Scientific theories are facts

Thanks for the clarification Pro! I now delve into this debate.I think, perhaps, the greater question here is, what is the difference between Fact, and Scientific Fact? And furthermore, as Scientific Fact is itself divided into Scientific Laws and Scientific Theories, what differentiates these from each other?The first question is touched briefly upon by Pro at the end of his argument, and less central to the debate at hand. In fact, one could devote an entire debate solely to the differences between Scientific Fact and Fact as the world has now generalized and understands. So too could an entire debate be devoted to the true nature of these "Facts" we observe around us, both Scientific and natural. Therefore, I will focus my arguments on the crucial second question at hand: "What is the difference between Scientific Theory and Scientific Law?"The differences, as it happens, are significant, though few. Ronald H. Matson, Ph.D. and Vice President for Faculty and Professor of Biology at Kennesaw State University lists the following differences between Scientific Theory and Scientific Fact, all of which I have found to be common across the discipline: LAW 1) An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)2) A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979). 3) A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995). THEORY 1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984) 2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding ("explain") a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984).3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).4) 1. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof (Steen, 1971). [NB: I don't like this one but I include it to show you that even in "Science dictionaries" there is variation in definitions which leads to confusion]. 5) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]).6) An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995). [1] I will now tackle the differences:LAWDefinition 1: The key here is Empirical Generalization, and not of what might be, but of what is observed empirically. Laws define what can be tested, and re-tested, and are based upon Empiricism. They make no claim beyond what is observed. Newton's theory of Universal Gravitation is a theory. But here on Earth, we have a Law of Gravity. Newton saw that the cannonball and the feather accelerated at the same rate towards the ground. From such observations, along with many others, we can derive the Law of Gravity, the statement that two objects, as a result of their gravitational mass, attract each other through some force acting upon them. Of course, it is important to predicate such discussions with the knowledge that Newton was operating under the assumptions of the now popular and widely accepted Newtonian Laws of Motion. As such, by Newton's Second Law of Motion, we may assert that the acceleration of objects towards the earth is due to a Force acting upon them [2]. But I digress. The important aspect of this definition is that Laws are empirically observable, and do not make claims beyond the observed phenomena, for example, the cause of such phenomena. Newton's second law does not fall under the classification of making a claim to the cause of a phenomena because, through rigorous and repeated demonstration in both natural and controlled experiments, it has become obvious that force is required for acceleration to occur. It is in controlled experiments that causation is fully established, with natural experiments coming in near second. As the Second Law has been validated by both, it is and should be a Law.2: Here again we find a significant difference. Laws are applied to a "defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present." [1] Only under certain conditions can laws be applicable. And they are not universal. They do not apply to the entire universe as we observe and study it, at least, not with the capabilities we currently possess.3: Here we find the mathematical expression of Laws. The importance here lies not in what is stated, but in the predictability of the Law, something which Theory lacks. THEORY 1: This definition is as generalized as possible. It adds nothing to the debate at hand except the expression of the reach of the Theory v. the reach of Law. Just as with Confidence Intervals, the higher percentage one wishes to obtain, the larger the difference between the intervals, so too with Theory and Law. Laws apply to certain conditions, but are strongly verifiable and proven in such conditions. Theories apply widely, and lack the certainty that Laws provide, simply because they seek to explain as a whole, across all conditions, rather than operate within those observed.2: It is here that we come to the crux of the argument. "A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding ("explain") a major phenomenon of nature." Not Facts. Concepts. Ideas. Explanations. And Explanations unsubstantiated with causality, do not Facts represent. 3. Again we find the words "explanation," used in this context to refer to what has come before, and perhaps provide an insight into future explanation. Yet, even then we find that Theories in Science do not provide surety, for explanations may be in error, while Laws are proven.4. Here again we find more support for the position that Scientific Theories are not Fact. Reason itself does not make Fact. Reason may contradict Fact, and has done so on numerous occasions in the history of Man, let alone the history of the Earth itself.5. A group of different definitions, yet all are encompassed in the others listed here.6. Again, an explanation that may be substantiated by evidence. And indeed, with this definition, Dr. Matson himself writes that the differences are clear: "...the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works."[1]Scientific Theories, then, are explanations based upon Fact. They are not Fact in and of themselves. I have more to say, but run low on characters. To make it clear, I use Dr. Matson's source simply because it was 1) in line much with what else I found, and 2) easily available. I make no claim to his complete authority on the subject. I now hand the debate back to Pro.[1]http://science.kennesaw.edu...[2]http://physics.weber.edu...