Often in conversations with non-specialists one hears the phrase "Well, this is just a theory." This sentence immediately shows how far the person pronouncing it is from science.
What's the matter? The problem here is semantic - scientists and ordinary people mean different things by the word "theory". For the layman, theory is something remote from life, abstract, speculative. Like, there is a theory, but there is practice. "In theory" means that the person did not try to verify what was said in practice.
A theory in the terminology of a scientist is a system of ideas that already includes practice. And not just practice, but Practice with a capital letter - a huge array of experimental data obtained by different laboratories independently of each other in various institutes around the world. If a system of ideas in the scientific world is called a theory, it means that a large number of scientists are aware of it and support it.
If there is little or no practice, then the system of ideas is called a hypothesis. “Hypothetically” is a synonym for the philistine “In theory”. As the experimental confirmation of the hypothesis grows, it turns into theory. Theory has predictive power - with the help of it you can predict the results of certain phenomena. The predictive power proves the theory is correct.
The theory has the highest level of confidence. There is nothing more reliable than theories in science. Gravity, electro-magnetic interactions, atoms, genetic code, evolution and so on - they are all described by theories.
- Aha! - the man in the street will scream, triumphantly pointing his finger at the narrator. - But what about the laws? You forgot about the laws, scientist-soaked!
Laws are nothing more than slang. Sometimes theory and law are synonymous. The law does not have a higher level of confidence than theory. For example, Newton's laws are a special case of theories of quantum and relativistic mechanics, that is, on the contrary, simplification and approximation of the theory.
Never say "This is just a theory." This sounds very silly in the ears of a specialist. It is even more stupid when the layman tries to oppose a full-fledged scientific theory to his own private opinion. Opinions can be shared, but not imposed. For a scientist to gain weight, an opinion must first be formulated as a hypothesis, and then enough evidence must be collected to turn it into a theory. Let's be a little smarter than poking ourselves in the chest and shouting "No, it's me - I'm right, and all scientists are fools and don't see the obvious!" For starters, try to at least understand the theories that you are trying to refute. Each theory hides the painstaking work of hundreds and thousands of researchers, and not just a question of your pride.
Promotional video:
