Comment: actually I beg to differ:

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Actually, "theory" does not (see in situ)

actually I beg to differ:

I specifically put parentheses to denote that often an operative 'theory' is just an unproven but merely accepted consensus, and not necessarily even a "proven hypothesis," but merely an un-proven one (sometimes referred to as a "provisional hypothesis").

So no, apropos of diction clarity: the scientific definition of a "theory" IS a "proven hypothesis."

Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory.

"Scientific Theory vs. Scientific Hypothesis"

A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.

Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory.

A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested. In contrast, a scientific theory has undergone extensive testing and is generally accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation.[1] A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.[2]

Here's a more simplified definition explanation for "Scientific THEORY":

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2]

Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy.

As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]

I think you're trying to define a term with its accepted implications of consensus, not a diction definition.

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.

Actually, what you stated here: "A theory is simply a collection of ideas that explain how various observations relate to one another" CAN be an acceptable 'scientific' definition for the term "hypothesis," but NOT "theory."

To wit: Key sentence

Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy.

"Theory" is proven "hypothesis" AFTER it has been confirmed via rigorous "Scientific Method";

To understand something previously 'unknown' or not understood well:

1. observe
2. formulate a hypothesis
3. test/experiment to confirm or disprove the said hypothesis
4. once confirmed and the results can be repeated, then the structural principle in which those results were able to be tested/confirmed/repeated becomes a temporary, operative theory (a proven hypothesis)

I say "temporary," because the next physicist who comes along, after the last Nobel laureate dies off, comes up with a new "theory" about the basis of the universe...one that has long existed long before us, one which we have NO definitive manner of proving how it came to be in the first place, with operative paradigms and 'rules' that we MAYBE able to observe in one manner or another, but ones we do not know for 100% WHY they are the way they are. Thus the cycle of constant 'discovery,' readjusting definitions, fix, ditch, hypothesize, theorize, lull, recycle, happens over and over by an inherently subjective bio-organism, pretending, at 'our' very best to be as 'objective' as possible.

It's a tall imperfect order, I tell ya!

lol.)

So yes, to make a long blurb short: in fact, I'd submit that, that IS how "scientists" do use that term, because they actually DO use it in that manner, with clear distinction between the two terms.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul