Science and "Popular" writing

[dgruss23]

There's been so much discussion about belief/faith/trust in science on this board lately, that the following from a link (http://exploration.vanderbilt.edu/news/news_siesser.htm) posted by g99 on the expanding earth thread caught my eye:

"The hot spot theory - first proposed in the 1960s - has provided one of the most dramatic proofs of plate tectonics, which holds that the Earth¹s crust is broken up into a system of rigid "tectonic" plates that are in continual motion at rates of a few centimeters per year. "

Instead of "most dramatic proofs" isn't it more appropriate to say "strongest supporting evidence"? Theories can never be "proven" - right?!

So what kind of subtle misconceptions does this type of thing create (if any)? Does this sort of sloppy representation of scientific vocabulary contribute to the perceptions out there that scientists put "faith" and that sort in theories? Or does it simply contribute to misunderstanding as to what a theory is?

[kilopi]

I think you missed a possibility.

One of the problems of science popularization is the differences in vocabulary. Sometimes, terms have a specific meaning within a discipline that they don't have in popular usage, or even in other disciplines.

For instance, my dictionary (Ame.Her.Dic.) (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=proof) has the definition of proof as "n. Abbr. prf. 1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true."

In that sense, the statement at that link is completely valid. An author shouldn't be expected to use "proof" in a mathematical sense, even if the author were writing a scientific paper, involving biology or geology, for examples. To be fair, readers of that piece may come away with a different idea than the author intended, but that is the nature of human communication. The solution to a flawed communication is more (flawed) communication.

[dgruss23]

I think you missed a possibility.

One of the problems of science popularization is the differences in vocabulary. Sometimes, terms have a specific meaning within a discipline that they don't have in popular usage, or even in other disciplines.

For instance, my dictionary (Ame.Her.Dic.) (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=proof) has the definition of proof as "n. Abbr. prf. 1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true."

In that sense, the statement at that link is completely valid. An author shouldn't be expected to use "proof" in a mathematical sense, even if the author were writing a scientific paper, involving biology or geology, for examples. To be fair, readers of that piece may come away with a different idea than the author intended, but that is the nature of human communication. The solution to a flawed communication is more (flawed) communication.

Here (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=proven) is the definition of proven. It supports what you're saying. The problem is that "proven" in everyday usage implies a greater degree of certainty than in the scientific sense. For example, if we might be able to say that antibacterial resistance is one of the strongest proofs that natural selection is an important driving force for evolution.

The response of many to that would be that "Evolution is just a theory. There you scientists go treating it as if its fact." So would it kill science writers to use phrases like "strongest evidence for" even if "proofs of" is as valid a way to express it?

[kilopi]

So would it kill science writers to use phrases like "strongest evidence for" even if "proofs of" is as valid a way to express it?
Well, if every science popularization was written like a scientific paper, they wouldn't be popularizations, then. :)

[informant]

The problem is that "proven" in everyday usage implies a greater degree of certainty than in the scientific sense.

The way I see it, the word "proof" takes on different meanings when applied to different human activities - and even to different sciences. In mathematics, you can show that a given general assertation is true. This is "proving" in the "purest" sense of the word.

In other sciences, you have other kinds of "proof", which are no longer final, but give some amount of objective support to the statement. As more and more objective support gathers for a theory, we naturally become convinced that it's true, although there's always the possibility that an unexpected discovery will refute it in the future (e.g. Newtonian mechanics).

You can call it "evidence", or "confirmation", instead of "proof", if you wish to make a distinction, but personally I think it's more important to realize that the semantic (philosophical?) distinction exists, than to make it explicit by using different words.

The proper reply to "Oh, but evolution is just a theory!", or "Oh, but the Big Bang is just a theory" is: What else could it be? Human beings are limited by their senses and by their lifespan. We will never be able to acquire perfect, absolute knowledge about the universe. The best we can come up with are smart guesses. Fortunately, that seems to be good enough.

