I like what's been said above. What I notice is that for each point I?d like to discuss, my comments would be contingent on how strong that theory was. Every time I read through this thread, I wished there were more words to use than just ?theory.? The word ?theory? should be broken down into a spectrum of words that would indicate the level of theory, from speculative hypothesis to super-theory.
Hypothesis is an awkward, long word, so ?theory? is often used instead. At least that is why I do it. If we have the word, hypothesis (literally, sub-idea or sub-theory?), we should also have the word ?hyper-theory.? Hyperthesis (nope; looks & sounds too much like hypothesis) could describe the overarching, well-substantiated theories like tectonic theory, evolution theory, relativity theory, atomic theory, and QCD. Even these listed hyper-theories have different levels of factual basis, breadth, internal consistency, and predictive power. I suppose every theory is unique is some, if not many ways.
Someone should write a book.
How about Meta-theory, a theory based on other theories?
Speaking of quantum chromo-dynamics (QCD), what about ?models?? Where do they fit in? If a model predicts very well, but doesn?t have a strong foundation, can it be a theory?
Maybe this has already been worked out.
Someone should read a book! (I?ll see if I can find one more recent than the 1930?s).
Thanks for the comments.
Feel free to continue.
~~Samwik
