Here's a good explanation: http://notjustatheory.com/
The author wrote this to rebuttle creationist arguments, but it's a good explanation for what any scientific theory is, not just evolution.
Putin khuliyo
People often think that a theory is something that hasn't been thoroughly proven and tested, when in many cases, it has. See: The theory of global warming, gravity, round earth, etc.
No theory can ever become a fact in science, but it can be thoroughly supported by research evidence.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
Hypothesis is frequently presented as fact, until you argue a person down until to such a point that they innocently declare "Oh, sorry? This was just a hypothesis. It's not what I think, not at all". That's my hypothesis about hypotheses. You may wish to go for a more technical definition.
Actually it doesn't. It orbits the Solar System's centre of mass, which can be "outside" of the Sun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycen...28astronomy%29
---------- Post added 2012-11-19 at 03:24 PM ----------
It's a fact (though a simplified one). Observable and verifiable. Why that happens and mechanics that govern it - that's a theory.
If it is observable and verifiable it is a fact. What happened and how it happened so that you could observe it is theory (a tested and peer approved hypothesis about those events)
This isn't true. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that is accepted as fact due to the overwhelming evidence to support it. All science is approached in a way so as to be falsifiable or modified if the evidence indicates it should be.
For example it is accepted as fact that modern humans first appeared around 200k years ago. However, evidence showing that it was actually earlier than that could possibly be found. It just hasn't despite the overwhelming amount of research done in this field. The more evidence fails to falsify it the more solid the fact becomes. This is how all science is structured. Everything can be falsified. Doesn't mean it will be but if the evidence is there it could be.
I realize that to the lay person facts that have the potential to be disproved must not be really facts. Science must be approached this way though so as to leave everything open to improving our understanding and modifying the way we think or approach about a given phenomena.
That's a good question but not exactly how it works. We accept certain things as fact because of evidence supporting it. The hypothesis is what becomes fact not the actual data itself.
For example, what is supported as fact is that our bodies are comprised of trillions of individually functioning cells. The fact is that hypothesis not the cells themselves. Microscopes help us physically see the cells, the data or evidence, and confirm the hypothesis as fact.
We can then build on that conclusion and hypothesize that in order for all these individual cells to function as one body, or even a single organ, they would also have to somehow be communication with each other. Through the field of Biochemistry we can actually observe cells using chemicals to do this. The fact is that cells communicate with each other via chemicals not the chemicals themselves.
Does that make sense?
I agree. The expansion of the universe is pretty much an observation, unless we can think of a mechanism by which all galaxies feel a repulsive force respect to our own galaxy that is proportional to the distance between.
The Big Bang is a theory. The expansion is a fact.
To play the devil's advocate, we observe the fact of red shift in light from distant galaxies, and explain it with the theory that space is expanding. Though by the same logic we observe as facts stellar aberration/parallax etc, and explain it with the theory that the earth rotates around the sun.
So I don't really get what distinction Netherspark is making here either.
Down, relative to earth, is defined as towards the center of the planet. So no, they wouldn't disagree, because things still appear to fall in the same direction relative to their position. It's not like if you dropped an apple in China it would behave differently than it does in Colorado.