The fallacy of "equivocation"

No field more harmed than polls

I previously wrote about the importance of “semantics” (aka properly defining the terms you use) in any discussion or debate - and especially in science.

While debates with non-experts (often not even educated in the field) often feel like wastes of time, they have taught me a lot about how to make my point(s), and the importance of staying on topic.

And weirdly, that experience has served me very well as I've moved into poll data.

Evolution is just a theory!

Photo source

You may have heard “it's just a theory” in discussions or debates with people who are not well-educated in biology - or science - and this gets to the core of the problem with using proper terminology.

You, reader of a stats-oriented Substack, are probably something above that level of understanding.

But most of you are probably not biologists. Nor am I a biologist. Nor do you need to be a biologist to understand the meaning of “theory” in science.

In everyday use, “theory” is usually just a hunch or a guess.

But in science, “theory” carries a much more impactful and important meaning.

Photo source

In simplest terms, a scientific theory can be comprised of laws, facts, and other observations to explain some complex phenomenon. Theories do not “evolve” into laws once they become “proven.” Like everything in science, theories can be improved upon, but theories are supported by all evidence and contradicted by none.

The Theory of Evolution, for example, is supported by natural selection, random mutations - and many other things that no sensible person could deny happen, even if they disagree with the “ramifications” of what it means.

But what happens in these “debates” is that the (being nice) laymen, who consider themselves knowledgeable enough to debate the topic but can't be bothered to be educated on it, relies on using this word “theory” in its colloquial version.

When they say “evolution is just a theory” they're saying “evolution is just a guess.”

This is called the fallacy of equivocation.

The word “theory” has two very different meanings.

1. A person educated (or, at least, knowledgeable) in the field uses the term “theory” in its proper, scientific sense.

2. In response, the uneducated person uses the term in its informal sense, thinking they've made a good point; evolution is just a theory. If it were known to be true, why use this word?

And no progress is made. Attempts by the educated person to explain that the word “theory” has different meanings in different contexts is just too much!

(Evolution being both a theory and a fact is confusing to people who don't understand the proper definitions of the word theory)

In short, clearly defining terms is dismissed as tedium to those not interested in “debate” , especially when they know properly defining things will undermine their argument.

Here, an alleged expert deflecting that I'm arguing “semantics” (yes, and?) while desperately avoiding any discussion of the central topic: how to judge poll accuracy.

Here, a glimpse into the problem in this field.

In science, no expert would misuse the word “theory” when discussing or debating science.

Indeed, no educated non-expert would.

Thus, I've created for myself a rudimentary “pyramid” of discourse:

While the pyramid is not to scale, it does visualize an important point I've learned:

There are a lot of people who are not qualified to debate things that they are happy to try and debate. However, the positions in this pyramid are far from rigid. Every expert, at some point, was lower on it.

Not to dismiss the importance of education, but if you're dealing with grown-ass adults who say things like “evolution is just a theory,” chances are that's not the first time they've said it - and they continue to say it despite being corrected.

For that reason, I do my best not to concern myself with those at the bottom of the pyramid (on any topic.

The goal of education, and my goal as a writer/educator on poll data, is to move people who want to learn more from the bottom to the middle, or higher up in the middle. Not to forcibly squeeze people out of the bottom.

Here's the problem:

I will probably take some shit for this, but all of my research suggests it's true: this field has no “top.”

It has a small middle, and a huge bottom. There are tiers within the middle, sure, but there is definitively no top.

I’ve said it before, I am not the best person to fix all the problems in this field (I only moved into the small middle within the last decade) but it's not in my nature to let unscientific (allocating undecideds and calling it your “poll” data) and pseudoscientific (poll margin/spread) processes continue if I can do better.

How people use “polls”

Colloquially, people use the word “poll” to mean “prediction” or “forecast”

I don't like it.

I really, really don't like it. It's wrong. But, being introspective, I ask myself if I similarly detest the use of “theory” as an informal way to say “guess” - and I don't.

So, I've concluded I'm biased on the topic. I think both are problematic from an educational perspective, but I'm not the word police.

If people colloquially say they have a “theory” about what the polls “predict,” I might pop a blood vessel, but I've evolved in my engagement tendencies, and decided not to intervene at the bottom of the pyramid, unless directly asked (e.g. a student or interested learner).

Where I will and do intervene, is the middle of the pyramid.

Or, at least, when people puff their chests as if that's where they belong, when they don't.

In response to my critique of a Redfield Wilton poll, Angus had this supposedly insightful and technical response.

Given the fact that he knows how to click on links and used numbers, I assumed he was in the middle of the pyramid.

It quickly became clear that Angus was out of his depth.

After showing him that he's citing the poll's margin of error while referring to the forecast - an unfortunately common error that demonstrates this pyramid has no top -

Angus fell back on the “evolution is just a theory” equivalent of this field.

“I would have to use language in the precise way you do.”

Uwu I'm just a wittle layman please don't be mean to me.

Without context (his snarky comment about what polls tell us) maybe I'd be sorry.

But you can either engage in a technical discussion or stay out of it. You don't get it both ways.

If Angus wants to hide behind the "language that everybody else uses," fine. Stay out of discussions you're not qualified to have on the subject.

Scientists don't cease using the word theory just because the public gets it wrong. They educate them, and correct them.

When someone is corrected, and they refuse to fix their characterizations, there's no other conclusion to make except that they're happy at the bottom of the pyramid.

There's nothing wrong with that. Just don't bother those higher in it, or pretend to be somewhere you're not.

I'm not demanding the public use precise language, I'm demanding that people who wish for their mathematical claims to be taken seriously adhere to a level of rigor that produces valid math.

And I will not allow people to lie about “my view” in a way that diminishes "what is objectively true" with "that's just, like, your view, man."

The problem is much worse in this field

I pointed out how this field has no top of the pyramid - unlike other fields - and that problem makes everything else much worse.

How is the public going to be educated by people who don't know what they're talking about?

Angus makes my point for me perfectly here.

Yes, all of those people confuse “polls” and “forecasts/predictions” (especially in the UK, but also in the US) and that doesn't make it okay.

But you, middle of the pyramid reader, you would never do that.

And now you have, I hope, a tool to deal with this equivocation.