I definitely never unsubscribed from a YouTube channel just for that...

Mine is envy vs jealousy.

Jealousy is just envious because it didn't make it into the Seven Deadly Sins.
- Envy is the emotion behind coveting.

The word theory has become (or at best is becoming) a clusterfuck of whatever, much like the word literally.

And we don't even have (normal/easy/exact) replacements for those words.
\ Those words were already the scientific terms for nerds. But normies normied them into normedom, literally theorised into a fuck.

(Also unfortunately Im a normie, but that doesn't mean I can't bitch about it)

I like the word "model", I think it's a better fit even. We're modeling reality. Some models turn out to be shit, while others are well tested giving confidence that they mimic reality well.
- But isn't model used differently in different disciplines?
- ~~Some~~ Most models turn out to be shit
  Ftfy
- Yeah I like that.
  I use "theory" for theoretical things, like theoretical physics and math, that can be proven (in a mathematical way).
  I use the word "model" for practical things, like practical physics. Models don't need to be proven, but their accuracy can be more or less helpful, depending on the context.
- Yes I agree entirely.
The word predates science

"But that's just a hypothesis...a GAME hypothesis."

...I'd sub to that channel

That entire universe of channels is more accurately described as "whatever" hypothesis.
I kinda wonder how they're doing with the new hosts. Not enough to check, but it's more than 0.
Damn it, you beat me to it!

Read the other day that there actually isn't any official distinction. It's just colloquially used that way in some scientific circles but definitely not all. Probably not by etymologists.

Normally, I'm all for language changing over time. If some word is used a certain way, so beit. But not here. Not in a case where people can end up saying dumb shit like "Evolution is just a theory." I will physically fight people on that, If need be.
- Theory meaning "unproven assumption" is one of the definitions in Merriam-Webster so it is not a new definition.
  You're just angry word means something you don't want it to mean. Just like the literally-figuratively crowd.
- I remember seeing somewhere that the "colloquial" usage is actually the original and that the scientific community is the one that changed it. I do agree that the evolution argument is stupid but it's hard to blame the non scientific populace for not knowing the distinction. The evolution denier just don't have a lot else to stand on.
- Evolution is just a theory
  And so is gravity, and the concept of colors.
- Could you explain the difference to me? 🙏
- I appreciate your passion for scientific literacy - it's crucial for combating misinformation. However, I'd like to share some perspectives that might broaden our understanding of scientific knowledge and how it develops.
  First, it's worth noting that the distinction between "theory" and "hypothesis" isn't as clear-cut as we might think. In "The Scientific Attitude," Stephen McIntyre argues that what truly defines science isn't a rigid set of rules, but rather an ethos of critical inquiry and evidence-based reasoning. This ties into the "demarcation problem" in philosophy of science - the challenge of clearly defining what is and isn't science. Despite this ongoing debate, science continues to be a powerful tool for understanding our world.
  Your stance seems to align with positivism, which views scientific knowledge as objective and verifiable. However, other epistemological approaches exist. Joseph A. Maxwell's work on critical realism offers a nuanced view that acknowledges both the existence of an objective reality and the role of human interpretation in understanding it.
  Maxwell defines validity in research not just as statistical significance, but as the absence of plausible alternative explanations. This approach encourages us to constantly question and refine our understanding, rather than treating any explanation as final.
  Gerard Delanty's "Philosophies of Social Science" provides a historical perspective on how our conception of science has evolved. Modern views often see science as a reflexive process, acknowledging the role of the researcher and societal context in shaping scientific knowledge.
  Larry McEnery's work further emphasizes this point, describing how knowledge emerges from ongoing conversations within communities of researchers. What we consider "knowledge" at any given time is the result of these dynamic processes, not a static, unchanging truth.
  Understanding these perspectives doesn't diminish the power or importance of science. Instead, it can make us more aware of the complexities involved in scientific inquiry and more resistant to overly simplistic arguments from science deniers.
  By embracing some psychological flexibility around terms like "theory" and "hypothesis," we're not opening the door to pseudoscience. Rather, we're acknowledging the nuanced nature of scientific knowledge and the ongoing process of inquiry that characterizes good science.
  What do you think about these ideas? I'd be interested to hear your perspective and continue this conversation.
- where people can end up saying dumb shit like “Evolution is just a theory.” I will physically fight people on that, If need be.
  Then again, why bother? If people want to say dumb shit, what concern is it of yours? It's the same when people say "the earth is flat". It's not, but I would never fight someone over it. That's just not worth my time in most cases.

