Fidel Scratching His Head

[snoopy]

"What makes Carl Zeiss lenses so popular?" - Josh

Haha! I have no idea about the popularity of microscope lenses. But I imagine value, as in the price, quality and reliability, as well as word of mouth, advertising, etc, would have some effect on that.

[cozy]

re:

_Quote from Cody: “All observations are theory laden.”
_
I don’t believe this to be the case.

So, uh. Can you give me an example of an observation that isn't theory laden?

Another way to put it is "there are no perfect observations." There is no perfect capture of reality. There is no measurement of reality that is not infallible. If you say that observations aren't theory-laden, to me, you're saying that the observation is infallible. Perhaps this is where the misunderstanding comes from? If you're arguing that there are infallible observations, that's a metaphysical claim.

This is because reality isn't something that can be captured by a single [observation, frame, dataset, set of evidence, measurement, whatever].

On the quantum level, regardless of what you're favorite theory is, all of the theories agree that you can't just capture reality with a single measurement. And, basically, they are all studying the "Why?" for that. Based on the interferometer experiments, and the chapter linked here titled 'Shadows' from The Fabric of Reality, I think the "Many Worlds Interpretation" is the nearest to the truth and our best explanation.

[snoopy]

_"So, uh. Can you give me an example of an observation that isn't theory laden?" - Cody

_Yes. All of them. Not a single observation in the history of observations has ever come pre-packaged with a theory. Modern scientific theories come at the very end of what is a VERY long process.

1. Observation: It all starts with observation - scientists observe a phenomenon or a set of phenomena in the natural world. These observations can be made through experiments, fieldwork, or even just by noticing patterns in existing data.

2. Hypothesis Formation: Based on these observations, scientists formulate a hypothesis, which is a proposed explanation for the observed phenomena. A hypothesis is a testable statement that can be either supported or refuted through experimentation and observation.

3. Prediction: A good hypothesis will lead to testable predictions. These predictions are specific statements about what will happen under certain conditions if the hypothesis is correct.

4. Experimentation: Scientists design and conduct experiments or gather additional data to test the predictions derived from the hypothesis. The experiments should be carefully controlled to minimize the influence of confounding variables and to ensure that the results are reliable.

5. Analysis: The data collected from the experiments are then analyzed to determine whether they support or refute the hypothesis. This analysis involves statistical tests and other methods to assess the strength of the evidence.

6. Peer Review: Before any conclusions are drawn, the results of the experiments are typically subjected to peer review. This means that other scientists in the same field critically evaluate the experimental methods, results, and conclusions. Peer review helps to ensure the quality and validity of the research.

7. Publication: If the experiments support the hypothesis and the findings withstand peer review, the results are typically published in a scientific journal. Publication allows other scientists to learn about the research and to potentially replicate the experiments themselves.

8. Validation and Replication: For a hypothesis to become a scientific theory, the results need to be validated and replicated by independent researchers. Replication of results by different scientists using different methods and in different contexts strengthens the evidence in support of the hypothesis.

9. Theory Formation: If a hypothesis has withstood extensive testing and scrutiny over time, and if it consistently and accurately explains a wide range of phenomena, it may be elevated to the status of a scientific theory. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is based on a body of evidence and has stood up to repeated and rigorous testing and scrutiny.

In summary, you can't have a bunch of #9's in the #1's.

[snoopy]

"Another way to put it is "there are no perfect observations." There is no perfect capture of reality. There is no measurement of reality that is not infallible. If you say that observations aren't theory-laden, to me, you're saying that the observation is infallible. Perhaps this is where the misunderstanding comes from? If you're arguing that there are infallible observations, that's a metaphysical claim." - Cody

It appears to me that you may be misunderstanding modern scientific methods. I wouldn't say there are NO perfect observations because that would depend on what is required to make a perfect assessment. The broader the assessment, the easier it is to make a perfect claim. I observe a wounded child, bleeding from her head as she crawls out of a wreckage of a car. I claim that I saw a wounded child, bleeding from her head as she crawls out of a wreckage of a car. Later, photos taken of the scene, along with other observers, confirm my claim. My claim is unassailable and can be taken as perfect fact. Not only is this a perfect observation, it also has no theories in it.

However, the more detailed I get is where "perfect" will break down. Was the wounded girl wearing dark blue shoes, or black? The observation is inaccurate, but the inaccuracy is inconsequential to the important information of the observation. Inaccurate is a better word that infallible because colloquially we reserve that word for Gods, Bibles and dogma.

