Using Scientific Terms

by Barry Carter

 

Using scientific sounding terms without scientific evidence for their appropriateness can be a very misleading practice. When we make scientific sounding claims about products there are regulatory agencies who's mandate it is to verify that these claims are indeed scientific.

 

I think we need to be careful in our use of scientific terms so that we don't attract the same kind of trouble with the regulatory agencies that David Hudson attracted. Here are some suggestions that might help in this regard:

 

Science uses some very specific terms to refer to various parts of the scientific process. These specific terms have counterparts in common language. Here is a brief outline of some of these terms and where they fit in terms of scientific evidence.

 

1. Intuition - A scientist gets a feeling about something and forms a hypothesis. When I am writing or speaking about intuition I usually use the words "I feel" or something similar.

 

2. Hypothesis - This is the first step in forming a theory about something. When I am writing about a hypothesis I use terms like "I think" or "may be".

 

3. Experiment or evidence - This step involves testing the predictions made by the hypothesis by experiment or by collecting evidence related to the hypothesis. When I am writing or speaking about this type of information I use terms like "I am convinced".

 

4. Independent confirmation - This step of the scientific process involves getting independent confirmation of the evidence that is being used to support the hypothesis. It may also involve some discussion about the appropriateness of the existing hypothesis as an explanation of the observations that have been made. When I am writing about this level of the scientific process I will use terms like "both Mary and John observed the same thing" or if the experimental evidence has been replicated by one other researcher I will sometimes say (in jest) "this is what we have found time after time".

 

5. Theory - When the hypothesis has been "proven" by its predictive value then one gets to call it a theory. This is like the "theory of relativity" or "Galileo's theory". A theory is very rarely proven conclusively but usually stands till a better theory is developed to explain the phenomena that it relates to. In casual conversation I would make much more firmly positive statements about a "proven" theory than I would about a hypothesis.

 

I try to write fairly consciously. When I am writing I try to choose my words well to reflect my personal confidence in a hypothesis, data or a theory. I always try to use qualifying terms, which indicate that I am aware that my opinions and theories might be proven wrong.