Descriptive linguists unite! Words evolve and that's okay. Really science should pivot away and start calling more proven theories a different word if they're upset about the confusion.

The etymology of the word theory comes from a word with a meaning closer to "to look at or speculate" so even in that sense science kind of hijacked a word that was further from the modern scientific understanding of the word "theory" and descriptively transformed it themselves for use in their community. And that's okay too.

I've ranted about this so much to people close to me. Scientific community just needs to adopt a new word like you say, theory is a lost battle
- Would courses like Music Theory also need to get a new name?
I accept it in colloquial discourse. I'm not happy about it, and I will smartass at everyone who isn't asking, but I accept that I'm probably fighting a losing battle. But in science, it's absolutely non-negotiable for words to mean what they mean, and not their own opposite.
- Tell that to conventional current vs electron flow. Science is ever updating with new information and the words we use to describe it will change over time as well, but I get what you mean. Prescriptive linguistics especially in formal settings like scientific writing is helpful for clear communication.
- Various fields have to adapt their terms all the time. For example, "idiot", "moron", and "mental retardation" were all official medical terms. Then they got used as an insult by the population at large, and got so bad that the medical field had to abandon them.
Counterpoint:
The language of science is specific because it is beneficial to have standards that allow explicit specificity. Scientific linguistics evolve differently from the way colloquial linguistics evolves due to different motivations and this difference is okay.
The real problem isn't that scientific language is too strict but that we gatekeep scientific participation in every form, preventing most people from participating in such a way that scientific communication is not confusing. This is in addition to most scientific publications being unnecessarily written in inaccessible language. Specificity is helpful, but the excessive use of jargon and buzz-words to make yourself sound smarter through obtuse language is unhelpful for everyone involved. When jargon cannot be avoided, define it. If you cannot define it, reference a definition.
Clarity and accessibility in all scientific communication is the key to understanding.

While theory and hypothesis are not the same if you are talking about science, in general everyday use theory is used as a synonym.

In wiktionary: 5. A hypothesis or conjecture. [from 18th c.]

But I'm a wannabe scientist, don't come here with your colloquial language explanations
You’re talking to scientists not linguists
- Their comment was about everyday use.

When someone uses “hesitant”

When they mean “reluctant”

This is my biggest pet peeve and I will die on this hill.

Yes, I drive my family nuts.

Deez nuts?
- Yes, they are the Deez family, and yes they have nuts. Enough doxing.

I suggest we use new words.

Hypothesis - the great pondering
\ Theory - mystical workings of the orb

I support this. If you're going to fluff a paper with a load of bullshit words and clunky phrasing, it should at least be fun.
As an addendum, I would like to abolish the use of the word "herein."

How about when they say "a phenomena"?

Nobody in the history of humanity has been asked how pedantic they are.

How pedantic are you?
Just a joke. It's just a way to set up the joke. It doesn't make sense, practically, but it isn't supposed to be part of the funny bit. Or it is... It could be, in an ironic way.
🤷‍♂️ Take it with a pinch of salt.

Me when people treat theory as if its concrete fact that they themselves penned and proved.

And then say "it's just a theory" to completely dismiss something they don't like.

This is a personal attack.

Edit: who's downvoting jokes in this community? 😂

Hypothesize deez nuts

I conject deez nuts aren't nuts.
I hypothesise deez nuts will break apart entirely differently in a nutcracker to confirm this.
tests in nutcracker
I put forward the theory that deez nuts are a man's testicles.