First off, using simple words is not a misstatement.
What is a scientific theory?
From Mr. Google: In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.
You'll notice the scientific method was not specifically mentioned. Doesn't mean it's not important. The scientific method is how we go about devising and conducting the experiments to test the hypotheses.
From Britannica: People also ask
What is meaning of scientific theory?
In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.
You'll notice again that the scientific method was not specifically mentioned.
From Dictionary.com:
noun
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:
the scientific theory of evolution.
Still not mentioned.
From Wikipedia: A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]
Ah. Here we go. The scientific method is finally specifically mentioned. Vindication, am I right?
But wait. What's that at the end of that paragraph? What I'd our old friend Wikipedia on about? Abductive reasoning? That's allowed????
Yep. Sure is. Turns out the scientific method, while an integral part of good science, cannot always be used, either for ethical or pragmatic reasons, etc. In such cases, abductive reasoning is used instead.
So we can talk about scientific theory WITHOUT specifically mentioning the scientific method and said theory is just as valid using abductive reasoning as one that employee the scientific method. Indeed most theories use both, either directly, or indirectly by building on prior work.
The more complex the system, the more we tend to rely on abductive reasoning. In the case of life sciences and by the very nature of life itself we rely on abductive rrasoning more because life exists within ranges rather than absolutes. A sassafras leaf can have 1 to 3 lobes and still be a sassafras leaf. A wolf can be solid white or solid black or anywhere in-between and still be a wolf.
There are a lot fewer constants in life sciences than physical sciences. Methodology when studying life must take that into account. That doesn't make the discipline a conspiracy or invalidate the methods. Using abductive reasoning is within the bounds of the dictionary definition of scientific theory by every reputable source I've ever seen. All the heavy hitters agree.
As for your second issue.... You slandered two people with falsehoods. You maligned a fellow teacher with your false accusations or, at best, misrepresentations of their work. And now, with all the audacity of a coddled and pampered princeling you want to claim my argument is invalid because it "hurt your feelings". What is it you boys always say? Facts don't care about your feelings, Max. ;-)
You certainly never gave a thought to theirs while you were dissing on them, did you? Your bio claims you're a physics teacher. So yes, I will absolutely question the integrity and professionalism of someone in such a critical role when I see such behavior. As anyone should, especially those of us with children.
