But there isn't a fixed definition

Scientific jargon rarely if ever changes once set so the scientific community all understands each other. Not having a set definition would really mess things up - especially when translating findings and data and whatnot. I would love to see citations for this if you have any because I couldn't find a single thing about the definition of "scientific theory" being debated by scientists anywhere.

Post hoc literally means 'after this', so the big bang theory was formed after the said event had passed.

I still don't see how that has anything to do with why they're theories. Whether it's observed or not has nothing to do with whether something is a theory or not.

kinda of like what is 'science'?

Science is very clearly defined. I don't see why you'd have any hangups about it. Maybe about whether soft sciences are sciences at all... or maybe the history of the word - but not what science is. science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

but would you really be willingly to apply that same set of principles to the various people that use it?

I still don't see why it matters. Something is "scientific fact" whether people like it or not. We're talking basic science, not applied science, right? Because motivation and goals comes into play with applied science. I dislike it when it touches basic science (other than the goal to follow the scientific method). It just leads to falsified results and other stuff that makes work done essentially worthless - and dangerous (look at the vacination - autism issue... I'm cringing).

This could get very philosophical and that's probably an agony we could both do with out

I didn't realize philosophy mixed with hard sciences. Perhaps if someone is an armchair soft science scientist (discussing psychology or some such)... but not a hard science.

Ahhh scratch that. I found something. But I don't think it really goes along the lines of ponder the definition of jargon that is already set.

Rationally Speaking: The future of philosophy of science :

More seriously, I see the future of philosophy of science along three major lines of inquiry: as an independent discipline that studies scientific reasoning and practice; as a discipline contiguous to theoretical science; and as a crucial simultaneous watchdog and defender of science in the public arena. The first role is rather traditional for philosophy of science, the latter two are more recent developments, and are still very much evolving.

Nothing to do with definitions of jargon. At least I couldn't see anything dealing jargon... Even the post about definitions doesn't touch on definitions of science jargon: Rationally Speaking: Proving things isn't the point of definitions

Originally Posted by rawcookiedough

Scientific jargon rarely if ever changes once set so the scientific community all understands each other. Not having a set definition would really mess things up - especially when translating findings and data and whatnot. I would love to see citations for this if you have any because I couldn't find a single thing about the definition of "scientific theory" being debated by scientists anywhere.

(Answered in one reply so it would seem less disjointed :) )

I said semantic indecision. This idea of a scientific community built on happy clappy foundation of consensus is romantic nonsense. There is no over ruling authority in 'science' which says 'that this is this' and 'that is that'. Anyone can challenge or redefine an idea or definition or whatever. Like it or lump it people do this just because they can. So for example Popper's definition of scientific theory is different from Kitcher's definition of scientific theory. Kitcher tweaked Popper's definition because he felt it was lacking in some elements. And there are other people like Hawking, Hempel and Carnap who offer their own perspectives.
I sense you are trying to segregate what you believe to be 'proper science' from what you deem as 'soft science'. Science is science, you can't create a flowery dichotomy out of science to suit your own argument. The notions of 'hard' and 'soft' are not relevant to our argument because we are debating the semantics of science, not the actual factors that science are applied to. And unfortunately (and I do sympathize if you are a follower of hard science), this does enter a philosophical quandary. However this doesn't mean that one person can not choose one definition to follow, but then it should be noted that another person is entirely capable of accepting one definition and rejecting another.

EDIT:

A quick way to some up my point would be that, what your accepted definition of what is a theory and what is not a theory, is not necessarily the universally accepted definition- as there is no universal definition.

Semantic indecision such as:

The only intelligible account of vagueness locates it in our thought and language. The reason it's vague where the outback begins is not that there's this thing, the outback, with imprecise borders; rather there are many things, with different borders, and nobody has been fool enough to try to enforce a choice of one of them as the official referent of the word `outback.' Vagueness is semantic indecision. (Lewis 1986, 213)

Likewise for other vague singular terms, like `Tibbles,' `Everest,' `Toronto,' and `I.' Donald Smith (2006) argues that if `I' is indeed vague, and the view of vagueness as semantic indecision is correct after all, then `I' cannot refer to a composite material object. But his considerations would, if sound, also establish that `Tibbles,' `Everest,' or `Toronto,' do not refer to composite material objects either--nor hence, presumably, to cats, mountains, or cities. And the considerations can be resisted, anyway. Or so I argue.

On the Semantic Indecision of Vague Singular Terms

???
So... it's more a matter that language is being used at all? That communication is never 100% and evolving or being created? Am I misinterpreting this?

