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 Abstinence-Only Sex Education

I've been thinking a lot about this topic lately.

I get irritated when I think that our government is allegedly separate from the church, when it is in fact more closely united than people like to believe.

The case in point is the current federal spending on sex education for our nation's youth. In 2005, the federal government spent $170 million on abstinence-only sex education. That is the only type of sex education that the federal government (then under the Bush Administration) would spend money on. It might be fine to spend money on such programs, if they actually worked. Look at this graphic from this study (1) on abstinence programs.

People in the abstinence program were no different than people who did not participate. Sure, this is only one study, but if these programs were working, I would expect there to be an actual effect in making teens have less sex. But, the complete opposite is true...the programs have no effect. So, if they have no effect, then why do they continue?

It's because of the church. The church tells you that people need to abstain from having sex until your married. And that's fine. The church can tell you to do whatever you want. But that doesn't stop the fact that with my actual tax dollars on the line, the government is funding programs that are not proven to work. The only reason that they are still being used is related to the power of the church.

I just think we need some 21st century sex education. People who take abstinence pledges when they are teens and participate in these programs, don't change their behavior. And by ignoring the inevitability of teens having sex, you don't educate people on proper birth control options, leading to more teen pregnancy in our country and more sexually transmitted diseases. All because you don't believe in telling people about condoms? According to the Texas Freedom Network on this topic (who are probably a bit biased), teen pregnancy costs Texas taxpayers $1 billion a year. That's a lot of money that could be saved by giving our teens the appropriate information.

Another study released by Congressman Harry Waxman in 2004 (2), showed that abstinence-only curricula:

• Contain false information about the effectiveness of contraceptives
• Contain false information about the risks of abortion
• Blur religion and science

I just think people need more information, not less of it. Hopefully Obama will do something about it.


(1) - http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf
(2) - http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf