theARTIST0017 said:
I know what a scientific theory is. Actually it is not an explanation of a series of facts. It theorizes based on observations and concepts. Then After it stands the "test of time" it becomes generally accepted. In the sciences, a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as aprinciple or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena. |
I'm sorry, but you more or less said that I'm wrong, then cited a definition of scientific theory which states "A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena", which is pretty much what I said.
Besides, I'm fully aware that a theory has to conform to the evidence when theories are challenged (because how would they become more correct otherwise?). And I think that goes without saying when I say the explanation is based on the evidence. When new evidence is introduced, the explanation has to change. I think I've repeated myself enough in the past on the definition of a theory though.
Either way it is an ad hominem attack. You decide to try and attack my credibility at the end when I corrected you; instead of offering a rebuttal to the facts that I gave you, which is what you were interested in in the first place.
