BenK: It also seems to me that people are trying to redefine terms ad hoc for rhetorical purposes.

Astrology is the prognostication by secret divination, an amalgam of natural and supernatural elements, anthropomorphism of celestial events, and unsupported by appropriate testable hypotheses. Astrology was never a scientific theory.

BenK: It also seems to me that people are trying to redefine terms ad hoc for rhetorical purposes.

Yes, I believe you're right about that.

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

As far as I can tell astrology would fall into definitions 2,5,6, and 7. Definition 1 as well if there was ever a systematic doctrine of astrology.

The NAS definition seems incoherent. How can somebody 'propose', in the first instance, a 'well-substantiated' theory? It would seem to me that something would have to be proposed before it could be substantiated.

It also seems to me that people are trying to redefine terms ad hoc for rhetorical purposes.

MikeGene: My point is that Behe is entirely correct when noting that the word theory is used a lot more broadly than the National Academy of Sciences defined it.

And Behe stretched it to the breaking point such that astrology was a theory, albeit a discarded theory. You can't blame ancient astrologers for not using the scientific method to validate their ideas: science is a complex social and cultural undertaking that was not yet developed. But that doesn't make astrology a scientific theory.

I believe you will find that inserting a tacit "proposed" in from of "theory" will explain most of the ambiguity in modern usage. Einstein proposed the Theory of Relativity which entailed specific and distinguishing testable hypotheses.

MikeGene: So they are proposing that these hypotheses are already well-substantiated explanations?

Scientists may propose a theory; that is, they propose what they consider a "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and testable hypotheses." E.g., astrology was never a scientific theory, but prognostication by secret divination, an amalgam of natural and supernatural elements, anthropomorphism of celestial events, and unsupported by appropriate testable hypotheses.

But there is certainly some ambiguity in the use of these terms, if that is your entire point.

MikeGene: And here is what I found:…

Put the word tacit word "proposed" in front of "theory", and most of the ambiguity is resolved.

You write:

Mike cites his own article as evidence for the claims that most scientists disagree with the NAS's definition of theory:

It depends on how one interprets "disagree."

Version A: Scientists disagree in the sense that they proclaim the definition false.

Version B: Scientists disagree in the sense that they often don't use the NAS definition and instead use a different definition.

The evidence I cite verifies version B.

In Mike's article the only purported evidence is a bunch of biology paper extracts that include the word "theory".

Those are from abstracts, not extracts. And as I explain in my essay, "When Rothschild quotes from the US National Academy of Sciences. he is offering an ecclesiastical argument. It doesn't really matter what a small band of authorities write down as a definition. Science does not proceed by appealing to authority. The scientific way of going about something is too observe and study the way the scientific community actually uses the term "˜theory' in the real-world."

Mike has not demonstrated that each of the authors disagree with the NAS on the definition of what constitutes a theory or that the authors had not described the theory in a manner that would be consistent with the NAS's definition.

Here is how the NAS defines/describes a theory:

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.

And here is what I found:

It should be crystal clear to any scientist that the 10 theories I found from 10 minutes of searching PubMed cannot be described as "end points of science." On the contrary, it is clear those scientists used the term "theory" in a way that is synonymous with "approach," "hypothesis," "model," and "argument." They use the term "˜theory' in an exploratory sense. So once again, we see the NAS is out of touch with the practice of science in the peer reviewed literature. Although they assert otherwise, the authors provided no evidence that the scientific use and common use of the term "˜theory' are usually different. This is simply declared by fiat.

Thus, let's return to Behe's testimony:

Q But the way you define scientific theory, you said it's just based on your own experience; it's not a dictionary definition, it's not one issued by a scientific organization.

A It is based on my experience of how the word is used in the scientific community.

Q And as you said, your definition is a lot broader than the NAS definition?

A That's right, intentionally broader to encompass the way that the word is used in the scientific community.

Q Sweeps in a lot more propositions.

A It recognizes that the word is used a lot more broadly than the National Academy of Sciences defined it.

As I have shown, Behe is correct.

I think Tipler meant to say that the laws as we know them yield maximally unpredictable behavior of matter (obviously a constrained maximum, so get ready with your Lagrange multipliers), not that the laws themselves were unpredictable as you seem to imply. I'm not sure what Weinberg meant to say, but it seems clear to me that not all laws of nature are so easily predictable since we are still stuck with the relativity-QM incompatibility. Perhaps Weinberg was refering to the fact that Einstein sort of derived general relativity from "first principles", considerations of geometry (Riemann's work for example). Fairly unique since physical law is mostly derived from empirical generalizations. Back to my wacky tabacky now.

Nice long quote that doesn't contradict Tipler at all.

I see.

Frank Tipler, the laws of physics are in fact "maximally chaotic", which roughly means as unpredictable as possible.

As testimony to the above point, consider what Steven Weinberg and other physicists have called the "inevitability" of the laws of nature.

I suppose that on Raevmonia and after smoking Raevmonian Crazy Tobacco, laws being as unpredictable as possible, or completely unpredictable to use the technical term, and their being highly predictable from purely mathematical considerations makes, er, perfect sense.

But this is Earth, and most Earthlings never touch Raevmonian Crazy Tobacco, let alone smoke it.