Are scientific theories always fact?
I trust that logical speculations are helpful. They give composed approaches to advertisement learning to logical understandings. Yet, I additionally trust that logical hypotheses are not absolutely truth... until the point when established researchers can wipe out any potential resistance to a hypothesis being referred to. Do you believe that some logical hypotheses ought to be viewed as reality? On the off chance that you do, would it be a good idea for them to be founded on confirmation, or is solid proof enough? What do you think?

Well, when a person is on trial I don't think logical hypotheses should be submitted as evidence no matter how logical the hypothesis is. I wonder how many innocent people were falsely convicted in history based largely on phrenology evidence.

Yes. Scientific theories are always fact (based on the dictionary definition of the word "fact"). A theory is basically a hypothesis that has been tested. New facts can later be discovered that cause a theory to be revised but the theory would still have been based on empirical testing. Newton's law of universal gravitation is a fact but doesn't correctly predict Mercury's orbit around the sun. Einstein's general theory is also a fact and correctly predicts Mercury's orbit because it accounts for how Mercury is affected being so close to the sun to experience a more dramatic curvature of space-time.

Evolution of species is also a fact. Even if Charles Darwin crawled out of his grave and held a press conference proclaiming he was wrong that wouldn't change the fact that there is sufficient amounts of diverse evidence to properly infer that evolution is a fact.

The same can be said about the age of the universe being 13.8 billion years old is a fact. Nobody was obviously around with a calendar to witness it but there are diverse measurable data points not directly related to each other but all lining up in a way that demonstrates the universe has been in existence for roughly 13.8 billion years.


I will take the liberty to ignore all of your thought salad in the clarification section and get straight to the point, answer to the main question.

That's not how scientific theories work.

You have facts, which you can observe.

And a theory is an explanation of facts, the proper term is hypothesis, which have been successfully tested over and over again. 

The more facts a theory sufficiently explains, or even predicts, the stronger the theory.

But the theory is not a fact in it on itself.

I mean, not in the sense you're attributing to it.

Obviously through the logical absolute, law of identity, a theory would be what it would be and that's a fact.

The point is, an explanation of facts is not a fact, it's an explanation. We don't have a theory of everything for a reason. 

We don't know all facts.



Scientific Theory is one of the components of the advancement of modern science. In today's world, everything is scientific discovery, the science of everyday life is born from some common theory. The more important a theory is as important as a scientific source. At present, large discoveries of modern science have been made from the simple theory. For example, Newton's gravitational theory - "two objects always attract each other," for this simple theory, today people are thinking of living on another planet.  There is a misconception that "scientific theory is not science, it has no evidence, it is only some scientific thought, it has no basis" - is it really? No This is a complete misconception.  Generally, the science of natural phenomena is explained, analyzed and predicted by scientific theories. Scientists want to find out the reasons for why and how a natural phenomenon is happening. Information, data is collected by observing, reviewing and researching this incident for a long time. Then a temporary hypothesis is prepared based on the various information and observations that would explain the phenomenon. A scientific theory is never a science fiction. Each theory is based on many information and observations.  After the hypothesis has been created, its confirmation is there. It is not given the status of the established theory only when it has been made by a combination of many information. If a theory is to be established as a science, then he has to first determine his merit on the basis of at least three conditions.

1. The basic rules of the theory must be dependent on arbitrary, simple and in-depth accessories. 

2. With the help of theory, a large part of the observed event can be explained accurately. 

3. The theory can be repeated predictions of this phenomenon, which will be exactly the same.  

Only after completing these three conditions could a hypothetical status get a complete theory. And in order to meet these three conditions, many times the events are monitored - it is explained that the theory is predicted to happen in many events and after the occurrence is matched with the predictions. There is a theory that has been tested repeatedly, after examinations, that the tests are done to prove the theory wrong.


@Emrethewriter, More than fact we can call it understanding. Whatever we are pursuing and whatever we know it's nothing fact or something it's just our understanding and our understanding is reality for ourselves and we have diversified understanding that's why we are creators and created diverisied things in this world.

Wishing you an great day and stay blessed. 🙂