Ok what I thought a theory was was an idea which scientists have come up with based on fact but it has yet to be proven as fact. So when I say theory that is what I mean (sorry for not going into the dictionary).
Sorry, when you talk about science, you must use the language of science. If everyone uses their own words, then we get all kinds of misunderstandings. (like Global Warming, Evolution, etc)
Quick Primer on the scientific method:
1) An observation is made or a question is thought up.
2) Research ensues to see if someone else has asked the question, made the observation, or otherwise made comments or experiments on the topic.
3) Questioner forms a hypothesis. This is an educated guess and must be both simple and very, very specific. Global Warming is caused by Carbon Dioxide is not a hypothesis. It is not specific enough. Something better would be: A 1 degree rise in average global temperature is caused by a 150ppmm rise in global CO2 levels.
4) An experiment is designed and performed. Now, when we say experiment, remember this isn't CSI. Some of the researchers I know have been working on the same experiment for 20 years!
5) The researcher analyzes data produced by the experiment. This is a non-trivial exercise. For example, the Large Hadron Collider will produce 700 or megabytes of data PER SECOND. Every byte will have to be analyzed and compared to other bytes, statistical analyzes run, etc, etc, etc. That's an extreme example, but not that unusual.
6) Then the researchers writes it all up, with his data, his math, his software (if unique), and sends it to a peer-reviewed journal.
7) The journal finds several other scientists who's job it is to find every mistake in the paper that they can. They will pick apart the entire paper, every bit of data, redo all the math multiple times and compare the conclusions in the paper to all of the above. Most peer-reviewed journals have a rejection rate above 50%. Nature (a premiere journal) has a rejection rate above 90%.
8) When the research is published, then scientists investigating similar areas come out of the woodwork and start picking the conclusions and the paper apart.
9) Then, if the conclusion really describes something useful, and survives everything that is thrown at it, and performs some other functions (especially predicting results of similar experiments), then after decades of consideration, it might start to be called a theory.
Keep in mind that some of the work Einstein did is only now being scrutinized and his major work was done almost 90 years ago.
That is why I get offended by people who think science is easy, or a waste of time, or what they read in the newspaper. One professor I know has been growing
E. coli in his lab for over 20 years. He has tens of thousands of cultures. He's had hundreds of graduate students working on these projects. He and his students have written hundreds of papers. His lab has been the forefront of this type of work for 15 years. And some newspaper writer dismisses his latest paper as 'pseudo scientific junk, because the paper's conclusion offends the writer prejudices. A writer who has, maybe, taken two freshman level science classes... if they didn't go to liberal arts university.
Now, I'm not telling you that scientists are epitome of truthfulness and always right and always perfect. Any scientist will be the first to tell you that 90% of their hypothesizes end up being wrong. A true scientist will be the first to change his mind when additional evidence appears. A true scientist will argue his side until he's blue in the face and then tomorrow, after reading another paper.
That is why I insist on published, peer-reviewed papers. That is why I insist on a great deal of evidence. That is why I'm having this discussion with you now.
Because most Americans do not understand science. It scares them because it's hard and it goes against what they want to believe. Truth is hard and we aren't used to it.