This idea of a scientific community built on happy clappy foundation of consensus is romantic nonsense. There is no over ruling authority in 'science' which says 'that this is this' and 'that is that'. Anyone can challenge or redefine an idea or definition or whatever.

But there is an over ruling authority in science - the scientists as a whole (I suppose it would differ from country to country - but also be world-wide... in a way... since we're becoming more of a global community). If a majority of scientists decided to redefine a word then they probably could. It's not one person, but consensus that changes definitions - and it usually takes time and debate if it's within a community like the scientific one. And I'm not trying to say that words can't evolve, just that there is an accepted/set definition (they need to exist for communication to be efficient). Theory could be being debated - but that doesn't change the current set definition... it just implies that the future of the definition may be different. (Though, I wasn't aware that the definition of theory within the scientific community may expand or otherwise change in some way. It's a tad interesting to see variations.)

I sense you are trying to segregate what you believe to be 'proper science' from what you deem as 'soft science'.

I didn't mean to give that impression. I don't think I even referred to anything as proper science... did I? I completely accept "soft sciences" as science since (or as long as) they follow the scientific method (which is usually how I determine what is science or not since that is the simplest definition of what science is - to my understanding) - I'm even considering going into psychology research (so cool :* ) - they're really just more difficult to handle since they tend to deal with stuff that can be more... arbitrary? Or has spectrums? Thinking of what motivates people and other animals hurts my head. I still want to do tests about it and understand it though. Anyway, I just don't mind categorizing things. Soft science and hard science are both called science because they are science. They just differ enough in some way to have a categorizing label. Science is science is science, but pseudoscience is not - by definition. ;)

However this doesn't mean that one person can not choose one definition to follow, but then it should be noted that another person is entirely capable of accepting one definition and rejecting another.

Whether someone follows a set definition or not wont change the consensus or the jargon definition - it just makes it hard to understand them or to explain what you mean to them if you continuously need to provide a definition for words. This is the reason for the "it's just a theory" argument - they accept a consensus definition but not the jargon definition that is used when referring to scientific theories... and (in my experience at least) don't accept that jargon is being used and continue with a logically fallacious argument like it means something. Makes me feel like pulling my hair out. It's fine in passing conversation, but in a debate people should know their jargon if they're going to use said jargon as a base for an argument. Bah. My annoyance at it is showing. Sorry.

Originally Posted by rawcookiedough

Semantic indecision such as:

???
So... it's more a matter that language is being used at all? That communication is never 100% and evolving or being created? Am I misinterpreting this?

I think you are over analyzing this phrase, semantic indecision just means indecision about semantics. There are multitude of definitions for the term scientific theory and no general consensus to which one is right. People will choose the definition that they either believe to be right or the definition which is appropriate to them. This is really common feature in and outside of academia, for example what is a baby- some people believe a fetus is a baby ect... you get my gist.

Originally Posted by rawcookiedough

But there is an over ruling authority in science - the scientists as a whole (I suppose it would differ from country to country - but also be world-wide... in a way... since we're becoming more of a global community). If a majority of scientists decided to redefine a word then they probably could. It's not one person, but consensus that changes definitions - and it usually takes time and debate if it's within a community like the scientific one. And I'm not trying to say that words can't evolve, just that there is an accepted/set definition (they need to exist for communication to be efficient). Theory could be being debated - but that doesn't change the current set definition... it just implies that the future of the definition may be different. (Though, I wasn't aware that the definition of theory within the scientific community may expand or otherwise change in some way. It's a tad interesting to see variations.)

There is no over ruling body or mass consensus that has formed a collective conscience to decide this is this and that is that. It simply does not exist. Science has this massive academic field that even in its tiniest sub field experiences fragmentation and conflict. It's far from consensual.
Any terminology can change, and usually it changes if change is required. However this can be on mass scale (science in its entirety), or minor scale (in one particular field or sub field), just depends on the circumstances really.