So in summary, no, I'm not arguing that there are infallible observations. I am arguing that observations have varying degrees of inaccuracy, depending on how refined or how broad the subsequent claim is. In the car accident analogy above. the broadest claim would be "I was on a street corner when it happened". Refining the claim is where the inaccuracies creep in ("She was wearing blue shoes!").

[snoopy]

"On the quantum level, regardless of what you're favorite theory is, all of the theories agree that you can't just capture reality with a single measurement. And, basically, they are all studying the "Why?" for that." - Cody

You have a fallacy of equivocation here, where the term "theory" is used in two different senses. In the first instance, it's used to refer to various interpretations or models in quantum physics, while in the second instance, it's used more colloquially to mean a conjecture or hypothesis. This equivocation can lead to confusion or misinterpretation of your argument. Additionally, your statement appears to contain a generalization or oversimplification, which is assuming that all interpretations of quantum theory agree on the inability to capture reality with a single measurement, which might not necessarily be the case.

I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying that your claim is fallacious, and for that reason, impossible to respond to.

As for the "quantum level", I'll leave you with this quote...

"If you claim you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics" - physicist Richard Feynman

[snoopy]

I'm not nearly smart enough to discuss the inner workings of quantum mechanics.  However the following needs to be said and kept in mind.

_"Quantum mechanics does not break the laws of physics; rather, it expands our understanding of physical phenomena at the atomic and subatomic levels. It is a fundamental theory in physics that describes the behavior of nature at and below the scale of atoms. Classical physics, which deals with macroscopic phenomena, is actually derived from quantum mechanics as an approximation valid at larger scales.

Quantum mechanics introduces concepts like wave-particle duality, the uncertainty principle, and quantization of energy, which may seem to conflict with everyday experiences but do not violate physical laws. Instead, they reveal that the behavior of particles at quantum scales is very different from what we observe at macroscopic scales. " - Quantum physicists who actually do this shit, not me_

[cozy]

Not a single observation in the history of observations has ever come pre-packaged with a theory.

Right, I’m trying to explain how they all do. But it’s not coming across and you haven’t provided an example of a pure, perfect, observation yet.

All observations come with a way to observe. Those ways to observe are all theory-laden, so the observation is also theory-laden. Ways to observe are also called senses, even tools which observe things must also pass through our senses. There’s no observation that doesn’t also come with interpretation, these are synonymous with one another. Surely you can agree that our senses are easily mistaken. So, how does one observe something without senses?

You did give me one example of what you consider a perfect observation:

I observe a wounded child, bleeding from her head as she crawls out of a wreckage of a car. I claim that I saw a wounded child, bleeding from her head as she crawls out of a wreckage of a car. Later, photos taken of the scene, along with other observers, confirm my claim. My claim is unassailable and can be taken as perfect fact. Not only is this a perfect observation, it also has no theories in it.

You saw the car crash with your eyes, and you perhaps heard it, smelled it even? Those are all senses. They can all be mistaken. You can be tricked. People are tricked all the time at the movies, it’s fun, and it’s getting easier to trick people every day.

Perhaps for reasons of insurance fraud, or maybe someone wants the fake the death of their child, they could create an elaborate scene to appear as if it were an accident.

One could also imagine in the future that the Neurolink chip advances to such a state that it can directly interface with the parts of your brain that taken in various stimuli (photons hitting your retina, molecules hitting your olfactory receptors, sound waves vibrating your tympanic membrane, etc.)

Also, just more generally: what if it just looked like a little girl. Did you check to see if she had large gametes? What if it wasn’t blood, but ketchup?

Also, it’s likely a bird was flying by, but you didn’t mention that. There are lots of things going on that we ignore, so your observation is incomplete. Those parts you didn’t pay attention to may be really important for using that observation to solve a problem, but there’s no way to return to the scene exactly as it was and pause it. Those reasons for observing are part of the observation, because your observation is also what you choose to ignore (that’s how stage magic works).

So, this example of a perfect observation you’ve provided is full of theories.

So, again, I ask, please give me an example of an observation that isn’t theory-laden. An observation that isn’t filled with guesses.

