Help needed for New Science Term

[George]

Due to the obvious misuse of the term “theory” by woo-woos, as well as, some distinguished scientists, it appears time that a new term should be created that would allow scientist an appropriate label for their incipient theories – ideas that appear to have some hope of someday meeting the requirements of a scientific theory, but can not properly be called a scientific theory.

If no appropriate term exists, it seems it would be that much more tempting to use the “theory” label improperly. Just one example is the “Multiverse Theory”. It, apparently, makes no predictions, nor is open to falsification. Yet, it is called a theory, even by some who are prominent scientists.

Please give serious thought to the idea of a new term. Some initial considerations should be discussed before an actual name is sought:

• Is there, indeed, no term that describes new want-to-be theories?
• If such a term already exists, why is it not being used?
• Is it time for such a new term to emerge?
• What requirements need to be included in our new label so that the ridiculous ideas are disallowed, and the more incipient theory-ideas are?
• What else needs consideration before we engage in finding just the right word to describe our new term so that, hopefully, every lexicographer will quickly embrace it, and most scientists will want to use it?

[01101001]

How did hypothesis become rejected? Or does it not apply?

Wordnet:

hypothesis, possibility, theory (a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena) "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

[George]

Google answers that one...

No. of sites with "Parallel Universe Theory".... 238,000.
No. of sites with "Parallel Universe Hypothesis"..... 78.

[01101001]

Google answers that one...

No. of sites with "Parallel Universe Theory".... 238,000.
No. of sites with "Parallel Universe Hypothesis"..... 78.

So, you're expecting the word you seek to already have greater or equal Google-hit standing with theory?

[DyerWolf]

You could use:

• SWAG
• Hypothiguess
• Scienbabble
• Guestulate
• Tenet

The problem is, once you choose a new word by which all scientists will use to lable their speculation as to what's going on, the woo-woos will adopt your new word to give their own pet daydream-of-what-is the same cachet enjoyed by scientists.

[George]

So, you're expecting the word you seek to already have greater or equal Google-hit standing with theory?

Unfortunately, it seems unlikely such a word exists. Your suggestion of "hypothesis" is the best one I know, but it's unfavorable for some reason. The wishful goal would be that intellegent conjecture, such as the idea of Parallel Universes, would one day have the appropriate label, in lieu of usurping the use of "theory". Google results would reflect the sucess or failure of this new label that I suspect is sorely needed.

• SWAG
• Hypothiguess
• Scienbabble
• Guestulate
• Tenet

The first four are too derogatory. Tenet comes somewhat close, actualy, but its definition doesn't quite match what is needed for our semi-theoritical label.

There seems to be a large arsenal of words that can be fired upon an idea improperly labeled, yet few words the defender has to use to prevent such an attack.

The problem is, once you choose a new word by which all scientists will use to lable their speculation as to what's going on, the woo-woos will adopt your new word to give their own pet daydream-of-what-is the same cachet enjoyed by scientists.

I hope you're right. That would still be better than today's worse abuse of the term "theory". It would be more honest on their part, too.

[Delvo]

I like the word "idea". It's thoroughly unspecialized and common, which means not only that everybody knows it but also that it can't really be hijacked like less-often-used words can. And it includes all of the other suggestions without asserting a judgement of the idea's worth.

[George]

I like the word "idea". It's thoroughly unspecialized and common, which means not only that everybody knows it but also that it can't really be hijacked like less-often-used words can. And it includes all of the other suggestions without asserting a judgement of the idea's worth.

Yes, that is a good idea. But it is too generic; it doesn't distinguish a nutty idea from an idea that has a fightin' chance of making it to the top -- a theory.

[Added: What we need is something between an idea and a theory. Something that can't quite run yet, but only because it's still in diapers, or at least would appear that way to most scientists.]

[Cougar]

Just one example is the “Multiverse Theory”. It, apparently, makes no predictions, nor is open to falsification. Yet, it is called a theory, even by some who are prominent scientists.