[g99]

To me it all depends on the Author of the articvle and his familiarity with teaching things to laymen. I have a subscription to Popular Science. Which i feel is a fairly good magazine for the basics on what is happening now in Science. Sure they go way off track every once in a while, but normally they stay on track.

A. I feel that a author that is unfamiliar with writing for laymen will either go two ways:



1. overly simplify their theory and babystep the reader throught it.

ex. A article on Genetics and cloning, talking about DNA and half the paper describibng what DNA is.

2. Ovely assuming that the reader knows alot about what they are talking about.

ex. using all of the abreviations and acronyms of the trade.



B. or the Author could be veruy experienced with writing a article to the laymen. They would dumb down the article, but leave it "smart" enought to allow the scientists to get what they want from it. They wont describe the intricaies of every portion of the theory, but instead describe the hard stuff.

Popular science usually falls into the B area. They descriobe the pickey stuff, but leave the easy stuff more alone and assume the reader knows a little something about it. They would describe one or two paragraphs about DNA and then go onto the rest of the article about the problems and benefits of Cloning.


This could be good for society. The more people learn about these things, they better the world will be because they will understand that science is not all labcoats and bad heirdoos. They will learn that we do help the world.

But too much popularization could lead to harm. It could lead to sloppy reporting and shoddy work like The Core.

We sit ontop of a very thin fence.

[dgruss23]

Informant wrote: You can call it "evidence", or "confirmation", instead of "proof", if you wish to make a distinction, but personally I think it's more important to realize that the semantic (philosophical?) distinction exists, than to make it explicit by using different words.

I agree that it is important to realize the distinction exists, but what are popular science writers to do when the average person doesn't understand these distinctions? Shouldn't they use the terminology that is least likely to create misunderstandings.

Using the evolution example again. I debated a creationist science teacher for several years before he finally capitulated and said "I'll be happy if they just will stop calling it fact." Now for scientists, there is such a thing as scientific fact in which a concept is so well supported that it is taken to be "fact" even though it could perhaps be disproven in the future. That evolution happened would be an example of scientific fact.

But the average non-science oriented person doesn't understand this qualified type of "fact". So when an evolutionary biologists says evolution is fact, then the average non-scientist interprets that differently than intended. If interviewed for an article, shouldn't the evolutionary biologist instead be saying - "Available scientific evidence leaves no reason to doubt at this time that evolution has occurred."

Should the audience be considered. Or perhaps the science writer should make sure to explain these distinctions when the terminology is used in ways that is likely to be interpreted.

[beskeptical]

Writing, like other forms of communication, is useless if there is no intended recipient. Not everything is written for the scientific record.

I specialize in infectious disease and even I don't read some of the infectious disease and immunology journals. They are written for the molecular biologist, not the general practitioner.

You can write popular science poorly or well. The fact that it is written for a particular audience doesn't automatically mean you have to compromise accuracy. You may have to sacrifice detail, but I don't think that means 'dumbing down'.

There are two things to be careful about. One is accuracy. Rarely do I see news media reporters report science accurately. That's a big problem right there. And other writers vary but many can write popular science pieces without being inaccurate.

The second thing is avoiding as much as possible, the recipients' potential to misinterpret what you are writing. That is impossible to do perfectly, and difficult to do well. But if you don't consider the recipient when you are writing, you are unlikely to succeed in communicating.

On a side note, have you seen this book? The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn (http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/04/04/editorial_wwwedit1c4.html)
:roll:

[dgruss23]

It sounds like we're in agreement beskeptical!

beskeptical wrote: On a side note, have you seen this book? The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn


I hadn't heard of that one. :roll: It reminds me of this program my children's school started this year. The whole purpose is to teach students not to pick on each other and use "conflict resolution" to work out differences. And of course there's an educational song that goes with the program to teach them things they might not have learned about without the song.