[snoopy]

"You saw the car crash with your eyes, and you perhaps heard it, smelled it even? Those are all senses. They can all be mistaken. You can be tricked. People are tricked all the time at the movies, it’s fun, and it’s getting easier to trick people every day." - Cody

I could go further. The paramedics showed up and logged records. The media covered the incident. The hospital where the girl was taken has detailed information on her injuries, including MRI, X-rays, etc. The insurance company later has claims filed by the parents with supporting documents. The girl's recovery program has records. She carries scars for the rest of her life as evidence of her trauma. I can provide everything you need to falsify my claim. At some point my claim, unless you're intending to gaslight everyone who's thoroughly examined, verified and tested the evidence, will become an accepted fact. I observed what I said I observed.

Your point that all can be mistaken and that we can be tricked is correct. This is why we use the scientific method I pointed out before. By the time the rigorous falsification process has reached a point where the preponderance of evidence eventually reduces the likelihood of being tricked to 0.xxx%...at which point a scientific theory is born, or in my example, a fact has been determined.

So sure. We can all be tricked, fooled and mistaken. But how likely that is that the case? That's a very important question. It's not an equal chance in all situations. Also, certain individuals are more susceptible and less susceptible, depending on their upbringing, occupation and education, etc.

[snoopy]

"Also, it’s likely a bird was flying by, but you didn’t mention that. There are lots of things going on that we ignore, so your observation is incomplete. Those parts you didn’t pay attention to may be really important for using that observation to solve a problem, but there’s no way to return to the scene exactly as it was and pause it. Those reasons for observing are part of the observation, because your observation is also what you choose to ignore (that’s how stage magic works)." - Cody

I already addressed this...

_"I wouldn't say there are NO perfect observations because that would depend on what is required to make a perfect assessment. The broader the assessment, the easier it is to make a perfect claim...However, the more detailed I get is where "perfect" will break down. Was the wounded girl wearing dark blue shoes, or black?" - Fidel

_

[snoopy]

"So, this example of a perfect observation you’ve provided is full of theories." - Cody

As far as the scientific method I referred to, there are zero theories in the statement made from the observation. You can try to name one. I'd show you that you'd be wrong.

Let me try to approach this a little differently. I don't think that anyone really cares or should be concerned about perfection in their observations of the world around them. Humans have evolved over millions of years with imperfections in perception coming along for the ride. But remarkably, we have also figured out some shit that reliably works time and time again. In daily life, we humans have no choice but to rely on our senses to observe the world around us. For the most part, and for the average human being, those senses are fairly accurate, at least accurate enough that achievements in infrastructure of human civilizations is proving robust, reliable and ever improving, albeit not "perfectly"...but then again I already said we need not be concerned about perfection.

So to just say that our senses are unreliable, while having some truth in it, is also misleading. Unreliable to what point? To what degree our senses are unreliable varies by the individual as much as it varies by the situation. A chimpanzee eating a banana could be fooled and actually be eating a hairbrush. But how likely is that to be the case? Due to everything that has been discovered about these primates(we know they like bananas, we have records of banana eatings by chimpanzees for thousands of years, we have pictures and videos of chimpanzees eating bananas, almost everyone around us has seen a chimpanzee eat a banana) we can say to an extremely high degree of certainty that that chimp is justified in believing it's eating and tasting a banana.

Our senses aren't perfect but most mundane observations we encounter in daily life do not require it. A high degree of reliability is sufficient. Questioning your senses at every turn would be foolish and a waste of time. If you don't see Darren Brown hanging around your dining table, then you likely need not worry that you're not actually eating the steak that you see, smell and taste before you. It's quite likely you are actually eating a steak.

[snoopy]

One more thing about our senses. Human senses now are far more evolved and more reliable than those of our ancestors. Our primate ancestors whose senses betrayed them most likely died off. While not perfect, they're all we've got. LOL.

[cozy]

So sure. We can all be tricked, fooled and mistaken. But how likely that is that the case?

How likely has no bearing on reality, except that you know that you're wrong in some way. What one thinks may be an insignificant mistake can actually be a very large one. Consider Newton's idea that Gravity is like a force that pulls things towards things with more mass. We still use that

So, from a scientific perspective finding the way in which you were mistaken is the most important thing. A mistake is a mistake no matter how likely or unlikely one determines it to be. Consider that "likely" and "unlikely" also are theory-ridden, mistake-ridden. Our guesses about probability are often wrong!