Some prominent scientists may give you an argument there. Also, I note that this guy calls it the multiverse proposal.

At any rate, I think the term you're looking for already exists, and it is used.

Speculation.

[Jens]

How about "prototheory"?

[George]

Some prominent scientists may give you an argument there.

Objective arguments? Where is the observational evidence? What is testable? What happened to the scientific method, if it is a theory?

Also, I note that this guy calls it the multiverse proposal.

At any rate, I think the term you're looking for already exists, and it is used.

Speculation.

Those are valid suggestions, but not attractive enough. Any existing word would already be in use. Therefore, it must be a new label. The term must reflect as much respect as possible for the new idea, proposal, speculation, or hypothesis, and be clearly defined so that all know that it doesn't meet the requirements of a true scientific theory.

I would think it needs to be complete sounding. Hypothesis, premises, etc. are too elemental sounding; parts only that do not suggest a whole, as is found in a theory.

[jlhredshift]

George used the term that I think applies to multiple universes: conjecture.

As in "Prime Number Conjecture".

[George]

How about "prototheory"?

Yes, but it too may not have the sizzle a scientist is willing to give his or her baby. It may be a good synonym for our new term, however. It is very close to "incipient theory", which comes from the evolutionary use of "incipient species", a variety that seems to be very close to becoming a recoginized new species.

However, Ken G has argued, in another thread, that such a view may be too suggestive that it will likely become a true theory. I think he is correct, but whatever term is found must be something that the prototheorists must be willing to use.

It might have to be a word where it becomes somewhat embarassing for the wantabe theorist not to use, since a nice term just for them has been established for the very purpose of keeping them from usurping the "theory" label.

[George]

George used the term that I think applies to multiple universes: conjecture.

That is really what it is, but....

# of Google hits for "Parallel Universe Conjecture" = 4

A conjecture can be defined as a guess. That may be all that the thing is, but would a brilliant scientist choose such a term for their baby? Some probably do, but, apparently, not that many.

[Jens]

Well actually, I could be a bit cynical about this. Though realistic is probably a better term. I'm not sure that there is any need for a new term, nor much to be gained from it. The unfortunate or fortunate reality is that people will always "abuse" terms that are used to describe human thought or emotions. A word like "elephant" is fairly fixed because it is clear what it refers to. We all immediately recognize one, and so the word doesn't change. But words like "thought" and "theory" and "fair" for example are very dependent on our own ideas. In other words, it is not always clear that your understanding of say "theory" or "right" or "responsibility" is exactly the same as mine, so the meanings tend to drift to some extent. So I'm afraid that even if you craft a new word, say bugalim, to refer exactly to what you want to say, other people will interpret it differently and the same problem will crop up. I think we actually have enough words now to describe things like hypotheses, theories, ideas, etc.

[01101001]

# of Google hits for "Parallel Universe Conjecture" = 4

You're sticking with that test, I take it.

Obviously, the procedure you then need is to perform Google searches on words in a dictionary (readily avaible on the web as text files, Wikipedia):

Parallel Universe A
Parallel Universe a
Parallel Universe aa
Parallel Universe aal
Parallel Universe aalii
Parallel Universe aam
Parallel Universe Aani
Parallel Universe aardvark
Parallel Universe aardwolf
Parallel Universe Aaron
Parallel Universe Aaronic
Parallel Universe Aaronical
Parallel Universe Aaronite
Parallel Universe Aaronitic

Until you find a phrase that generates more hits than that theory word.

Like me to code that up for you?

[George]

I'm not sure that there is any need for a new term, nor much to be gained from it.

This is where I was hoping to go from the start. We need to qualify the need first.

But words like "thought" and "theory" and "fair" for example are very dependent on our own ideas. In other words, it is not always clear that your understanding of say "theory" or "right" or "responsibility" is exactly the same as mine, so the meanings tend to drift to some extent.