Originally Posted by rawcookiedough

I didn't mean to give that impression. I don't think I even referred to anything as proper science... did I? I completely accept "soft sciences" as science since (or as long as) they follow the scientific method (which is usually how I determine what is science or not since that is the simplest definition of what science is - to my understanding) - I'm even considering going into psychology research (so cool :* ) - they're really just more difficult to handle since they tend to deal with stuff that can be more... arbitrary? Or has spectrums? Thinking of what motivates people and other animals hurts my head. I still want to do tests about it and understand it though. Anyway, I just don't mind categorizing things. Soft science and hard science are both called science because they are science. They just differ enough in some way to have a categorizing label. Science is science is science, but pseudoscience is not - by definition. ;)

I didn't mean it in a derogatory way, I didn't think you were implying that. What I was trying to say is that you can't splice science and focus on one half, the 'hard' half, when we are just focusing on science. Psychology is fun, I've done at college but there is a lot of 'semantic indecision'. It doesn't quite lead to the chaos that you might expect, you just have to be aware of different definitions and say that in your essays... if people used fixed terminology it would spare a lot of agony but hey ho, psychology is worth doing just to see the random and bizarre stuff psychologists get up to ;)

Originally Posted by rawcookiedough

Whether someone follows a set definition or not wont change the consensus or the jargon definition - it just makes it hard to understand them or to explain what you mean to them if you continuously need to provide a definition for words. This is the reason for the "it's just a theory" argument - they accept a consensus definition but not the jargon definition that is used when referring to scientific theories... and (in my experience at least) don't accept that jargon is being used and continue with a logically fallacious argument like it means something. Makes me feel like pulling my hair out. It's fine in passing conversation, but in a debate people should know their jargon if they're going to use said jargon as a base for an argument. Bah. My annoyance at it is showing. Sorry.

There is no consensus overall, and yeah it does make things complicated and hard, but that's academia. It's not very pragmatic. You don't need to pull your hair out, all you have to do when challenged is say that you subscribe to definition x and therefore you reject the premise that big bang theory is a scientific theory, because it does not meet the criteria of definition x. This is basically what you did, but you assigned an authority to that definition that does not exist, and then didn't acknowledge other definitions in existence... which caused a rumpus lol :)

You two are so very eloquent. I'm enjoying reading this debate now. :)

Originally Posted by Remyre

I have to say, I don't want to continue an argument. I believe that every is entitled to their own opinion, and they /should/ be able to share that. The problem comes when things get taken the wrong way, therein lies the problem with debates such as these over the internet, if you're feeling threatened or attacked, then every word someone types is an insult.

Me personally, I don't care if your a Satanist, Christian, Agnostic, Wikkan... whatever, have your beliefs, I find them all very fascinating! I honestly don't know what I believe it, but I know I don't believe in putting others down, or tearing them apart because they don't believe what you do. I've actually had a guy, who was Christian, look me in the eyes and tell me that me, and all my friends who are gay, are going to burn in Hell. It was very insulting, but I just ignored him regardless of how much I wanted to knock his teeth out. That, is a case of someone believing so fiercely in their religion, that they don't even consider that they're talking to another human being who has feelings, it's just, "oh your different than me, die and burn in hell." That's not necessarily any one religion, /everyone/ can be that way at times. It doesn't make it right or okay, but it happens.

I've read through a lot of this, and I think most of it is exactly what I said, things getting taken the wrong way, or people just losing their heads and snapping. Everyone's got their own problems in life, sometimes it only takes one little phrase and they're at someones throat!!

The predominant religion in America, is Christianity, and from what I've seen, anyone with a different religion /is/ put down, why I don't know. Last time I checked this was the land of the FREE... everyone has their own idea of what normal or accepted means, I can read all of this and say I don't disagree with a single one of you, though my opinion may differ in some areas, it's all very fascinating to me. I don't think there should be the fighting and arguing, but that's just me. It's kinda like they always say, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything... < everyone still does though. XD

Hopefully I don't offend anyone here, it's not my aim.

I agree with this right here. ^^^^^

Except that I am a "Christian"
I don't fit the stereotype so to say since I am not straight (Sexuality wise: Pansexual) and I support alot of things most Christians won't. (Open-minded nature)
Most of my friends are atheist, satanists, and christians etc. I really don't care :/ You believe what you believe and everyone (like the statement I quoted states! : Everyone has an opinion and everyone puts eachother down.)
Humans are humans and we will all act accordingly. I just hate being bashed for my beliefs and I know you all hate being bashed as well.
People are just ignorant and don't get that we are all human and that we all are different.
To bring up a statement someone has said to me before:
"You are a christian, that means you shove everything down our non believing throats!"

So not true.... Not all christians are like that. Not all people are like that when it comes to their religion. In fact I know ALOT of people who are not like that. To top it off my boyfriend, who was adopted and raised from birth in a baptist house, is not like that.


Why can't people of different religions just get along. (Like my friends and I) I really don't see the big problem about all of this mess. *sigh* MAYBE it is just ME.