Any kind of progress, but especially scientific progress, depends on a mistake being corrected. So the theory-laden-ness of observations is the whole reason progress exists at all. If there were perfect observations there would be nothing left to improve. In your last response you've backtracked from 'perfection' and that was my intention exactly. So maybe we're not so far of. If you say we shouldn't be concerned with perfection, as you did, then you admit that we are making imperfect guesses about everything around us. Just because we have to choose between which guesses we want to error correct, doesn't mean the theory-laden guesses we aren't paying attention to are perfect in any way. We've just made a guess about what to prioritize, perhaps what is more fun to work on at any given time.

I wouldn't say there are NO perfect observations because that would depend on what is required to make a perfect assessment.

I think this is close to what I'm talking about, so let's try to use your language.

What's the difference between an observation and an assessment? Can there be observations without any prior assessments? What are assessments made of? I'm thinking that you've got something like the snake eating it's own tail in mind here, surely I'm wrong?

[cozy]

One more thing about our senses. Human senses now are far more evolved and more reliable than those of our ancestors. Our primate ancestors whose senses betrayed them most likely died off. While not perfect, they're all we've got. LOL

They're not all we've got. The senses we have were are also guesses about the world that are tested by natural selection. One big difference between what people do to improve our mistaken theories and what evolution does to improve it's mistaken theories, is that evolution requires death of the organism to make progress. We don't.

We can and do improve our senses. Glasses, contacts—these are improvements on what a given person's genes provided them. Cameras, alter the way we can store memories and retrieve them. Computers alter the way we can interact with reality. Technology is a subset of knowledge that refers to improvements on what evolution provided for us, and no one has to die for it to get better—unlike in nature.

But, observations don't beget their own error-correction. What you're reading right now is only an infinitesimal fraction of the visual data that could be collected. But you have theories about what type of observation is useful. When we're reading we don't usually need the infrared spectrum. So, reading is a stream imperfect, incomplete, theory-laden observations. But if you wanted to, at any time you could capture that data because we have cameras that can take that data and reconfigure it in a way that we can see with our built-in evolved senses.

And, in fact, that's what's happening in our eyes already. When a photon enters your eyes, it doesn't copy the photon and now you have an exact copy of the photon in your mind—it translates into a signal which your mind interprets and reconfigures further.

All observations are theory-laden.

[cozy]

Ok, I had a long discussion with some other Popperian-ish people about why the "all observations are theory laden" thing may be so hard to get across.

Friend said:

I think its part of the worldview that Popper's theory requires us to adopt in order to understand it, that epistemology describes multiple levels of reality. So observation is theory laden refers to the level of sense organs having evolved on the surface of the earth, as well as to the level of scientists making decisions about what theories to test and how to set up their experiments

I replied (a summary of multiple replies, actually):

Maybe the difficult thing to understand is the levels of reality bit. We have senses, evolution provided them with it's method creating theories, right? Like, what is evolution doing? Is it also making theories. Perhaps the issue is that "theories" is an anthropomorphized term?

We haven't replicated evolution, let alone whatever people are doing.

And then, as I mentioned before regarding "phenotypes," I'm interested in if there is a connection between the two types of knowledge creation, or if it's the same but just a different implementation or something like that (Popper was as well).

Is there some non-human level at which "theories", "guesses," "conjectures" are happening?

If animals are making observations, and observations are theory laden, where are the theories? What do they look like?
Seen by 1 person

Is it spread across the pheontype encoded in the interaction of genes?

The friend:

In evolution, the analogue process to the crucial experiment in science where a theory emerges victorious, is the death of thousands of individuals to some common danger in the environment that is practically overcome by other individuals of that same species who happen to carry a slightly different mutation of a gene they all have in common

I'm not sure if this helps at all, but I thought I'd post it anyway.

[cozy]

Ah, here's the PDF you created for reference, as well. I call this Strawman.pdf haha

https://pierenglishschool.com/fidelsmusings/articles/experience_and_primacy_of%20_anguage.pdf

[snoopy]

"How likely has no bearing on reality, except that you know that you're wrong in some way. What one thinks may be an insignificant mistake can actually be a very large one. " - Cody

I think you misunderstood me. "How likely am I to be mistaken" is at the core of falsification of a proposed hypothesis. The objective of testing the hypothesis relentlessly is to get to the point where that likelihood is zero...either that or the hypothesis is thrown out. So, in that sense, it has everything to do with reality. Then it becomes a scientific theory.  Theory of General Relativity,  Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection,  Heliocentric Theory,  Plate Tectonics Theory have passed with flying colors and describe parts of the reality we are a part of.

