Comment: Actually, "theory" does not

(See in situ)


Actually, "theory" does not

Actually, "theory" does not mean an unproven hypothesis. That is not how scientists use the word. A theory is simply a collection of ideas that explain how various observations relate to one another, and its status may range from wildly speculative to established fact, or at least as established as anything can be in science. Thus we have the Theory of General Relativity, so well established that your GPS unit relies upon its calculations. And we have the even more solidly established Theory of Classical Electrodynamics, given by Maxwell's equations along with the Lorentz force. This theory has been used by engineers for over a century to make everything from power plants to, again, GPS units. We have Group Theory, a collection of mathematical definitions and theorems that are as solidly established as anything human devised can be.

When people say that evolution is "just a theory" I am willing to concede that that is so... its just a theory in the same sense that classical electrodynamics is just a theory. In other words, good enough to be regarded as a fact.

Now string theory is in fact highly speculative. It has successfully explained some conundrums about information loss in black holes but hasn't yet produced predictions that can be tested by experiment.