I sent a 1st grader to school thinking her glasses were cool and she came home afraid people were going to pick on her. My 3rd grade daughter thinks she doesn't need to take showers because "we don't pick on each other about things like that (body odor) in our school".

Its an admirable goal - to stop bullying - but kids need to learn how to deal with some adversity.

[Grey]

The proper reply to "Oh, but evolution is just a theory!", or "Oh, but the Big Bang is just a theory" is: What else could it be? Human beings are limited by their senses and by their lifespan. We will never be able to acquire perfect, absolute knowledge about the universe. The best we can come up with are smart guesses. Fortunately, that seems to be good enough.
This one always gets to me. In this case, the commonly used definition of theory is rather weaker than the scientific one. To a layman, "theory" can just mean "hypothesis" or even "guess". For a scientist to call something a theory, though, there has to be supporting evidence that makes at least a fairly compelling case. And there's no superior category to which theories are ever promoted. No matter how much evidence we get, a theory remains a theory, we just give it more credence.

[wedgebert]

On a side note, have you seen this book? The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn (http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/04/04/editorial_wwwedit1c4.html)
:roll:

I saw the author promote that book a few weeks ago on the Daily Show. Makes me glad I'm pretty much outta school (only 1 semester of college left and I don't even buy the books :)

I saw article about this topic a week or so ago on www.fark.com. It mentioned a particular school having to come up with a new title for the book The Old Man and the Sea. The only words that weren't deemed offensive in the title were the words "The" and "And".

Old was said to promote "ageism", Man was considered "sexist" and "Sea" was offensive to students who lived inland an might not be able to understand the concept of a large body of water.

Glad I don't have kids right now because I don't have time to home school them and there's no way they'd go to public schools with this kinda of crap.

Maybe I'd just have them visit Bad Astronomy once a day and write a paper on what they learned :)

[kilopi]

I saw article about this topic a week or so ago on www.fark.com. It mentioned a particular school having to come up with a new title for the book The Old Man and the Sea. The only words that weren't deemed offensive in the title were the words "The" and "And".
Well, that can't be serious.

Wait, you are being serious (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=98986&highlight=sea#98986).

You should be careful of what you find on the internet. But I don't have to tell you that.

[wedgebert]

Yes, I am being serious.

Here's a link to an article about this:

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=ourWorldNews&storyID=2836701

[dgruss23]

Gee, we'd better ban teaching of evolution because that might be offensive to some people's religious beliefs. And we'd better ban the Big Bang for the same reason. In fact, we'd better just number all the planets instead of giving them names because those greek gods did a lot of nasty stuff --> Saturn eating his children - wouldn't want to scare the little elementary school kids.

People have to learn how to deal with being offended! If you don't like it, you take it head on or ignore it. You can't learn either strategy if we try to stamp out every last little thing that might offend. Not to mention that pretty much anything can be offensive if you find the right person.

[wedgebert]

If you can be offended, you will be offended.

[kilopi]

Dianne Ravitch probably made it up, but I haven't read the book so I'll defer judgement until I do. She says there is exactly 500 banned words? That don't make sense.

[wedgebert]

I'm sure by saying the 500 word list, the they mean the list which contains over 500 words. I doubt she made it up, I saw her promoting her book on the Daily Show and she was most likely on a few other late night talk shows as well.

If she was making it up, there would have been some sort of backlash (plus the Daily Show would have made fun of her).

It's a shame they don't care as much about the accuracy of the textbooks. Who cares if it's wrong as long as noone is offended.

[kilopi]

I'd read that article before. It does say "the full 500-word list"--and it says that she discovered the list by accident. How's that?

[wedgebert]

Here's a link to Amazon.com's reviews of the book and Dianne's background.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0375414827/reviews/104-3720169-6504733


And here's an excerpt for the lazy showing some of the publisher guidelines.