"They're not all we've got. The senses we have were are also guesses about the world that are tested by natural selection. " - Cody

Senses are senses and guesses are guesses. Senses are not guesses. This is not pedantry. I am 100% honestly confused because these words are nowhere close to being synonyms. But to clarify about "the senses we have are all we got", I meant biologically, not including external augmentation, because ultimately the last stop for sensed input is the human brain where it is interpreted.

"So, from a scientific perspective finding the way in which you were mistaken is the most important thing." - Cody

Agreed.

"A mistake is a mistake no matter how likely or unlikely one determines it to be." - Cody

I'm not sure what you mean by this because it's a fallacious statement. I'm pointing this out because it's confusing and I think you may have something completely different in your mind that you're trying to get across, but it gets hindered because you're structuring it like a fallacy. Again, I'm not being pedantic. I just think you can improve your arguments if you steer clear of fallacies.

The fallacy in the statement is a category mistake.

Here’s a breakdown of why this is a category mistake:

1. Equating Likelihood with Nature: The statement conflates the likelihood of an event with the nature of the event itself. The likelihood (or probability) of making a mistake is a separate issue from whether something is a mistake or not. By stating "no matter how likely or unlikely," the speaker seems to be implying that probability should affect the definition of a mistake, which it does not.

2. Irrelevant Criteria: The likelihood of a mistake is irrelevant to the definition of a mistake. A mistake is defined by an error in action, judgment, or understanding, not by how often such errors occur. By bringing probability into the definition, the statement introduces an irrelevant criterion.

3. Misleading Implication: The statement may also imply that considering the likelihood of an event is trying to redefine what constitutes a mistake, which is misleading. While likelihood can inform us about the chances of mistakes happening, it does not alter the fact that a mistake is an error.

To summarize, the fallacy lies in conflating the probability of making a mistake with the definition of what a mistake is, which constitutes a category mistake. Regardless, please read my next post. I think I've identified where some of our misunderstanding sits.

[cozy]

Did you use AI to generate those bullet points ;). AI LOVES bullet points. Also, I feel like that language doesn't sound like you, but I guess I could be wrong on that.

If it's a cateogory mistake, that's exactly the mistake I was referring to that you made. You said:

So sure. We can all be tricked, fooled and mistaken. But how likely that is that the case?

In the above you state that one could be tricked or fooled but how likely is that to be the case? That's the category error. To quote your AI generated response again to refute yourself: "The statement conflates the likelihood of an event with the nature of the event itself." "The likelihood of a mistake is irrelevant to the definition of a mistake. "The statement may also imply that considering the likelihood of an event is trying to redefine what constitutes a mistake, which is misleading."

My statement: _"A mistake is a mistake no matter how likely or unlikely one determines it to be."

_How likely was it that Newton was wrong? 100%. He was wrong, that's why Einstein could improve the theory. And, Einstein is 100%, our current theory of gravity is in the process of being re-written by theories about quantum gravity. Just as Newton's laws would fail for projects like using orbiting satellites for things like GPS, so to will Einstein's laws be for whatever novel technology we come up with that take advantage of the theory that replaces his.

In your example of an observation about the car crash, how likely is it you were wrong? But we can never know with 100% certainty. Even if you are right about it being a car crash, we can never be 100% sure.

Care to respond to the other comments?

Because  the "theory-laden" phrase may be confusing, another friend suggested discussion a rephrased version with the same meaning in mind:

all observations are idea laden

[Josh]

Fidel, I'd say you had the best theory about what the red stuff covering the kids head was. It could have been ketchup but you're familiar enough with cars, human bodies and how they interact with each other to deduce that it was probably blood. A person with less experince wouldn't be so sure.

I'm not sure you'd call that a scientific theory but, in any case, you had it in mind before you made the observation. Your theory about it being blood was tested and held so I think we can trust it.

It's good to see that everyone agrees that our senses aren't perfect. I think we all know enough about logical fallacy and self-deception to know that the human mind isn't perfect either. We've focussed on observation but I actually think the thing we're getting caught on is differences in thinking about what (and more confusingly, where) theories are.

Can you each talk about what definition of 'theory' you're using? Then maybe we can figure out a way to include both of those concepts without getting them confused.

