"formula" > "theory"?

[Victor Steinbok]

I don't see any problems with this. If you watch various TV dramas where
"scientists" are prominent--e.g., a crime drama where a scientist kills
someone to prevent exposure of his theory as junk science--invariably,
the theories are represented by some folmula scribbles and perhaps a
handful of pictures. This is particularly the case when the "science" is
physics. Why should cartoons treat it differently?

When the issue is some secret product, it is invariably a single
chemical formula, not the process of obtaining the substance it
represents (never mind that if you see the formula on the screen, you're
bound to die in a fit of laughter if you recognize what it actually is).
Watching Terminator at MIT was always hilarious because the nerds would
immediately spot that the supposed calibration images in the
Terminator's eyes were bits of Z80 assembly code--certainly nothing
close to advanced bionic machinery self-callibration. After that, no one
really cared about the rest of the film. I am not convinced any of that
stuff is mildly interesting or of any language concern.

     VS-)

On 7/21/2012 4:52 PM, Wilson Gray wrote:
> Characters in a kiddie 'toon write formulas - well, random
> mathematical symbols - on a blackboard - obsolete; yeah, I know - and
> refer to them as "theories."
>
>
>
>
> --
> -Wilson

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org