• Women cannot be depicted as caregivers or doing
household chores.
• Men cannot be lawyers or doctors or plumbers.
They must be nurturing helpmates.
• Old people cannot be feeble or dependent; they
must jog or repair the roof.
• A story that is set in the mountains discriminates
against students from flatlands.
• Children cannot be shown as disobedient or in
conflict with adults.
• Cake cannot appear in a story because it is not
nutritious.

[g99]

Hmm...Sounds fishy or maybe a parody of something. But i really find it hard to believe. I mean come on! Gives our kids a break. Theyt will all grow up to be wimps! Get a backbone people! Shrug it off or give some back of your own.

Remeber the old idiom: "Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me?" Well mean it!

[wedgebert]

It might sound like a parody, but when it comes to how far our country will take being polictically correct, I'll bet those are pretty mild guildlines.

[beskeptical]

I think you have to put the book in perspective. There may be a national trend when it comes to available text books, but otherwise, a lot of the restrictions are very specific to different school districts.

If you go looking for extremes, you can write a pretty scary book. But, I've seen plenty of examples to recognize the Language Police brings up important issues.

[kilopi]

I've seen plenty of examples to recognize the Language Police brings up important issues.
Yes indeed, I'm a Junior Special Ops Detective (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=98437#98437) in the Language Police. We can't be too careful with our language. :)

[Hamlet]

I'd read that article before. It does say "the full 500-word list"--and it says that she discovered the list by accident. How's that?

I saw her on C-SPAN last night. She didn't discover the list by accident. It was a result of her research for the book. She had been appointed by President Clinton in 1997 to be part of an educational panel that would make recommendations about literature that should be taught and included in textbooks. A large number of their recommendations were rejected by publishing houses after they had gone through a "Bias and Sensitivity Review". She thought this was odd and began digging into how these reviews were done and what guidelines were being used.

The book came out of her research into these guidelines. I have not read the book so I don't know how well this research hold up, but I don't think she's making this up from whole cloth.

[russ_watters]

Instead of "most dramatic proofs" isn't it more appropriate to say "strongest supporting evidence"? Theories can never be "proven" - right?! I *KNOW* I covered this in the "science is a belief system..." thread. No offense, but this was one of Soup's more important misconceptions. "Proof/proven" has multiple definitions. It is NOT strictly binary - in fact it is very rarely binary. Actually (just checked) none of the 5 relevant definitions in dictionary.com require it to be binary.

In the context context of the statement you quoted, "proof" is an exact synonym for "evidence." Similarly, the statement "evolution is a proven theory" means that the body of available evidence strongly supports evolution.

I think the confusion comes in where people say "a theory can never be 100% proven." Thats almost redundant and therefore pointless. As mentioned by someone else, mathematical "proofs" are exact derivations. Thats about the only place you ever see "proven" as being a binary condition except when dealing with individual facts.
I agree that it is important to realize the distinction exists, but what are popular science writers to do when the average person doesn't understand these distinctions? Shouldn't they use the terminology that is least likely to create misunderstandings. Its called "Popular Science" because they write what SOUNDS good. "Proven" sounds stronger/better.

The proper reply to "Oh, but evolution is just a theory!", or "Oh, but the Big Bang is just a theory" is: What else could it be? That was quoted and interpreted incorrectly by soup in his thread.

[dgruss23]

russ watters wrote: I *KNOW* I covered this in the "science is a belief system..." thread. No offense, but this was one of Soup's more important misconceptions. "Proof/proven" has multiple definitions. It is NOT strictly binary - in fact it is very rarely binary. Actually (just checked) none of the 5 relevant definitions in dictionary.com require it to be binary.

In the context context of the statement you quoted, "proof" is an exact synonym for "evidence." Similarly, the statement "evolution is a proven theory" means that the body of available evidence strongly supports evolution.

It would make an interesting poll question. "What does proof mean?"
I would expect that to most proof or proven means established as 100% true with no room for doubt. That's how people use the word in everyday usage.

