Some of the terms or theories in
science have poor names, names that either fail to candidly describe
the phenomenon or theory, or names that fail to do enough to inform
us about the nature of the phenomenon or theory. Below are examples,
with some suggestions on better names that could be used (which is
not to imagine any possibility that the scientific world will take up
any of these suggestions).
Cold
Dark Matter Theory
In scientific journals the cold
dark matter theory is often stated as ^CDM, where ^ is the Greek
character Lambda. This is one of the geekiest and most unclear names
ever used for a scientific theory. In popular accounts, the theory is
referred to as the cold dark matter theory. The term “dark matter”
suggests regular matter that is not illuminated. But the theory
postulates some type of material substance that is not matter as we
know it, some matter that is not made of the protons, neutrons, and
electrons that make up an atom.
A better name
for the theory would be to call it the “non-atomic halos” theory.
This would remind us that the theory involves not merely an
assumption about the existence of a non-atomic substance, but also
some particular assumptions about how such a substance is arranged.
Cosmic
Inflation Theory
The cosmic inflation theory is a
theory that during a tiny fraction of the first second of the
universe’s history, the universe underwent a period of especially
fast expansion called exponential expansion. The term “cosmic
inflation” is a terrible name for such a theory, because of the
endless confusion that arises by those who confuse this “cosmic
inflation” with the regular type of expansion that the universe has
undergone since its first second. For example, if I say, “I don't
believe in the cosmic inflation theory,” a sizable fraction of my
readers may think I am denying the expansion of the universe or
denying the Big Bang, even though you can deny the cosmic inflation
theory without denying either of these things.
A better and more candid name
for the “cosmic inflation” theory would be to call it the
“primordial double transformation theory.” Primordial means
occurring at the very beginning. The cosmic inflation theory imagines
that the universe underwent two drastic transformations in its first
second: first changing from a linear expansion to an exponential
expansion, and then changing from an exponential expansion back to a
linear expansion. By calling such a theory the “primordial double
transformation theory” we would be reminding people of the
drastically discontinuous nature of such a theory.
Big
Bang Theory
It is widely acknowledged that
the Big Bang theory has a poor name, suggesting the idea that the
universe once existed as a kind of bomb that exploded. The actual
theory is that the universe began to expand from an infinitely small
and dense point. A better and more descriptive name for the Big Bang
theory would be to call it the “origination from infinite density”
theory or the “origination from zero diameter” theory or the
“primordial singularity theory” (in physics a singularity is a
state of infinite density).
Ekpyrotic
Theory
According to this link,
Professor Paul Steinhardt's contrarian cosmological theory involves
speculations about some kind of a double universe. It would seem
that calling it the “double universe theory” would be better than
calling it by the so-easy-to-forget name “ekpyrotic theory.”
Long-Term Potentiation
The term “long-term
potentiation” is one of the most misleading terms in neuroscience.
The term refers to a slight synapse strengthening that can occur when
learning occurs. For years neuroscientists have told us that
long-term potentiation is a sign of memories being stored in
synapses. However so-called long-term potentiation is actually a very
short-term affair. In virtually all cases it does not last longer than a
few weeks, and has never been proven to last for as long as two
years. The term should therefore be renamed as “transitory
potentiation” or “short-term potentiation.”
Natural
Selection
The term “natural selection”
is a rather misleading and confusing term, a case of a metaphor that was entirely unnecessary. The term
“natural selection” confuses people by making people think that
somehow nature does something like a conscious selection action. But
blind nature never chooses or selects things; only living things or
machines can select things. There is no need at all to use the
confusing metaphor of “natural selection,” because there are two
different terms that express the same idea exactly without resorting
to a metaphor. The first term is “differential reproduction” and
the second is “survival of the fittest.”
Evolution
by Natural Selection
Besides the fact that it uses
the misleading term “natural selection,” there is a big reason
why it is misleading to refer to Darwin's explanation for biological
complexity as the theory of “evolution by natural selection.”
This reason is that in such a theory natural selection is not the biggest factor. The theory maintains that new species arise
from random mutations and natural selection. But natural selection
(survival of the fittest or differential reproduction) cannot occur
in regard to any biological innovation until that innovation has
appeared. So Darwinism maintains that first lucky random mutations
lead to a biological innovation appearing and then natural selection
helps to spread that innovation in a gene pool. In such a theory 99%
of a biological innovation is coming from random mutations or pure
luck. A Darwinist believes that every single nucleotide in a
fine-tuned gene pool came from a random mutation. To describe such a
theory as “evolution by natural selection” is therefore rather dishonest or disingenuous. It's like someone having a theory that log cabins arise
from random falls of trees (with friction helping the trees stay
together), and calling such a theory “the friction theory of cabin
origination,” when such a theory should really be called the
“chance theory of cabin origination.”
