences in the definition of a few words, words which have gone through centuries of debate already. I find this pointless. 

[To Michael Hurst]

"That, to me, is a theory"

It might be a theory to you (in the everyday sense), but its not a scientific theory. Scientific theories also allow scientists to be able to make accurate predictions. 

A scientific "theory" is just a word to describe a specific scientific methodology. And, "What is the shape of the Earth?" and the answer was "It is a flat plane" is not that methodology and therefore is not a science theory. 

"I say you have committed the Definist Fallacy ." 

Its not a Definist Fallacy because I am not making up my own definition. Just google "define scientific theory" and, "define theory in the everyday sense." And see the difference in definitions for yourself. 

He didn't use the definist fallacy, he explained that there are different definitions and that using them interchangeably is a fallacy.

Generally dictionaries aren't prescriptive but rather descriptive, so it's often important to clarify which definition you are using so that your interlocutor is on the same page as you are, however in the case of certain disciplines such as engineering, law, science, it is important that you use the definition specific to that discipline. 

You may find this frustrating from the viewpoint of agreeing with the overall principle, however I frequently deal with science deniers who quibble about definitions in an attempt to portray science dishonestly (or sometimes ignorantly as they are repeating what they read) to discredit it. 

Again, those are hypothesis, not scientific theories. 

There is no scientific theory involved in his quest to discover what cut his fingers. The theories you are speaking of are really called hypothesis. Hypothesis are to be falsified with tests and observations. The hypothesis that is left standing after this process graduates as a theory. But, in science this happens on a global scale with all the worlds scientists independently verifying the theory by conducting their own tests trying to falsify it. Once the hypothesis passes global testing for falsification then it graduates into a scientific theory i.e evolution, germ theory of disease or theory of gravity to name a few.