This is the problem. Regardless of dictionary.com or good old Websters definitions, most people think and use the words proof or proven as if there is 100% certainty attached with the word. So when a science writer says "proof" rather than "stronge evidence for", regardless of how correct a usage the former is, the latter is a better choice for avoiding misperceptions.

It might also be asked why scientists ever say - A theory cannot be "proven", it can only be "disproven". That statement is clearly false according to the actual definition of proof. A theory can be proven - if proof means "evidence". However, as stated in one chemistry textbook on my shelf:

"Theories can never be proven but they are considered successful if they can predict the results of many new experiments."

Other textbooks are less direct such as this quote from an Earth Science textbook:

"Scientific theories, like scientific hypotheses, are accepted only provisionally. It is always possible that a theory which has withstood previous testing may eventually be disproven."

So in this definition it is suggested that theories are always provisional (temporary). Theories can be disproven (shown to be false) the opposite of which the reader will naturally conclude is "shown to be true" which the text implies never happens.

So if in general usage people misunderstand the use of the word "proof", it is as much the fault of many textbooks, as any other explanations we may wish to ponder.

In fact given the above, is it really that clear that soupdragon misunderstood the use of the word proof/proven? If most people use it to mean 100% certaint to be true then isn't that an acceptable definition for the word?

Soupdragon may have misunderstood what a theory is, but I'm not so sure that the word "proof" was actually part of the problem.

[dgruss23]

Another example consistent with my previous post can be found at this (http://207.10.253.40/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_206_1&frame=top) website. Toward the end of the essay the following is stated:

"Scientists never claim that a hypothesis is "proved" in a strict sense (but sometimes this is quite legitimately claimed when using popular language), because proof is something found only in mathematics and logic, disciplines in which all logical parameters or constraints can be defined, and something that is not true in the natural world. Scientists prefer to use the word "corroborated" rather than "proved," but the meaning is essentially the same."

This is consistent with what I've been saying here. There are better choices of wording than to use variants of the word proof - even if the meanings are the same.

[beskeptical]

Popular science writers should be careful to use correct language and they most often don't. I like the term overwhelming evidence instead of 'proven'. 'Strong' evidence leaves the reader too much leeway to reject solid theories and 'proven' gives the reader the choice to discount the theory outright as a false claim.

True to science though, research into which terms would increase the understanding of science and which terms increase misunderstanding is needed. I think the educational field is moving in the direction of outcome research. Unfortunately, very few leaders in the primary educational fields, in the USA anyway, have their own grasp on science.

[dgruss23]

Popular science writers should be careful to use correct language and they most often don't. I like the term overwhelming evidence instead of 'proven'. 'Strong' evidence leaves the reader too much leeway to reject solid theories and 'proven' gives the reader the choice to discount the theory outright as a false claim.

True to science though, research into which terms would increase the understanding of science and which terms increase misunderstanding is needed. I think the educational field is moving in the direction of outcome research. Unfortunately, very few leaders in the primary educational fields, in the USA anyway, have their own grasp on science.

I'm going to look into doing this as a study in the next year or two. I've got to finish up some other papers I've been working on, but I think this is important enough to look into. Certainly it starts with education.

[russ_watters]

I would expect that to most proof or proven means established as 100% true with no room for doubt. That's how people use the word in everyday usage.