But this is not true of a scientific theory. How many science books go to the trouble of explaining and defining what a theory really is. It does take some effort since it is an intagible, unlike an elephant. Yet, the purpose of its definition is the embodiment of science, perhaps. What good is science if it no longer restricts its work to objectivity, but allows subjective claims that can not be observed to be considered as true? How does this differ from the basis for religon, which says "trust me"?

So I'm afraid that even if you craft a new word, say bugalim, to refer exactly to what you want to say, other people will interpret it differently and the same problem will crop up.

No doubt that's true since that is what is happening with the word "theory".

Yet, would an alternative word more apt to their hypothesis and more acceptable, somehow, not make a difference? Is an attempt to regain publicly the integrity of the word "theory" be worth the try?

The very effort to find and apply a new word should be quite an awarness program of the problem. If a new term were implemented, then a potential abuser of the "theory" term might think twice, as, for the first time -- since they don't like hypothesis or conjecture -- they have a word specifically crafted just for them.

[George]

You're sticking with that test, I take it.

Obviously, the procedure you then need is to perform Google searches on words in a dictionary (readily avaible on the web as text files, Wikipedia):

The Google effort is only to demonstrate the abuse of the term "theory". Hypothesis, conjecture, prototheory, are the correct ones, but it should be clear that they are not being used. Why is that?

[I assume the Google test is reasonably accurate with the scientific community, as well as, the general public, since scientific journals are included.]

[Ken G]

Some prominent scientists may give you an argument there. Also, I note that this guy calls it the multiverse proposal.

Proposal or speculation are both pretty good, it seems to me. The problem is, many scientists, who ought to know better, seem to be suggesting it is not only a theory but a good one. Take this review, for example, for the book in the above link:

'this book really does like at the frontier of cosmology, philosophy and possibly even theology. It is essential reading for anyone who wants to consider these ideas in depth … it does go to show just how far cosmology has come on the road from pure speculation to exact science.' Network Review

How the irony of moving from "theology" to "exact science" escapes both the reviewer and those who would quote the review, well, escapes me.

[Ken G]

The Google effort is only to demonstrate the abuse of the term "theory". Hypothesis, conjecture, prototheory, are the correct ones, but it should be clear that they are not being used.

I think the Google test makes the case pretty well. 01100101 does not seem to recognize that you are looking to improve the state of the terminology around the multiverse concept, not simply find out what it currently is. The very fact that the word "theory" is most often seen, and books are now lauding the "exact science" of imagining untestable domains populated by arbitrary distributions in parameter space, demonstates pretty clearly how far from the precise descriptions of objective science the terminology has strayed.

Along those lines, I would even point out that "hypothesis" does not foot the bill either, because the role of a hypothesis in science is to suggest or focus an experimental test. With the multiverse landscape, we instead have an idea that is supposed to "seem correct" on its own, that is supposed to provide soothing answers to questions that we cannot think of tests for, and we are not guided into any tests using the concept. That certainly does not sound like a "hypothesis" to me.

[geonuc]

I have to go with hypothesis as well. We don't need a new word. Note that the OP asked for a word to describe 'incipient theories' in general. The concept of a multiverse was given merely as an example - perhaps not a good one.

[Jeff Root]

I like "speculation" best, followed by "conjecture". But how about "thesis"?
Nobody has previously suggested it. Is anything wrong with it?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[trinitree88]

How about....since it's untestable.....Dismissed Out of Hand DOH

Why read the latest DOH ? Duh!.


pete

[Len Moran]

A conjecture can be defined as a guess. That may be all that the thing is, but would a brilliant scientist choose such a term for their baby? Some probably do, but, apparently, not that many.

I must admit that I didn't quite appreciate that you were looking for a term that would be embraced (or at least taken on board) by scientists.

To be honest, I'm not sure that a brilliant scientist would choose any term for their baby if they considered it to have a definition that implied they were not doing proper science. Isn't this what we are saying though, that they are not doing proper science? I don't know how you would dress up such a term without implying a level of criticism that is suggestive of such a thing.

