Initially, I was merely going to post a comment to
this diary by
DrReason regarding
this "news report". Once I started typing, things got out of hand very quickly. An hour or so of intense typing (and smoking and coffee-drinking) later, I had written the following way-too-long-comment which will be emailed forthwith to the NYT Public Editor, Byron Calame (public@nytimes.com). I am under no illusion that this will elicit a response from the NYT, much less get published. However, this missive should serve as a prime example of the lesson to be taken from the maxim, "Don't get me started," especially when I'm jacked up on nicotine and caffeine.
My letter to the Public Editor begins after the jump.
In the article by David Stout, published on 8-20-05 under the title,
"Frist Urges 2 Teachings on Life Origin," there is a glaring, though perhaps inadvertent, incorrect usage of a term that your editors should have detected and eliminated. This error, a violation of accepted usage as presented in every dictionary and manual of style that I know of, has occurred previously and repeatedly in your publication as well as in other "mainstream" news outlets. The continued "misuse" of terms misleads the public, misrepresents the issue under discussion and serves to further the agenda of one side of a particularly heated and crucial public debate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon your newspaper to publish a correction and explanation immediately.
I am speaking of the author's use of the term "theory" in referring to the Notion of Intelligent Design.
According to the New American Heritage Dictionary's first citation under the definition, a
"theory" is:
"systematically organized knowledge applicable in a wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of proven hypotheses, accepted principles and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena."
Clearly, Evolution qualifies as a theory under this definition whereas Intelligent Design does not, if for no other reason than the fact that it can predict nothing and cannot be applied to learn anything further. Describing Intelligent Design as a "theory" provides it with undeserved credibility. In point of argument, the conclusions of Intelligent Design would be more accurately described as a "hypothesis" and not a very useful one at that.
"Hypothesis: a tentative explanation that accounts for a set of observations, and explanation that can be tested by further investigation."
That the conclusions reached in the writings of supporters of the Notion of Intelligent Design actually comprise a weak hypothesis - I say "weak" since the hypothesis can not be tested - are essentially putting the cart before the horse is something that the general public and your readership deserve to understand. I'm presuming, perhaps incorrectly, that your editors understand these distinctions. Casually elevating the Notion of Intelligent Design to the status of "theory" in news reports is a much more serious offense; it is a "mis-education" of your readership.
I am aware that the supporters of the Notion of Intelligent Design themselves use the term "theory" to describe their conclusions. This does not justify your perpetuation of their abuse of the term, especially in light of the context. If the context of use of the term "theory" was merely colloquial or for entertainment purposes - say, Dave Barry describing the conclusions achieved by researchers at Purdue University regarding methods for getting barbeque charcoal to ignite as quickly as possible (ironically, an accurate application of the term "theory") - then I wouldn't be complaining. However, the so-called controversy between supporters of the Notion of Intelligent Design and those of the Theory of Evolution is conducted in the context of scientific accuracy and validity.
In this context, then, the misuse of "theory" to describe the weak hypothesis of Intelligent Design and the body of work produced to reach this mere hypothesis is especially egregious. Supporters of the Notion of Intelligent Design misappropriate the term knowingly and toward a specific purpose - to advance, through broadly published repetition, an acceptance among the general public as common wisdom or knowledge the mistaken idea that the Notion of Intelligent Design is valid and credible Science (which it is not) and therefore should be included in the public school science curriculum (which it most definitely should not). By casually perpetuating this willful inaccuracy, you are winning this propaganda battle for them.
The only way the Notion of Intelligent Design might properly be taught in public school science classes is as an example of how avoidance of the rigors of the scientific method of testing and analysis, especially when combined with arbitrary omission or misrepresentation of inconvenient contrary fact, can lead one to incorrect, ridiculous and often dangerous conclusions. Indeed, this might make for the perfect object lesson regarding the value of true critical thinking. This is a skill that has obviously not been effectively instilled in our elected federal officials for it is by the same process of shabby reasoning employed by supporters of the Notion of Intelligent Design that they were able to question the existence of global warming and to reach the conclusion that invading Iraq was justified.
By erroneously describing the Notion of Intelligent Design a theory, you implicitly encourage the awful and disastrous illogic of starting with a conclusion and then justifying it by any distorted means necessary.
While I understand that, to many here at Kos, the ID issue seems a peripheral one at the moment, I believe that it is crucially related in many ways, not the least of which is the often subtle manner by which the language used by the MSM in obscure "news reports" serves to establish as fact in the minds of the general public the false assertions of the various cons - Neo, Fundamentalist, Economic - and other snake-oil salespeople. In any case, I hope others here who are more directly engaged with this particular front in "The War on Error" find this line of argument useful in attempting to reframe "the controversy" before it even gets as far as their local school boards.
And, of course, many thanks to DrReason for calling this specific incident to my attention and hyper-driving me out of my Saturday morning drowsiness.