This is the problem. Regardless of dictionary.com or good old Websters definitions, most people think and use the words proof or proven as if there is 100% certainty attached with the word. So when a science writer says "proof" rather than "stronge evidence for", regardless of how correct a usage the former is, the latter is a better choice for avoiding misperceptions. Very true. This is probably why in the beginning of a trial, the lawyers have to explain the burden of proof to the jury. Generally a "preponderance of the evidence" (civil cases) is like 60% (I think) while "beyond a reasonable doubt" (criminal cases) is 95%. Thats why OJ won his criminal case but not his civil one. It might also be asked why scientists ever say - A theory cannot be "proven", it can only be "disproven". That statement is clearly false according to the actual definition of proof. A theory can be proven - if proof means "evidence". However, as stated in one chemistry textbook on my shelf: Thats using the binary definition, but yes, that does add to the problem.So in this definition it is suggested that theories are always provisional (temporary). Theories can be disproven (shown to be false) the opposite of which the reader will naturally conclude is "shown to be true" which the text implies never happens. Correct. A theory can be shown to be absolutely false, but never absolutely true. Again, this adds to the confusion. If most people use it to mean 100% certaint to be true then isn't that an acceptable definition for the word? No. The school district in Oakland wanted to start teaching "ebonics" because so many people use it, but that doesn't make it a real language. Scholars and linguists still understand the distinction. Certainly popular usage is what causes the evolution of language, but the word "proof" isn't there yet. Soupdragon may have misunderstood what a theory is, but I'm not so sure that the word "proof" was actually part of the problem. I still think it was a key if not THE key to Soup's misunderstanding. The use of absolutes suggests other absolutes - such as faith. The only way you can "believe" a theory to be 100% correct is if you use faith.

Incidentally, I agree completly with Beskeptical. But there are a lot of things the media SHOULD be doing that they do not. Don't hold your breath :wink: Dgrus, I've recommended the book before, but "Voodoo Science" has a chapter devoted to the exploitation of science by the media.

[Grey]

The school district in Oakland wanted to start teaching "ebonics" because so many people use it, but that doesn't make it a real language.
[way off topic]
Now, to be fair to the Oakland county school board, there was never an intention to teach "ebonics" as a language. Rather, the intention was to acknowledge that it's a dialect which has its own structure and grammatical rules, and try to use that understanding to help students learn standard English.
[/way off topic] :)

[dgruss23]

russ watters wrote: Very true. This is probably why in the beginning of a trial, the lawyers have to explain the burden of proof to the jury. Generally a "preponderance of the evidence" (civil cases) is like 60% (I think) while "beyond a reasonable doubt" (criminal cases) is 95%. Thats why OJ won his criminal case but not his civil one.

That’s an outstanding analogy that strikes right at the problem. There are different levels of “proof” depending upon the circumstance. Proof could mean 60% or it could mean 90%. So the problem we seem to agree on is that in standard conversational usage the word proof is taken to mean 100% certain. For example, if person says “Prove it to me”, they usually mean “Show me that what you are saying is absolutely true”.

dgruss wrote: If most people use it to mean 100% certaint to be true then isn't that an acceptable definition for the word?

russ watters wrote: No. The school district in Oakland wanted to start teaching "ebonics" because so many people use it, but that doesn't make it a real language. Scholars and linguists still understand the distinction. Certainly popular usage is what causes the evolution of language, but the word "proof" isn't there yet.

That’s an interesting example. The major caveat I have with it is that “ebonics” is not something that has spread throughout the American population. How about the slang use of the word “cool” to mean something is really neat or exciting as a different example? I looked at an early 1960’s dictionary that handily sits near my computer and it does not include the current slang definition of cool among its definitions, but it does include the slang usage of “cool million”.

If you look it up on dictionary.com you will find that both the slang definitions for “cool” listed above are offered – clearly the new slang usage is included because it is so widely used. So if proven is generally used in the context of “absolutely true” in everday speech, then shouldn’t that usage be included as an acceptable definition? We’re not talking about a localized colloquialism.

Finally a caveat on everything I just said and your statement that “Certainly popular usage is what causes the evolution of language, but the word "proof" isn't there yet". In fact we really do not actually know just what percentage of the time people mean “absolutely true” when they use words such as “proof” or “proven”. It seems to me that people generally use variants of proof this way so it may in fact be “there”. But then again maybe it isn’t. As such it is worthy of a study. I’m definitely going to put some more thought into the issue and the whole question of how science is portrayed in the media and perceived by the masses.

Anybody come across some studies on this or something closely related?

[russ_watters]

[If you look it up on dictionary.com you will find that both the slang definitions for “cool” listed above are offered – clearly the new slang usage is included because it is so widely used. So if proven is generally used in the context of “absolutely true” in everday speech, then shouldn’t that usage be included as an acceptable definition? We’re not talking about a localized colloquialism. Ehh, I'm uncomfortable with that because clearly the slang "cool" is slang, its not a misuse or misunderstaning of the other "cool." Here's a better example: ain't. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ain%27t
Usage Note: Ain't has a long history of controversy. It first appeared in 1778, evolving from an earlier an't, which arose almost a century earlier as a contraction of are not and am not. In fact, ain't arose at the tail end of an era that saw the introduction of a number of our most common contractions, including don't and won't. But while don't and won't eventually became accepted at all levels of speech and writing, ain't was to receive a barrage of criticism in the 19th century for having no set sequence of words from which it can be contracted and for being a “vulgarism,” that is, a term used by the lower classes, although an't at least had been originally used by the upper classes as well. At the same time ain't's uses were multiplying to include has not, have not, and is not, by influence of forms like ha'n't and i'n't. It may be that these extended uses helped fuel the negative reaction. Whatever the case, criticism of ain't by usage commentators and teachers has not subsided, and the use of ain't is often regarded as a sign of ignorance. ·But despite all the attempts to ban it, ain't continues to enjoy extensive use in speech. Even educated and upper-class speakers see no substitute in folksy expressions such as Say it ain't so and You ain't seen nothin' yet. ·The stigmatization of ain't leaves us with no happy alternative for use in first-person questions. The widely used aren't I? though illogical, was found acceptable for use in speech by a majority of the Usage Panel in an earlier survey, but in writing there is no acceptable substitute for the stilted am I not? Usage Panel? So there *IS* a grammar police after all!!

[kilopi]

So there *IS* a grammar police after all!!
What? You thought that dictionaries grew on trees?

[beskeptical]

Generally a "preponderance of the evidence" (civil cases) is like 60% (I think) while "beyond a reasonable doubt" (criminal cases) is 95%. Thats why OJ won his criminal case but not his civil one.

I know what you meant by your example, but I don't think reasonable doubt was the reason OJ got off. There were many factors involved, one of which was the poor understanding of potential vs. impossible errors in a DNA analyses. And, I think the lack of command of the science by the prosecutors, themselves, made their presentations to the jury about that science ineffective.

[beskeptical]

The school district in Oakland wanted to start teaching "ebonics" because so many people use it, but that doesn't make it a real language.
[way off topic]
Now, to be fair to the Oakland county school board, there was never an intention to teach "ebonics" as a language. Rather, the intention was to acknowledge that it's a dialect which has its own structure and grammatical rules, and try to use that understanding to help students learn standard English.
[/way off topic] :)

Yes, and it allowed the teaching staff to address the gramatical problems with sentences like, "I be good", without setting up the 'us and them' dichotomy that inhibited learning. In other words, recognizing the person's worth rather than making a child feel inferior.

[dgruss23]

This is an important point made in th "ain't" discussion:

The stigmatization of ain't leaves us with no happy alternative for use in first-person questions.

The difference here is that ain't is not acceptable for everyday conversation unless the point is to sound cute or ignorant. Note that the link calls this non-standard usage. The question that needs to be answered is whether or not "proven" is used to mean "absolutely true" frequently enough in general conversation to make it deserving of being recognized as an official definition.

Proven is not slang and yes the slang for cool is a totally different meaning, but my point about the example with "cool" was simply that when the usage of a word - slang or otherwise - becomes widespread and accepted, the language police may in fact add the new usage to the list of definitions.

[informant]

When people say that "Mr. X was proven guilty of crime Y", do they mean 100%-sure "proof"?

My point: I feel that even in non-scientific speech people associate varying degrees of certainty with the words "proof" and "prove".