[Lucky Dog]

… Gravity is subject to the identical criticism [that it is both a theory and a fact] … physicists regard gravity as both a fact and a theory.

You are in error, sir:

“Gravity” is an observed effect or phenomenon that masses appear to be attracted to each other with the strength of that attraction varying as a function of distance. Newton’s and/or Einstein’s theories attempted to mathematically predict results of this effect, or fact, as well as explain how it acted in Einstein’s case. No one of whom I am aware confuses the fact or phenomenon of “gravity” with a theory of how or why it works. [Neither Newton’s nor Einstein’s theories is called “gravity” or even the “the theory of gravity” by scientists or the lay public… the absolute closest I could find was a reference to “Newton’s Theory of Universal Gravitation” in some lay literature… Einstein’s is the “Theory of Relativity.”] Therefore, your assertion that “gravity” is considered both a fact and theory is a mistaken opinion.

The main reason why the semantic argument is important is because so many laymen regard the word "theory" as being analogous to "wild-assed-guess", which is not the case for scientific theories.

I agree. However, perhaps the layman gets the opinion somewhat honestly.

Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. - H. J. Muller

With pronouncements from sceintists such as the above floating about, it might be easy to see why laymen might regard "'theory' as being analogous to 'wild-assed-guess'."

[BikerNYC]

You are in error, sir:

Nope. You are. You admit yourself that gravity is both a fact and a theory. The remark was made that gravity was "subject" to the same criticism, that it is, as is evolution, both fact and theory.

Your assertion that Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation and Einstein's Theory of General Relativity are not really theories of gravity because of the name the author's put on their papers is completely ludicrous. They are, most assuredly, theories of gravity.

[Thatcherite]

… Gravity is subject to the identical criticism [that it is both a theory and a fact] … physicists regard gravity as both a fact and a theory.

You are in error, sir:

“Gravity” is an observed effect or phenomenon that masses appear to be attracted to each other with the strength of that attraction varying as a function of distance. Newton’s and/or Einstein’s theories attempted to mathematically predict results of this effect, or fact, as well as explain how it acted in Einstein’s case. No one of whom I am aware confuses the fact or phenomenon of “gravity” with a theory of how or why it works. [Neither Newton’s nor Einstein’s theories is called “gravity” or even the “the theory of gravity” by scientists or the lay public… the absolute closest I could find was a reference to “Newton’s Theory of Universal Gravitation” in some lay literature… Einstein’s is the “Theory of Relativity.”] Therefore, your assertion that “gravity” is considered both a fact and theory is a mistaken opinion.

Bad luck, you contradicted something that I didn't say. Read my posts more carefully. I said a theory of gravity had only recently been proposed, not by Newton.