How can we define "Theory"?

[showmyiq]

"Theory" in science is called math and/or logical explanation or description of a set of events or phenomena, or their model. In this sense "theory" is called a hypothesis, which has been confirmed or established by observation or experimentation and accepted as a statement of certain facts; a statement of something considered a basic law, a principle or cause of known or observed phenomenon. One theory is able to predict future events or observations of the same kind and can be subjected to tests through experimentation, in consequence of which can be confirmed or refuted (not confirmed). It follows that for people dealing with science, the concepts of "theory" and "fact" is not opposable. A theory in science a hypothesis is confirmed by the facts.

The presence of not explained phenomena shows that a particular scientific theory does not give a satisfactory model by which to explain or provide exactly these consequences. For example, wave theory on the nature of light does not explain the photoelectric effect, although successfully provides the results of the experiment with two vents (showing diffraction of light). Later theories based on quantum mechanics, give appropriate explanations and model of both phenomena.

A logical error is to argue that once a phenomenon is unpredictable in this scientific theory, it better theory can be formulated to explain the phenomenon. If you offer as an explanation the supernatural action of God, in this case it comes to an argument of the type God of the fields (in knowledge).

On the other hand, the logical wrong is to assume that once a theory explains all known phenomena, it must be true. The fact that there are no known facts that are opposed to a theory, is not in itself proof of the correctness of the theory (as Karl Popper). There is always the possibility to exist some still not explained phenomenon which does not fit into the theory. For example, there is not a known phenomenon, which contradicts the big bang theory. This is by no means definitive proof that the origin of the universe is the result of the big bang.

Often the scientific community has come under criticism. Scientists normally are expressed and act as though one theory (e.g. the big bang) is finally correct. In support of scientists, however, comes the clean practicality — although by pure logical perspective the admission of allegiance is wrong, it is absolutely impractical (if not impossible) to plan the experiment or to evaluate the data, in the absence of any assumptions. Science needs some set of fundamental assumptions on which to stand to be developed.