Ok, I was browsing the internet and came across a site that made me confused about the scientific use of the word theory. This has probably came up before, but try to bear with me. According to this site
Scientific Theory, Law, and Hypothesis Explained | Wilstar.com, a scientific theory is something that has been proven.
"But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven."
However it says differently in my college physics textbook.
"One important deifference is that science requires testing of its ideas or theories to see if their predictions are borne out by experiment. But theories are not "proved" by testing." "Physics" -by Giancoli page 2
The site also makes note that a scientific theory is just a more complicated scientific law. I always thought the main difference is that theories are something that cannot be derived directly from observation, while scientific laws can. IE. Theories are more of a creative inspiration that comes from our minds to explain phenomona.
Also i have learned that it is not that simple. I thought there are different degrees in which the theory is credible. Some theories are accepted by most scientists(such as the atomic theory), and some theories that are debated by many scientists(such as the string theory). Well point in being, is this site false, or am i just crazy. I know it's just a kids science site, but my friend tried to use it to tell me i was wrong, and its second on the google search "scientific theories."
PS, do you guys think the theory of evolution can be turned into a law after millions of years of observations? That after so long it becomes a direct observation, or is it that theories cannot turn into laws.
Another couple examples is the theory of a round earth, it wasnt until we went into space that it became a direct observation.
Or cell theory. we couldn't see cells until we invented the microscope.
™ Version 4.2