platypus writes:
I just don't think it's as clear cut as we'd like it to be.
Of course it's not clear-cut when you include examples that span over four centuries of scientific work, in which time our very philosophy, let alone usage of terminology, has evolved and changed considerably. Also, you have multiple fields of science that don't often interact with each other, and so, develop different strategies and terminologies. And, you have the media tacking "theory" on the end of anything scientific.
Then, you get stuff like this:
platypus writes:
..but they're engineering theories (is that different from scientific?)
I don't know about engineering, but music has "theories," too. So does comparative literature. These are quite different from scientific theories: they describe methodologies of writing and composing, not definitive principles about the subject matter.
---
As Rahvin said, a scientific theory is a model to explain the facts. But, if the model doesn't explain the facts, you can't call it a theory. And, if it isn't tested thoroughly enough, you can't say it explains the facts (new facts come up all the time). So, a theory has three prerequisites:
1. Explains facts about the universe
2. Holds up to testing
3. Makes predictions about as-yet undiscovered facts
And, as I stated in that thread, science doesn't make anything better than that.
platypus writes:
And Einstein developed the Theory of General Relativity to explain some wierd phenomena about light, not to explain a diversity of scientific facts. In fact, true verification for the theory came after its introduction.
I don't know much about the history of physics, but are you sure that it was called a theory before it was verified? Further, are you sure that the word "theory" meant the same thing in Einstein's time as it does now?
And, wasn't it Special Relativity that was meant to explain weird stuff about light, and General Relativity that consolidated Special Relativity and Newton's Laws?
I'm Thylacosmilus.
Darwin loves you.
™ Version 4.2