An honest name for Darwin's
theory will be candid about its reliance on lucky chance events.
Suitable names for the theory would be “the theory of accidental
engineering” or “the theory of accidental inventions” or “the
theory of accidental biological innovations” or “the theory of
evolution by random mutations.”
White
Holes Theory
I remember forty years ago
buying John Gribbin's book on the theory of white holes – that
there are places in the universe where matter mysteriously squirts
out, in a process the opposite of the process by which matter is lost
in black holes. Since then the white holes theory has gained little
traction. It would probably gain more attention if it were given a
catchier sexed-up name such as the “cosmic ejaculations” theory, which
would be a fairly good description of what the theory imagines.
Many
Worlds Theory
The theory called the Many
Worlds theory is the crazy theory that every instant reality is
splitting up in an infinite number of ways, so that every possibility
is actualized. Under this theory, there are an infinite number of
parallel universes or realities, in which there are an infinite
number of copies of all of us. "Many worlds” is
a bad name for such a theory. The phrase “many worlds” suggests
something reasonable enough, like perhaps the idea that there are
some Earth-like planets in the universe. But the Many Worlds theory
teaches something infinitely more extravagant than that: the idea of
an infinity of parallel Earths in which every possible thing happens. A more candid name for this theory would be “the theory of infinite
duplication” or perhaps “the ever-splitting universe theory.”
Abiogenesis
Theory
The theory of abiogenesis theory
is the theory that life arose from mere chemicals. Most people who
hear the term “abiogenesis” cannot tell from that word what the
theory is about. Because life is a state of organization vastly
higher than that of some mere chemicals in a liquid, the abiogenesis
theory is a theory of a kind of chemistry miracle. It would be better
to call such a theory “the chemistry miracle theory” or the
“accidental life origination” theory.
Vacuum
Catastrophe
I really shouldn't complain
about the use of the term “vacuum catastrophe,” because when you
type that in as a Google search term, you will get one of my blog posts on the first page of results. But it should be noted that the
term “vacuum catastrophe” is ludicrously inappropriate. The term
refers to the fact that despite various physics and quantum factors
which should have produced (under 99.9999999999999999999999% of
random cases) a vacuum of space very high in density, precluding the
appearance of any life, so that the space between the sun and the
earth was denser than steel, we instead have a vacuum of space that
is almost entirely empty, which allows life to exist. It would be far
more appropriate to refer to this “vacuum catastrophe” as “the
vacuum blessing” or “the vacuum long-shot” or “the vacuum
miracle.”
Panspermia
Besides the fact that it sounds
vaguely erotic, the term “panspermia” has the disadvantage that
no one can tell from the name itself what the word means. Panspermia
refers to the idea that extraterrestrials were involved in the
appearance of life on planet Earth. A better term would be “the
extraterrestrial assistance theory.”
The
Second Law of Themodynamics
The term “second law of
thermodynamics” is a poor term because it uses four words to tell
you basically nothing about the meaning of the theory. A better term would be
“law of increasing disorder” or “law of increasing entropy.”
The
Special Theory of Relativity
The term “special theory of
relativity” is a poor term because it uses four words to tell you
nothing at all about the meaning of the theory. A better term would
be “cosmic speed limit theory,” because at the heart of the
theory is the idea that nothing can travel faster than the speed of
light.
The
General Theory of Relativity
The term “general theory of
relativity” is a poor term because it uses four words to tell you
nothing at all about the meaning of the theory. A better term would
be “Einsteinian gravitation theory.”
String
Theory
The term “string theory”
tells you pretty much nothing about the extravagant family of fancy
physics theories known as string theories. A much better term would
be “the extra dimensions theory,” which at least tells you
something substantive about such theories, that they postulate that there are extra, unobserved dimensions of space.
Quantum
Mechanics
The term “quantum mechanics”
tells you basically nothing about the theory that has this name. A
person guessing what the theory was about might guess that it had
something to do with engines or machines, on the grounds that it has
the word “mechanics” in it. A better name for this theory would
be the “subatomic strangeness” theory, which would at least tell
you that it has to do with what's going on at the subatomic level.
Synaptic
Plasticity
The term “synaptic plasticity” is a term that
neuroscientists mouth whenever they observe minds working well
despite large brain damage or the loss of a large part of the brain.
So, for example, if a French civil servant who thought himself to be
a normal person finds that 90% of his brain has been replaced by
fluid, such a case (a real-life one) is described as a case of
“synaptic plasticity.” A more candid term would be to call such
cases examples of “brain dogma shortfall” – because they are
cases in which the dogma that the brain makes the mind fails to
predict reality correctly.
No comments:
Post a Comment