Jim and Andy both have it incorrect I believe:

The *facts* are what is there, the processes that exist in the
present or the physical evidence of the processes having occured
in the past. These *facts* exist with or without a theory.

The *theory* tries and explains the *facts* and how they relate
to the rest of the physical universe in a manner that is both
coherent and useful, that it can be used to make predictions.

The *facts* of gravity, evolution, electromagnetic radiation,
relativity, atoms will exist and behave in the way in which they
behave regardless of whether we have a theory to try and explain
how they interact... or even why.

A theory never really becomes a fact... but a theory can predict
the existence of a previously unknown fact, and if we find this
fact as the theory predicted we say the *theory* is *supported*
by the *facts*. A theory is a mental construct, a speculation, 
a model.  If it is a good model, it may be useful.

In science a theory is something that is supported by the 
evidence, considerable evidence, sometimes *all* of the evidence.
A *hypothesis* is a new fledgling theory because there is not
yet enough evidence to support it.  When a new hypothesis 
is proposed to replace an existing theory, it must explain
*all* of the facts that the current theory explains and at least
some of the facts that the current theory could not and/or
predict new facts.

It is so simple.... I'm surprised that this subject gets
beat to death about once a month. A quick glance in a dictionary
would clear up 99% of the confusion and bandwidth in this
newsgroup.  Then we could talk about really important things
like, why do men have nipples?

-David Utidjian-
utidjian@remarque.berkeley.edu


