[Fester Chugabrew]

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

-------

Note the absence of any suggestion in the above definiton - the same one evos keep posting- that, in order to be a theory, there must also be evidence that can refute, or falsify it.

[Coyoteman]

Fester quoting my definition of a theory?

Will wonders never cease! I must have posted it to him enough times that something finally sank in.

[Stultis]

Note the absence of any suggestion in the above definiton - the same one evos keep posting- that, in order to be a theory, there must also be evidence that can refute, or falsify it.

The suggestion is not absent. It's right there in "well substantiated". Theories are well substantiated because they're tested, and that they can't be tested except by exploring their relation to relevant data, and unless that relation is determined by substantive demands of the theory on the data: what the data must show (or fail to show) in consequence of the theory being true.

[bobdsmith]

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

-------

Note the absence of any suggestion in the above definiton - the same one evos keep posting- that, in order to be a theory, there must also be evidence that can refute, or falsify it.

The scientific method contains an important part about testing. If an explaination cannot be potentially disproven then it cannot be tested. It's not a criticism of the explaination that this is the case, it's just that science cannot do anything with it.