NationStates Jolt Archive

I have always found it unfortunate that the catchphrase "survival of the fittest" entered the common lexicon to represent biological evolution. I have compiled a list of the Top Four (http://freshbrainz.blogspot.com/2006/10/most-abused-catchphrases-in-science.html) most abused scientific catchphrases ever, but something feels missing.

Do you know if there are other scientific (or pseudo-scientific) phrases used very differently from its original meaning?

Or repeated so many times (like the Titanic theme song) that it gives you a headache every time you hear it?

Reading the topic title I instantly thought "survival of the fittest". I simply can't count how many times I've had to state that Darwin never stated what is implied by the current-day misuse of said sentence.

BUT there's another one that is abused a lot, at least in discussion I've witnessed, but I can't seem to remember the exact wording. All I know it's from either Durkheim or Weber, I'll get back to you when I find it. It's misused a lot in regards to groups of people that are vying for power, that much I recall.

Gimme a few hours :p

Referred to Einstein's theory of relativity...
Worst thing is that the people abusing it seem to know NOTHING of the aforementioned theory.

Referred to Einstein's theory of relativity...
Worst thing is that the people abusing it seem to know NOTHING of the aforementioned theory.

Yes you are right, it was already listed it in my Top Four (http://freshbrainz.blogspot.com/2006/10/most-abused-catchphrases-in-science.html). :)

Are there any others?

Referred to Einstein's theory of relativity...
Worst thing is that the people abusing it seem to know NOTHING of the aforementioned theory.
"Everything is relative" is not about Einstein's theory. The only misuse there is that people use Einstein as source/argument for it. The statement is about language, and how statements often are both true and false depending on how you look at them.

Theory, as a scientific term.
the refrence of a theory as a hypothosis or a 'unsubstantiated guess or hunch' rather then a tried and tested explanation to a phenomenon.
such as some one saying the theory of evolution is 'just a theory'

Furthermore, in regard to the "Everything is relative" quote: the quote is by no means property of Einstein in general, but it IS, however, when one is trying to explain a physics-related topic, and its misuse then lies in the use of the quote either haphazardly or unfaithfully to its original meaning.

For instance, if I were to debate social issues and state that "everything is relative", I would most probably not be referring to Einstein but rather to the sutra's of Siddharta Gautama whom many also know as the buddha. The fact that a statement using objective concepts is used by a certain person (in this case Einstein) does not make it so that the statement has the given meaning/context all the time. Therefore, I vote the "everything is relative" quote as unfit to be put under scrutiny, because of it's broad origins and broad usage that quite often have nothing to do with Einstein or his beliefs whatsoever.


But, for another often misused statement:

"The ends justify the means", Niccolo Machiavelli, Il Principe.

First of all it is almost always quoted apart of it's context (which includes a lot of mitigation to the aformentioned statement - Machiavelli was not a monster, and he was not even amoral, he only propagated amorilaty in decisions, not in men or women that make them, another great misconception), and secondly it is most often used to justify actions without further reflection on either the objective "facts" that make the given action necessary nor the subjective "expectations" one hopes to see as effect, which is especially not what he meant by the original statement.

EDIT: and the above mentioned Machiavelli quote is scientific since Machiavelli lies at the basis of what is nowadays called political science (research into the mechanics of politics and political thought).

"Survival of the fittest" is correct. Just because most ignorant people don't take the time to understand what it means doesn't make it wrong.

Theory, as a scientific term.
the refrence of a theory as a hypothosis or a 'unsubstantiated guess or hunch' rather then a tried and tested explanation to a phenomenon.
such as some one saying the theory of evolution is 'just a theory'

I'd go with this one.

"You don't have to be a rocket scientist to..."

well, duh. You only have to be a rocket scientist if you're going to build rockets.

"Survival of the fittest" is correct. Just because most ignorant people don't take the time to understand what it means doesn't make it wrong.

No, I don't think the catchphrase "survival of the fittest" does justice to biological evolution. Darwin did not use this choice of words.

Just like Poitter mentioned, the term "theory" in science and "theory" in common banter is completely different, so the term "fitness" is also a source of misunderstanding. The emphasis is on the "fit" of the individual to the environment, rather than how many hours she spends in the gym.

Though I would prefer that people are well-read (like yourself) I cannot expect that, so a easily misunderstood catchphrase is a problem for me.

Theory, as a scientific term.
the refrence of a theory as a hypothosis or a 'unsubstantiated guess or hunch' rather then a tried and tested explanation to a phenomenon.
such as some one saying the theory of evolution is 'just a theory'

Indeed.
.

I have compiled a list of the Top Four (http://freshbrainz.blogspot.com/2006/10/most-abused-catchphrases-in-science.html) most abused scientific catchphrases ever, but something feels missing.
I have to disagree with you over 'quantum leap'. The point is that the change is instantaneous, without intermediate values. So when journalists use it, they're not emphasising the size of the change, but its instantaneity - as evidenced by the fact that they don't use 'quantum leap' to describe large changes happening over long periods.

"You don't have to be a rocket scientist to..."

well, duh. You only have to be a rocket scientist if you're going to build rockets.

Good one!

Though to be really picky, people who design rockets should be engineers, since rocketry is not a basic science. :D

"You don't have to be a rocket scientist to..."

well, duh. You only have to be a rocket scientist if you're going to build rockets.
And to be honest, it's not brain surgery. :-)

I have to disagree with you over 'quantum leap'. The point is that the change is instantaneous, without intermediate values. So when journalists use it, they're not emphasising the size of the change, but its instantaneity - as evidenced by the fact that they don't use 'quantum leap' to describe large changes happening over long periods.

I understand your point, but journalists (even scientists!) use the term 'quantum leap' predominantly to describe large changes, and the aspect of no-intermediate values is downplayed. This is not just my opinion, I read it at this reference (http://explorepdx.com/mmm.html).

Occam's Razor. People are always applying that in completely braindead ways to try to make the illogical logical. *sigh*

*snip*

But, for another often misused statement:

"The ends justify the means", Niccolo Machiavelli, Il Principe.

First of all it is almost always quoted apart of it's context (which includes a lot of mitigation to the aformentioned statement - Machiavelli was not a monster, and he was not even amoral, he only propagated amorilaty in decisions, not in men or women that make them, another great misconception), and secondly it is most often used to justify actions without further reflection on either the objective "facts" that make the given action necessary nor the subjective "expectations" one hopes to see as effect, which is especially not what he meant by the original statement.

EDIT: and the above mentioned Machiavelli quote is scientific since Machiavelli lies at the basis of what is nowadays called political science (research into the mechanics of politics and political thought).


That is a good quote! Machiavelli has been heavily demonized over the years for that quote.

And to be honest, it's not brain surgery. :-)

:p

Apparently brain surgery is not as hard as microsurgery for reattaching limbs.
Don't quote me on this though.

The theory of evolution is just a theory...:rolleyes:

And to be honest, it's not brain surgery. :-)
Brain difficulty of brain surgery is sooo overrated. Now, rocket surgery, there's a challenge worth putting one's mind to.

Brain difficulty of brain surgery is sooo overrated. Now, rocket surgery, there's a challenge worth putting one's mind to.

"Nurse, administer the rocket sedative. Now, hand me the rocket scalpel."

The thought amuses me so.

"Nurse, administer the rocket sedative. Now, hand me the rocket scalpel."

The thought amuses me so.
The scalpel is easy, and sedatives are for pussies, but have you ever tried to perform an appendectomy on a rocket? I have, and it was damned near impossible to find the fucking appendix, let alone remove it. And all the
Fortunately, I had my handy Anatomy of Rockets with me, and so managed to get the organ out and escape before my patient was launched.
I am quite sure that my patient's exploding 80 seconds after take-off was due to completely unrelated causes. Yes, yes, it must have been.

The scalpel is easy, and sedatives are for pussies, but have you ever tried to perform an appendectomy on a rocket? I have, and it was damned near impossible to find the fucking appendix, let alone remove it. And all the
Fortunately, I had my handy Anatomy of Rockets with me, and so managed to get the organ out and escape before my patient was launched.
I am quite sure that my patient's exploding 80 seconds after take-off was due to completely unrelated causes. Yes, yes, it must have been.

Of course it was. Everyone knows that rockets don't need their appendixes(appendices?).

'everything is relative' is not just a reference to the theory of relativity. it's also a reference to contextualism. in which case it is being used correctly.

"global warming"

How about common medical innaccuracies that have entered into the realm of common knowledge like " Humans only use 8% of thier brains."

(like the Titanic theme song)

"I will go down the ship..."

I have always found it unfortunate that the catchphrase "survival of the fittest" entered the common lexicon to represent biological evolution. I have compiled a list of the Top Four (http://freshbrainz.blogspot.com/2006/10/most-abused-catchphrases-in-science.html) most abused scientific catchphrases ever, but something feels missing.

Do you know if there are other scientific (or pseudo-scientific) phrases used very differently from its original meaning?

Or repeated so many times (like the Titanic theme song) that it gives you a headache every time you hear it?


I would say that the terms "scientist" and "scientific method" have been so abused and bandied about and cheapened by incorrect usage that they have entirely different meanings now than they ought to. Scientific is now an adjective that can apply to anything, even opinion polls!

I think you are going about this the wrong way. You need to make an educated guess (or a theory, also called a hypothesis) and test it making observations and then testing them to see if your results, like anything else, are relative.

Once you have done this many times, you should try another method involving the abuse of a minority. But don't worry about it: the ends do indeed justify the means.

Maybe one day, we will have enough ability to remove the appendix of a rocket. It's not brain surgery after all.

Referred to Einstein's theory of relativity...
Worst thing is that the people abusing it seem to know NOTHING of the aforementioned theory.

That's because a lot of people don't actually think to get through their daily lives. They just repeat phrases that they've learned won't make you look stupid in certain situations. Like in that Mac ad where the PC guy says "touche" and the Mac guy explains that you're only supposed to use it when someone refutes a point you've just made. He doesn't know that it's a fencing term that means "touch" and indicates a point scored, he just knows the situation in which you use the word.

They've been doing this since the 17th century when merchants who wanted to look well educated around nobles would buy latin phrase books that would tell you when to use a phrase, but not what it means. Like "say 'Quod Erat Demonstratum' whenever you've concluded your argument and feel you've made your point." Or "Say ipsa est when rephrasing a statement to make it easier to understand."

This is why people use the phrase "exception that proves the rule" when they say something that someone else proves wrong. They don't know what it means, most people don't know what it means, but they've learned that people say it when other people contradict them. Like "an historic," it's wrong, but enough people use it that you won't learn about it from experience.

Once you have done this many times, you should try another method involving the abuse of a minority..

Can I abuse lab animals instead? Barring that, since the great apes are defined as human in Spain, can I import a spanish ape as a minority of one and abuse it?

Maybe one day, we will have enough ability to remove the appendix of a rocket. It's not brain surgery after all.
Actually, scientists throughout history have been known to refer to the human brain as "Nature's Rocket Appendix."
And by "scientists", I mean "a few guys who wore a lab coat once."
And by "a few", I mean "one", and by "guys" I mean "me."

That's because a lot of people don't actually think to get through their daily lives. They just repeat phrases that they've learned won't make you look stupid in certain situations. Like in that Mac ad where the PC guy says "touche" and the Mac guy explains that you're only supposed to use it when someone refutes a point you've just made. He doesn't know that it's a fencing term that means "touch" and indicates a point scored, he just knows the situation in which you use the word.

Unfortunately, here you are making the same mistake for which you are criticizing others. "Touché" is actually French. It is a form of "toucher" which means, "to touch". You just knew that it was used in a certain situation.

Unfortunately, here you are making the same mistake for which you are criticizing others. "Touché" is actually French. It is a form of "toucher" which means, "to touch". You just knew that it was used in a certain situation.

Er, not exactly. The term is French, it means "touched," and the idiomatic use of it in English to mean, "ooh, you got me on that one" is specifically derived from its use in fencing. You're both right, except for the bit where you claimed he was wrong. :)

Eureka!

Unfortunately, here you are making the same mistake for which you are criticizing others. "Touché" is actually French. It is a form of "toucher" which means, "to touch". You just knew that it was used in a certain situation.

That's not the same mistake. I knew it meant "to touch" but the English term means "score." Because it is not used in situations like "this pillow is so soft. Here, touche" In English, it doesn't simply mean touch like it does in French. Just like "holocaust" doesn't mean "burnt offering," like it does in Greek.

"Survival of the fittest" is correct. Just because most ignorant people don't take the time to understand what it means doesn't make it wrong.

Except for the fact that darwin never used that term. Anyways, explain to me how the mentally disabled are still around? They can't pass their genes on, right? ANd technically, since, in evolutionary terms, they are unfit for survival, they should have died off a long time ago, right?

Except for the fact that darwin never used that term. Anyways, explain to me how the mentally disabled are still around? They can't pass their genes on, right? ANd technically, since, in evolutionary terms, they are unfit for survival, they should have died off a long time ago, right?

Not necessarily. Many of those disabilities are linked to recessive genes.

Now, in order to have that disability, you would need the disability gene from both your mother and your father. The only 100% guarentee that a child would have the disability is if both the mother and the father have have the disability itself. Now, if one parent is a carrier, and the other has the disability, then there is a 50% chance of the child having the disability, and a 50% chance of the child being a carrier.

Now then, from there, if both parents are carriers, the number is reduced to 25% chance of having the gene, 50% chance of the child being a carrier, and a 50% chance of the child not having the genetics for it at all.