[snoopy]

“Did you use AI to generate those bullet points ;). AI LOVES bullet points. Also, I feel like that language doesn't sound like you, but I guess I could be wrong on that.” – Cody

Yes and no. I was about to explain it myself but I decided to grab the Wikipedia page, since I was going to link it anyway, and asked ChatGPT to summarize the Wiki content based on your statement.

“If it's a cateogory mistake, that's exactly the mistake I was referring to that you made.” – Cody

I didn’t make a category mistake. I stated an agreement with you (“So sure. We can all be tricked, fooled and mistaken.”) Put a period and then segued to a question (“But how likely that is that the case?”) because that very question is at the core of my decision to eat a steak because, in the situation I described, the likelihood of it not being a steak is so extremely low, the idea never enters my mind. When the likelihood of being mistaken is higher, it can give us pause before making choices or acting/refraining from acting after observations. In common, daily human life, we consider likelihood in order to avoid mistakes. You see the relationship?

“How likely was it that Newton was wrong? 100%. He was wrong, that's why Einstein could improve the theory. And, Einstein is 100%, our current theory of gravity is in the process of being re-written by theories about quantum gravity. Just as Newton's laws would fail for projects like using orbiting satellites for things like GPS, so to will Einstein's laws be for whatever novel technology we come up with that take advantage of the theory that replaces his.” – Cody

Now we’re not talking about common, daily human activity. Now we’re talking about a specific discipline of science. In any case, I would caution you of reading sensationalized science journalism. Newton’s theories remain valid to this day for what they are able to explain. Einstein expanded with new theories where Newton’s begin to break down, as you explain here. In the same way, Einstein’s theories remain valid but go only as far as where quantum physics picks up. None were “overturned” or “mistaken”. Neither Newton nor Einstein claimed their theories accounted for everything in the universe. Likewise, you will not find a single physicist that will tell you Newton’s formulas were a mistake. Same with Einstein’s. They are valid for what they do explain, not invalid for what they don’t.

“In your example of an observation about the car crash, how likely is it you were wrong? But we can never know with 100% certainty. Even if you are right about it being a car crash, we can never be 100% sure.” – Cody

Why do I need to be 100% sure? That’s just silly. Car crashes are common enough, I’m familiar with what they look like. Bleeding is not uncommon in serious injuries, and magicians and illusionists haven’t been known to be hanging around every street corner with car crash tricks. I’d be confident enough to put it in writing, give you access to the scene, send you hospital reports, videos, photos and any other relevant evidence. Because my claim is falsifiable, you can attempt to falsify it if you like. I don’t need to be 100% sure. Can you sell me on a reason you think I should be 100% sure before stating my claim(or reporting what I saw to the police)?

“Because the "theory-laden" phrase may be confusing, another friend suggested discussion a rephrased version with the same meaning in mind: all observations are idea laden” – Cody

Yeah. So I was thinking before about what the issue was. “Theory” seemed to be a word that you’d swap between definitions. While seeming to be on a “scientific” part of your explanation, it would come back in the colloquial sense of the word. So for now, “idea” is a good step in removing that confusion for me. Thanks. But if I were to say that observations were laden with anything, it wouldn’t be ideas, hypotheses or theories. I would say confidently that observations are question-laden; What the hell happened? Why is there glass everywhere? Who was driving? How long until the police arrive? Where is the other driver?

In daily life, we’re not submitting our report for peer-review in science journals. I don’t need to be 100% sure of everything. I can, however, be confident enough to give a clear account to the police officer.

Within the various disciplines of science, being wrong is part of the job. Being right wins Nobel prizes.

[snoopy]

_"We've focussed on observation but I actually think the thing we're getting caught on is differences in thinking about what (and more confusingly, where) theories are.

Can you each talk about what definition of 'theory' you're using? Then maybe we can figure out a way to include both of those concepts without getting them confused." - Josh_

I think Cody and I are just about to iron that out.

- In the colloquial sense, it means conjecture, speculation or opinion based on incomplete information.
- In the science usage it means a hypothesis that has withstood extensive testing and scrutiny, and emerges as the best known explanation for a phenomenon(or in the context of this discussion an observation)

If we were totally talking about common daily human life, without scientific descriptives, it would be totally normal to use "theory" in the colloquial way. (i.e. Richard had a theory that his neighbor was Yakuza because of all the security cameras around the house.)

In most disciplines of science a "theory" comes at the end of the line: Observation > Forming Valid Questions > Hypothesis Formation > Prediction > Experimentation > Analysis > Peer Review > Validation and Replication > Theory