It astounds me that so many people have not learned that, in the realm of science, certain words have different meanings than everyday usage. The distinction between a "theory" and a "scientific theory" is an extremely important one to understand. So, I thought I'd start a thread to invite discussion on this topic.
"Theory" = a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Scientific Theory" = a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method aand repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.
I think it is a mistake to think there is a absolute boundary between "theory" and "scientific theory". I would agree that the scientific method means that it is far superior to other methods in establishing a correspondance between our ideas and the objective world, thereby demonstrating that these are ideas are- in a working definition- "true".
Science is however a product of the long history of ideas. It wasn't until the late 19th century that science became a distinct discipline from philosophy and certian strands of natural theology. Science, rather than being a hobby for the wealthy elite and the well-educated who could fund there own interests and studies, became a profession. this professionalisation of science meant that there had to be clear definitions of what science is. philosophers of science in the 20th century spent most of their time explaining "why science works". In our time, science has come under sustained scruitiny from many areas, particuarly from religious groups, as well as "post-modernist" social scientists who assert science is a "social construct" that has no special monopoly on truth. In someways, that represents a retreat back to the more philosophical understanding of science in the 19th century, but it is often rarely presented as such.
Whilst science is clearly a superior method, it's cliam to superiority must be demonstrated in practice by reproducing natural phenenoma, particuarly in a laboratory environment but it can be done in other contexts too. this is why evidence is so important, but not all philosophical challanges to science are illegitimate. it is important to take into account that there are philosophical issues behind this and the superiority of science is not a given. science, unlike revealed religion, has to
earn its authority. unqualified support for science is as dogmatic as that of religion, even if the ideas being defended may still be correct. "popular science" has an unfortunate effect as mis-representing science in simplistic terms, and science education is generally poor as it consists in a repetition of facts rather than the ability to demonstrate them through our own observations. this is a weakness which makes it
easier to attack science because we have such a poor understanding of what it is.
that's my only hesitation to the OP but otherwise I am in full agreement.