If one parent is a carrier, and the other does not have the gene at all, then there is a 50% chance of the child not having the gene, and a 50% chance of the child being a carrier.

At least, that's the utmost basics of it. So you see, the chances of the child actually having the disability are slim, however the chances of the child carrying the gene are quite great.

Also, many mental illness do not necessarily mean you do not pass on the genetics, or reproductively successful. It reduces your chances, yes, however it does not necessarily entail being unsuccessful.

Except for the fact that darwin never used that term.
No, but it is still an effective summation of his theory. If we limited ourselves to using the language of the original scientists who invented a theory, then we'd be talking about the theory of "ye olde gravity-e", or something equally assinine.
Anyways, explain to me how the mentally disabled are still around? They can't pass their genes on, right? ANd technically, since, in evolutionary terms, they are unfit for survival, they should have died off a long time ago, right?
Being "unfit" simply means you are unable to survive long enough to locate a mate. However, in modern society, even a child born without the capacity to breathe or eat can be brought up into adulthood, and when they reach adulthood, they can rely on government welfare programs and charities to sustain their existence, even if they have absolutely no "fitness" of their own.
To shorten the above passage: "In human society, the bar of "fitness" has been lowered so far that survival is now the default option."

Er, not exactly. The term is French, it means "touched," and the idiomatic use of it in English to mean, "ooh, you got me on that one" is specifically derived from its use in fencing. You're both right, except for the bit where you claimed he was wrong. :)

I didn't claim he was wrong I claimed that he was doing the thing that he was complaining about. I meant that "toucher" means "to touch", not that "touché" means to "to touch". As I said, it is a form of "toucher", just as "touched" is a form of "touch" sorry that that wasn't clear.

That's not the same mistake. I knew it meant "to touch" but the English term means "score." Because it is not used in situations like "this pillow is so soft. Here, touche" In English, it doesn't simply mean touch like it does in French. Just like "holocaust" doesn't mean "burnt offering," like it does in Greek.

It's not an English word at all. It's a French word used in fencing. Just like so many other words, we happen to use it no matter what language we speak.
A brief look in the dictionary yields the following results:
Touch (my note: not touché) = 36. Fencing. the contact of the point of a foil or épée or the point or edge of the blade of a saber with a specified portion of the opponent's body, counting one point for the scorer.
No where does touché show up in the dictionary.

I actually kinda like 'survival of the fittest', its concept is simple and is very true in many aspects.

It's not an English word at all. It's a French word used in fencing. Just like so many other words, we happen to use it no matter what language we speak.


That's every word in the English language. They all come from another language. That's why when you look something up in a dictionary it will say "ME" (middle english) lt (latin) gr (greek) or something similar. There are almost no words that are not taken from other languages with spelling mostly changed to reflect the accent with which the word was adopted.

No where does touché show up in the dictionary.

touché:[too-shey]–interjection
1. Fencing. (an expression used to indicate a hit or touch.)
2. (an expression used for acknowledging a telling remark or rejoinder.)

Being "unfit" simply means you are unable to survive long enough to locate a mate.

Well, it also means unable to aquire a mate, however well adapted for survival you are. e.g. Peacocks' beautiful tails are a huge liability in the wild. Not only do their garish colors attract predators, they provide convenient handles by which predators can pick them up. A peacock that lacked these feathers would have a much better chance of surviving the mating season, but no females would let him mate with them.

How about evolution? it means to 'unroll', and surely is an unfortunate choice on that basis. Survival of the fittest is at least more precise than unrolling.

I also think gravity is abused, since clearly there's no real evidence for it... http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512?issue=4228&special=2005

"Eureka" comes to mind.

"Eureka" comes to mind.
Especially since it is Evreka (I found it) in greek. But that's not really a catchphrase, no General Eureka Theory of Bathtubs.

No, but it is still an effective summation of his theory. If we limited ourselves to using the language of the original scientists who invented a theory, then we'd be talking about the theory of "ye olde gravity-e", or something equally assinine.

Being "unfit" simply means you are unable to survive long enough to locate a mate. However, in modern society, even a child born without the capacity to breathe or eat can be brought up into adulthood, and when they reach adulthood, they can rely on government welfare programs and charities to sustain their existence, even if they have absolutely no "fitness" of their own.
To shorten the above passage: "In human society, the bar of "fitness" has been lowered so far that survival is now the default option."

Good post there. There are people who think that "natural" selection no longer plays a role in human society (at least one biologist I know).

I don't agree that "survival of the fittest" is so effective for evolution though, I prefer this quote from Minority Report:

"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." :D

But if everyone has two eyes, we better get on to killing that three-eyed dude.

But if everyone has two eyes, we better get on to killing that three-eyed dude.

Why b a playa hater? :cool:

How about evolution? it means to 'unroll', and surely is an unfortunate choice on that basis. Survival of the fittest is at least more precise than unrolling.
Well the theories conveyed by earlier (ie ancient) uses of the term evolution are somewhat different to those being conveyed by its modern use.
I agree evolution is misused. I've encountered people who just cannot cope with the idea that 'evolution' doesnt refer to 'improvement', or even necessarily adaptation, and that natural selection isnt actually necessary for evolution to occur.

I literally wince when I see people use terms like 'de-evolution' to refer to evolution that they dont view as 'positive'....:rolleyes:

Also I think changing 'survival of the fittest' to 'survival of the fit enough in the particular circumstance at hand' might help address some of the 'survival of the fittest' problems.

"You don't have to be a rocket scientist to..."

well, duh. You only have to be a rocket scientist if you're going to build rockets.
I'm ashamed to admit it, but I used this phrase today. And it had nothing to do with rockets.
Will you forgive me?
*goes a bit red, looks very sheepish and hides in the corner*

In italian newspapers, the word "theorem" is often (ab)used, about justice and trials, with the meaning of "over-complicated, brainy theory unsupported by facts". "There is a mere theorem against me, made up by prosecutors and those pesky mafia confidents" is a typical culprit saying here. They seem to miss entirely the fact that a "theorem" is assumed to be a "logically true sentence, with a logical proof". Oh well. QED.:eek:

Many people just don't know angles. Some say "let's make a 360 degrees turn" meaning "going in the opposite direction" - instead of "180 degrees" as they should. Some others say "let's look at the problem from a 180 degrees visual" meaning "let's look at the thing from all points of view" - and they miss the other 180 degrees they need...:rolleyes:

Also, the term "proof" is often abused. Too many example to report here.:headbang:

Especially since it is Evreka (I found it) in greek.

In modern greek. But, since it was said by an ancient philosopher/mathematician, it is ancient greek and it is it is "eüreka" (perfect of "find", so it is "I've found it!").
Acute accent on the first e (an epsilon), read the ü like in German, also the second e is an epsilon.

Especially since it is Evreka (I found it) in greek. But that's not really a catchphrase, no General Eureka Theory of Bathtubs.

Greek uses a different alphabet than English, and although some of the symbols have direct counterparts with English ones many do not, and ones that are the same have different pronunciations.

Same with arabic, where it is equally correct to write Osama Bin Laden as it is to write Usama Bin Laden. Or Mohammad and Muhammad. (To use two of the more well known Arabic words with an ambuiguity - spooks - you can move on now.... nothing to see here)

Also - u used to be frequently be written as v, particulary in carving. The logo for Edinburgh City is 'Edinbvrgh'. Likewise the lower case 's' used to be written very similar to the lower case handwritten 'f'.

With all this in mind - is Eureka really Evreka or is Evreka taken from a different intepretation of Cryllic -> English characters or based on an old writing style?

Greek uses a different alphabet than English, and although some of the symbols have direct counterparts with English ones many do not, and ones that are the same have different pronunciations.

Same with arabic, where it is equally correct to write Osama Bin Laden as it is to write Usama Bin Laden. Or Mohammad and Muhammad. (To use two of the more well known Arabic words with an ambuiguity - spooks - you can move on now.... nothing to see here)

Also - u used to be frequently be written as v, particulary in carving. The logo for Edinburgh City is 'Edinbvrgh'. Likewise the lower case 's' used to be written very similar to the lower case handwritten 'f'.

With all this in mind - is Eureka really Evreka or is Evreka taken from a different intepretation of Cryllic -> English characters or based on an old writing style?

AAAH! Greek doesn't use cyrillic alphabet! Greek is written in Greek alphabet. Also it is quite difficult to translitterate to Latin alphabet, if the Latin is read by an english-speaker, because the english language lost the original relationship between symbol and pronounciation.

U is written as V in carving letters because in Latin alphabet U didn't exist. V represented the phonetical /u/, /v/ and /w/ sounds.
For example: JVS (jus=justice, right), VVA (uva=grapes), VINVM (vinum=wine), QVANTVM (quantum=how much), AQVA (aqua=water).
The Latin alphabet only had:
ABCDEFGHIKLMNOPQRSTVX. Z was added after the Romans conquered Greece. J,U and W were added in the Middle Age.

Anyway, "eureka" is "eureka". In ancient Greek, it is written "EYPEKA" (in capital script).