I am writing this as I am also a follower of a facebook page “I Fucking Love Science” or IFLS, the home of the pseudo-scientists. The page consists mostly of evolutionary/creationist and climate change rhetoric, but sometimes they do have some scientific articles, so I “grin and bear”…

The basis of “modern science” appears to be observation and as an example I am including the following quotes, from the first two pages you find when you search the term “scientific theory”. Measurements take the back seat.

Wikipedia:

“A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.”

Live Science:

“Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts.

An important part of scientific theory includes statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton’s theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently.”

As an example, I am going to take the well-known internet discussion of “Is this dress gold/white, or is it blue black. Everyone had their opinions, all of which were based on their observations. But there is a huge problem with regard to observations. “Person A” is sitting in a dark room with his monitor’s settings adjusted to whatever is comfortable for his/her eyes, while “person B” is sitting in a well lit room, with the monitor adjusted so the he/she can at least see the images. Already the observations will vary. As I disagreed with most of the opinions given, I took a screen-shot and measured with software, the RGB values and came to the conclusion based on measurement (which interestingly did not correspond with most of what the others “observed” – although it did correspond with what I personally observed). The measurements indicated a brownish and blueish colour. So firstly the colours (observations) were interpreted incorrectly by roughly 99.9% of the populace (internet-based), which also means that any further analysis would be flawed.

The bad part of this is that we as humans will also design and develop measuring tools that accurately reflect our inaccurate observations. There is always that bias to enforce our own observations through a measurement that corresponds with what we see. “Seeing is believing”.

Now most of the arguments against opposing views include statement like, “You are an idiot, scientific theory is not “just a theory”, “Hahaha, I can’t believe that in 2015 people still don’t believe in evolution”, etc. A large number of similar responses accompany most of these articles. The same level of argument can also be found in articles about climate change and how the human influence is so extreme that we can override the forces of nature, including the influence of the sun. There is very little proof, if any supplied in any of these responses. The main tactic to address disagreement from the “observation science” supporters are attempts at ridicule, as they specifically do not have factual arguments at their disposal. A true scientist would answer with facts, test results, measurements, and good supporting arguments. He/she would also attempt to educate and share knowledge. Very little of that can be seen in any of the discussions. My view is that the level of discussion is sub-standard compared to what one would expect from a scientific community. There are very few objective thinkers and it is mostly indicative of a brainwashed society, most of whom also only fall into step, for fear of the ridicule. The ridicule and insults which appear to be their only defence to their own weak arguments.Our “scientific” community is filled with weak-minded, non-thinking, conformist followers.

Many, if not most of us have seen an illusionist in action at some stage of our lives, yet we believe what we see? Ten witnesses to a crime, all standing at a similar location on the scene when the crime is being committed will have ten different versions of the exact same events, yet we believe what we see? “If we did not see it, it is not real”, which is not a statement, but a question. Can we really believe what we see (observe)?

Which bring us back to the beginning of this post. What is scientific theory? Scientific theory is a theory, which is supported by inaccurate observations, biased measurements and human fallibility. It is expanded on by human limitations to thought and arguments, which is already based on imperfect theories and deductions. Where the gaps cannot be filled, the theory like any other makes use of assumptions.

So yes, scientific theory is just a theory, like any other theory.

Again I quote from Wikipedia, but only referring to the general definition of a theory.

“Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works.”

This also confirms its status as a theory. If it is not a theory, what is it then? A fantasy?