On Theories

I will try to make this one short. This post was inspired by Chapter 1 (Only A Theory?) in "The Greatest Show On Earth" by Richard Dawkins.

Somewhere along the way people got confused on what the word theory means. There are two general uses of the word. One is in a scientific setting, while the other is used in the general vernacular. If you look at the Oxford Dictionary, you will find the precise definitions for the meaning that I'm referring to.

• Theory (Scientific) - A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.
• Theory (General Vernacular) - A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion.

After looking at these two definitions it is apparent that they mean completely different things. For example, in the scientific realm there exists the theory of gravity, which is the set of facts and observations that make up our views on the laws of attraction between bodies. On the hand hand, if one of your friends has an interesting theory on why his or her significant other broke up with them, then that person is using the term theory as more of a conjecture. You can see that while the words are the same, the meanings are not interchangeable.

Therefore, when people try to label certain scientific ideas as "only a theory", they reveal their ignorance for using the proper meaning of the word. Who in their right mind would call the theory of gravity "only a theory"? While it is true that our ideas on gravity could be proved false at any time, our ideas on gravity are called a theory because they have withstood all the challenges that scientists have put against it. There are NO scientific facts. Anything can be disproved at any time. Therefore, putting forth the argument that something is "only a theory" and until it is proven as a "fact" it is just a conjecture, is meaningless. Arguments like that reveal an ignorance about the scientific method.

If you're going to use the word theory, please use it in the correct context and don't try to use it to falsely slander well-established scientific ideas.

On Freedom of Speech

Have you ever thought about how important freedom of speech is? Not just thought about it a little, but REALLY thought about it? I think it is easily the important liberty we have in this country. However, it is increasingly being encroached upon.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1: The new Obama administration is swiftly undoing some of the damage George Bush's administration completed over the past 8 years. For starters, Obama has unsealed documents showing how the Bush administration came to the conclusion that it had unfettered power to unequivocally:

"Wiretap the Internet and telephone calls with virtually no limitations, restrict free speech, and use the U.S. military domestically against suspected terrorists" and "the president must be able to use whatever means necessary to prevent attacks on the United States; this power, by implication, includes the authority to collect information necessary for its effective exercise."

Big brother was watching you. If you said anything over a phone call (that was being tapped to "protect our country") that could be construed as potentially "terrorist", then you could have the FBI knocking on your door.

The development of the term "terrorism" presents an easy vehicle for creating a persistent state of war. You're always watching your back because you can't tell who is a "terrorist". Maybe they have dark skin. Maybe they speak a funny language. But the point is, with "terrorism" the war is never over. That gives the President perpetual unlimited powers since it is generally recognized that the President can do a lot more during "wartime". So you have this term (similar to Communism from the early 20th century) that is used to elicit fear in people and convince them that their civil liberties are not important. You end up with a situation where speech really isn't free. Going against the "war on terrorism" ends up being treason. There's nothing wrong with criticism. Squashing it is against very fundamentals of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 2: In a recent development, the United Nations is considering adopting a proposal that will effectively make it illegal to make "blasphemous" remarks about religion -- particularly Islam. Christopher Hitchens said it all when he called it totalitarianism. Islam advocates a certain theory of the world and if you don't accept it by questioning it or doing anything that could be CONSIDERED questioning, then that's wrong. Have I been caught in a time machine? Is it really the year 2009? Are they serious?

It's very similar to the "hurt feelings" argument that is continually being propagated around the world and here in the United States. If I say anything that hurts your feelings -- especially in a religious context, then that's wrong. That's blasphemous. But here's the implicit and incorrect assumption -- my feelings don't matter. I can just as easily say that any of your beliefs are offensive to me -- even if they're not. Just because something is offensive to a group of people, doesn't make it wrong.

Imagine a group of people in Europe back in the 1500s (around the time of Galileo). Let's imagine that this group had a core fundamental belief that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Now if Galileo comes along and proves that the Earth in fact revolves around the Sun, if you accept the "hurt feelings" argument, then it would have been blasphemous for Galileo to make such an outrageous claim. Think about all the people's feelings who could be hurt!

It ends up being plain ridiculous to say that if something might hurt someone's feelings, then it shouldn't be heard. And look at this gem -- an editor of a Indian newspaper was ARRESTED for REPRINTING an article that was critical of Islam. Apparently he violated the Indian Penal code with his, "deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings". Wow.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 3: Richard Dawkins' recent trip to Oklahoma University almost didn't happen if it were left up to one of the Congressmen from the state. The is the actual text of a piece of legislation that Todd Thomsen advocated:

WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma, as a part of the Darwin 2009 Project, has invited as a public speaker on campus, Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published opinions, as represented in his 2006 book “The God Delusion”, and public statements on the theory of evolution demonstrate an intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking and are views that are not shared and are not representative of the thinking of a majority of the citizens of Oklahoma; and

WHEREAS, the invitation for Richard Dawkins to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma on Friday, March 6, 2009, will only serve to present a biased philosophy on the theory of evolution to the exclusion of all other divergent considerations rather than teaching a scientific concept.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 52ND OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:

THAT the Oklahoma House of Representative strongly opposes the invitation to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma to Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma.

This is censorship defined. To say that Richard Dawkins "demonstrates an intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking" and then try to limit what he has to say, is exactly INTOLERANT in itself!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Freedom of Speech" is increasingly being encroached upon. If you don't let your voice be heard about your Constitutionally given rights, then they will disappear. Speech cannot be limited. Everyone has to be heard. Otherwise, we would live in a nation where people are actively persecuted for their dissent with the popular beliefs of the time. Do we want Big Brother to tell us what to think and do we want to call each other comrade?