I suppose you are suggesting something along the lines of the way "science fiction" as a term is embraced willingly by writers in that none claim to be doing science when writing their books, and it is a term that is generally understood by all.

Well, I still like conjecture, but in order to distinguish it somewhat from guessing, what about a new word, turning conjecture into an "ism" as in

conjecturism
noun
a method of scientific speculation that requires no empirical evidence.

[George]

How the irony of moving from "theology" to "exact science" escapes both the reviewer and those who would quote the review, well, escapes me.

Great example. Don't introductory science textbooks still include a chapter on what science and the scientific method is? I would expect the best scientists would be our best examples of how proper science works, even more so than football players are to sportsmanship.

... I would even point out that "hypothesis" does not foot the bill either, because the role of a hypothesis in science is to suggest or focus an experimental test.

Good point. Hypothesis would not apply if no test is possible in the wantabe theory.

I like "speculation" best, followed by "conjecture". But how about "thesis"?

I would think thesis is too limited to describe a broader wantabe theroy. This is probably true for the other labels, also.

I really doubt any word exists that a theorists would find acceptable as the descriptive term for their wantabe theory, which also qualifies it as not being a legitimate theory. If there is such a word, then it might be a harder campaign to try and get it to be used more regularly. A new word might be easier. I am interested in exploring all avenues.

DOH

Perhaps this smilley icon should be a required tag for these wantabe theories.

[John Mendenhall]

and books are now lauding the "exact science" of imagining untestable domains populated by arbitrary distributions in parameter space,

I heard they were populated by invisble elves.

Seriously, the multiverse 'conjecture' has the properties Van is trying to make us watch out for with his backyard elf. Invisible, untestable, . . . useless. As you said on another thread, 'idea contagion'. Fun, but not science.

[Cougar]

Theorino.

[George]

To be honest, I'm not sure that a brilliant scientist would choose any term for their baby if they considered it to have a definition that implied they were not doing proper science. Isn't this what we are saying though, that they are not doing proper science?

What I suspect is that they do know that they are bending the true meaning of "theory". Some have been strongly criticised on this very point. When they state that their "theory" has postulations that we can never observe, they probably realize they are bending the definition.

Yet, what is the alternative label? It seems that there really is not a respectable alternative. DOH or SWAG, to use some extreme examples, are not likely the labels they will consider using to adorn their wonderfully crafted ideas, though their critics might. But, why is their no word alternative? Surely there are some major differences between many of these powerful ideas and just plain woo-woo pink elephant ideas. If so, perhaps a new word would be respectable enough to keep good scientists from the temptation of using, and abusing, the "theory" label.

I don't know how you would dress up such a term without implying a level of criticism that is suggestive of such a thing.

That is the challenge indeed. Yet, its acceptability will be partially dependent on their willingness to admit that they are usurping the word "theory". I would assume they would be receptive since "theory" is so important to science, and it is usually well defined in the first chapter of every introductory science textbook. Surely they don't want to look too silly.

I suppose you are suggesting something along the lines of the way "science fiction" as a term is embraced willingly by writers in that none claim to be doing science when writing their books, and it is a term that is generally understood by all.

It would have to be non-science fiction sounding. It must be a meritorious term that suggests it is a prototheory. It may require some degree of mathematical soundness, unlike science fiction terms.

Well, I still like conjecture, but in order to distinguish it somewhat from guessing, what about a new word, turning conjecture into an "ism" as in

conjecturism
noun
a method of scientific speculation that requires no empirical evidence.

That's a fair start. I don't think it will find acceptance, however.

[Swift]

How did hypothesis become rejected? Or does it not apply?

Wordnet:

I agree about using hypothesis, though proposal or conjecture are ok too.

I am completely against changing the meaning of the word theory, just so it fits google's (and other's) misuse

A new word, such as prototheory is ok, but I think it will take as long to get that accepted (by google or anyone else) as it would to get theory to be used correctly.

[George]

Theorino.

However, I wonder if we should establish the definition of our term first. This might help us find a word that fits, especially if it's an acronym.