What are the chief characteristics of a scientific theory which differ it from an authoritative pronouncement?

Answer 1

A theory often starts out as a hypothesis, then proceeds to investigate and gather as much information as possible to support that hypothesis. While the theory can not be "proven" as fact, it ends up being something like an educated guess.

An authoritative pronouncement would be something that can be substaniated with facts that anyone can point to in support of the pronoucement.

Answer 2

Let's put this phrase "it's only a theory..." in the dustbin. In science, being a "theory" is the best an idea, or system of ideas, can be. A scientific idea usually starts as a guess, becomes a speculation, and after a lot of thought and work can be framed as a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a potential theory. It needs to make contact with reality, in the form of prediction or experiment, and it needs to be coherent, that is, internally consistent. Once a hypothesis is checked for consistency with reality, with itself, and possibly with other connecting theories, it begins to become an accepted theory. That is to say, it is conditionally accepted as a narrative about reality. A theory becomes stronger, and more accepted, as evidence for it accumulates and as various problems it may have are solved.

Once a system of ideas become an accepted theory, it is rare that it is later totally discarded. The theory is, perhaps, recognized as being limited in scope, and applicable only in certain circumsances. For example, Newton's theory of gravity is still used to calculate trajectories and orbits in most problems in astronomy. Newton's theory has been superceded by Einstein's theory of gravity, but only in the sense that Newton's theory is recognized as inaccurate when speed and density is high. It seems likely that Einstein's theory is also not universally applicable, but the circumsances in which it fails are even more remote and unusual.

A scientific theory is a system of ideas that is conditionally accepted in the minds of many people. To believe it unconditionally is a conceptual mistake; on the other hand to ignore a well-accepted theory in an practical context (such as design of a bridge) is a mistake as well, possibly a big one.

A scientific theory is a result of scientific methodology. Scientific theories cannot be critiqued or discarded on non-scientific grounds. The scientific method and scientific enterprise are often attacked on non-scientific grounds, but the (always conditional) truth of a theory can only be affected scientifically. ("But still, it moves!") That is to say, the only bases for criticism of a scientific theory are its internal consistency and its consistency with observation and experiment.

Answer 3

A scientific theory is refutable: it is possible to present evidence to show that it is wrong. In general, a scientific theory is not provable, as there could be, lurking somewhere in the universe, a counterexample that would show it to be erroneous. (The theory of evolution is anomalous in this respect in that it has been proved.) An authoritative pronouncement can be refuted only by refuting the authority.

Answer 4

Scientific theories are always open to testing and to being thrown out. Even if a theory is accepted for hundreds of years, it can be tossed out if a better theory comes along. An authoritative pronouncement is not open to testing or overturning.

Answer 5

Errrrrrrrrr.... evidence to suport it, perhaps?!?

A pronouncement is just something made by an "official"...

Answer 6

Theories are unproven