I'm not a scientist, just a pithatician. I have no formal or informal education in this matter and my understanding is strictly derived from pleasure reading. But I think there's enough evidence to back up this general narrative without throwing asterisks everywhere.
Agreed. I've been looking at ways of communicating complex science-based or data-driven insights in compelling ways, and I think easily digestible narratives, like this one, are a great way to get broad range of people interested. I would love to ask you some questions and get your advice on how to better do this. If you're interested, please drop me an email: jake at insightdatascience.com.
I'm not a "pithatician", but methinks it has something to do with the word "pith" and its Variant "pithy". A quick google of said terms yielded the following points of note:
Pith is the central idea or essence of something. If you’re in danger, you could exclaim, “I would greatly appreciate it if someone would provide assistance.” Or, you could get right to the pith of your point by shouting, “Help!”
Following along this line of inquiry, one is led to consider the possibility (however remote) of this being an example of near-humour. Possibly of the genus: Pun, species: indirect. So, if one were to dress this up, it is perhaps alluded to as a Punnus Indirrectus.
I don't think you need to throw asterisks everywhere.
I think a simple opening statement like "our current theory is" followed by the main text would be more than enough, but it is good to remind people that theories are just that - theories.
What's the common usage of the word 'theory'? Maybe it's because I'm a former scientist, but I can't imagine how the public's definition would be different from the common dictionary definition:
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation
to me, the common use is more like 'hypothesis' - a possible explanation, that is still waiting for "real" confirmation once the facts come in.
but the scientific usage includes the fact that lots of facts have already been evaluated, and even that the new predictions by the theory have already been evaluated and found to be true.
>but the scientific usage includes the fact that lots of facts have already been evaluated, and even that the new predictions by the theory have already been evaluated and found to be true.
It's been evaluated and found to be true...for now. Almost every major scientific discovery upends some form of thinking or fact that we had accepted up until new information is found.
that's a misreading of what I wrote. I mean, the predictions made by the theory have been found to be true, not that the theory itself is ever proven to be true.
A scientist might make a hypothesis that suspect A is the murderer; the prediction would be that the murder weapon would be found in their house, the fingerprints match, blood types match. Upon search, the murder weapon was actually found, and fingerprints and blood types match.
A layman would say that finding the weapon converted the theory into a nearly certain fact.
A scientist would say that finding it pushed the hypothesis towards being a theory.
"Pithatician" is a novel use of πείθειν, "to persuade;" it reminds me of pithiatism, which is supposed to be a form of hysteria curable by persuasive suggestion.
