Nice article, John, but you are stretching the word theory to a meaning it does not have.
True, many scientists use the term as you describe it, but the use by the many does not mean it is correct.
Let me describe how the Roman Catholic Church fell apart, and the word Theo (as used in theory) being the reason.
Theo can mean God. It is a Greek word and the essence can best be understood as 'something hanging in the air'. I hope you recognize God's position immediately, plus I hope you can see that it is a position with a view from above.
The Roman Catholic Church split into two because of the question whether Jesus could be seen as the personification of God or not.
Those that spoke Greek were adamant that Jesus could not indicate that God godself had ‘feet on the ground’. Understanding Greek and seeing that the idea behind Theo is something that is hanging in the air, it is logical that Jesus could not be the embodiment of God godself.
Those in Rome did not care too much about the original meaning, and had their own agenda: The unification of the divine ideal in a single person. It would make the Roman Empire stronger if all lined up even more perfectly behind that single person in top (meaning, not Jesus, but the Roman Emperor of course). Too bad for them it had the opposite effect. Where first there was one empire, there were now (back then) two.
--
We can observe scientists desiring the same. Making Science the highest possible endeavor for human beings, no one would be venerated more than scientists.
And like the Romans, they do not care too much about language. Just one look at the dictionary, and we see many entries that are in use for certain scientific fields only. They are making up their own words, borrowing words and giving them a very specific meaning (often singular in meaning).
Yet with theory something special is going on, because it is by definition a word from the scientific field, so it is tied to science by default. It cannot get a second meaning that contradicts the original scientific meaning.
The hypothesis is of course a very important aspect inside a theory. But it appears like you are tearing the two apart as if that were possible. You are separating them and then you are using the word theory where it does not belong (but you have many followers).
A theory is a sentence with a question mark. There can be many facts inside a theory, but the question mark indicates the last word has not been spoken. Something is still hanging in the air.
You are also pointing at an interesting case: the Theory of Evolution. I would say that of all 7 to 8 billion people on the planet, there is a majority that accepts evolution as factual. Not all of course; some point at other reasons our physical reality occurred.
My guess is that scientists in the past were afraid to say that evolution was a fact. They did not want to hear from religious leaders and so they kept the word theory attached to the field of evolution. That’s my guess how the word use of theory got to be so convoluted.
Today, there are of course enough question marks left in the field of evolution, so there are (sub)theories of evolution. But at the overall level, there is no theory anymore: it is a fact.
Last description about theory:
Theory = Fact(s) + Hypothes(is/es)
A Theory can:
* be proven and then ceases to be a theory;
* be shown incorrect and then ceases to be a theory;
* remain a theory when the question mark cannot be removed.
Today, we have many theories because those final question marks are very hard to remove indeed. We do not use the word theory to indicate a field as you seem to imply. A field is on solid grounds, a theory hangs in the air.
The Heliocentric Theory does not exist anymore; it has become a fact. We don't say the Solar System theory. We say: the Solar System. It is beyond doubt; there are no question marks about the larger setup.
P.S. My Physics teacher told us kids 45 years ago that many scientists have an incorrect understanding what the word theory means. I thought that was the most fascinating thing I ever heard in school: a teacher in a field declaring that many in his field do not have a good idea about one of the most important words in their field. Amazingly, many scientists point at others not having a good idea about the word theory. I guess it is hard to look in the mirror when in top position. We better have our feet in the field, which is the proper word you are trying to replace with theory.
Sorry to be this critical, John, but I am tired of scientists being bad at language.
