Originally posted by DeepThought
I found the original post. Possibly you could have contrasted hypothesis and theory, since the difference is fairly subtle. I can't think of a theory that has been termed a law in physics since the quantum/relativity revolution overturned Newtons laws.
The other two examples were too extreme, there is no way of using two to mean 147 and expect anyon ...[text shortened]... couple being exactly two could mean the inaccuracy wouldn't be noticeable to a casual listener.
My point was to illustrate that it's possible to have proposed definitions that are
wrong, as a refutation of the suggestion that you couldn't have 'wrong definitions'.
So I picked ridiculous examples [or borrowed others ridiculous examples] to demonstrate
that you can in fact have wrong definitions thus establishing the principle.
After that you're just arguing over where the line is drawn, not that the line exists in the
first place.
On a side note, there are laws of gravity proposed by Einstein... they are just contained
within the overarching theoretical framework.
E=MC^2 is a law. It simply says that Energy and Mass are interchangeable according to
this relationship. And doesn't say how or why. Much like Newtons Law of gravity which
said that massive bodies are attracted to each other according to this relationship but
doesn't explain how or why.
And my point with the 'theory' example was that YEC's like to use the common English
meaning of the word theory
[which is closer to, but not equivalent to, the scientific meaning
of the word hypothesis] in places where they should be using the scientific meaning
of the word theory. Or take the words of a scientist where they use the scientific meaning
and interpret it in terms of the common use definition.
In such cases I argue that the definition/meaning being used by the YEC is demonstrably
and objectively incorrect. In such a context the only valid meaning of the word is the scientific
one because only the scientific definition imparts the correct concepts for the discussion
being had. It may not be helpful to actually argue much about this, and may in fact be best
to ditch the word and just talk about the underlying concepts without mentioning the word
in question. But that's for the purpose of moving the discussion on, and dealing with the
real argument and not getting sidetracked into an irrelevant one.
That doesn't generally apply however to the meaning of words like atheist or agnostic ect
because those are labels tied up with lots of peoples identities. In those cases the label
is important in and of itself, and can't or shouldn't just be dropped to avoid arguments.
The identity IS what is being argued about.