Editor,
I take exception to Donald Gluck's use of the word "theory" in his letter published in the Daily Lobo on Tuesday.
He states that "evolution, a theory, which among other complexities . does not warrant 'an incredibly high probability of being correct.'" The implication is that the merit awarded to a theory is based on probability. This is incorrect.
I believe this confusion stems from multiple uses of the word theory. In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.
Nothing in this life can ever be proven. Theories can only be
disproven. They stand until what is called the null-hypothesis can be proven. In science, to say something is just a theory is a completely absurd statement. That's the equivalent, in everyday conversation, of saying something is "just a fact."
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
In future, I suggest those who wish to comment on scientific phenomena refer to scientific and not common usage of words.
James Ronayne
UNM student
