"Knowledge is of no value unless you put it into practice." Anton Chekhov


"Theory" is quite interesting.

A theory is essentially an explanation. An analytic tool for understanding any given subject matter, based on abstract ideas about that subject matter.

Uh... Eh?

Well, we have this concept of theory somehow not belonging to the real world. It's something that exists conceptually, rather than in reality. I just want to chuck in the word hypothetical and leave it there. But that's where I started today...

So what do we know?

I've heard of Quantum Theory. This must be different to the driving theory test. I don't remember any of the highway code being based on the principle that matter and energy have the properties of both particles and waves.

So, theory's based on informed guess work. An educated guess about the properties of matter and energy lets you build an elaborate framework of more guessing on top and then call it a theory. A bit like guessing how long it takes a car to break from 30mph if it's icy I suppose. The logic is sound enough that we feel confident in calling it a theory.

Sometimes we use the term theoretical in place of hypothetical to describe a result that is predicted by theory but has not yet been adequately tested by practical experiment. It is not entirely unheard of for a theory to produce predictions that are later found to be incorrect. By inference, a prediction proved incorrect by experiment demonstrates that the hypothesis is invalid. So does the buck stop with the theory? Was the experimental conjecture wrong and the theory failed to predict the hypothesis? This is pretty deep you know.

It feels to me a bit like doing a jigsaw puzzle and finding a few pieces missing. Even without the picture on the box, it's not really a guess that you need a blue piece to fill in that bit of sky. Also, if you've got pieces with blue sky, sea and sand, the theory that you're making a beach scene is a pretty sound one. But how many little pieces do you think you'd actually need to form the basis of this theory? One piece of sea, one of sand and a nice bit of blue sky would make a solid case for beach, right? Well, there's not a red piece or a bit of sail but suppose the focus of the picture is a big red boat with white sails. Our theory may still be correct; this is the beach. But we've missed the key point. And I'm in dander of doing the same now.

Theories are great, in theory. They move thought on, passed the limitations of actual experience. You run with one until you fill in the gaps and it stops to being a theory. Like when we were thinking about ignorance, the gaps are a good thing. They inspire us to go on and learn. The beef, as usual, is with false knowledge. This is when theories can be damaging. Either they go on long enough that they're taken as fact themselves, or they are cited as evidence, forming the basis of some false knowledge.

The term "theory" is often used colloquially to refer to any explanatory thought, even fanciful or speculative ones. However, in scholarly use it is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of that class. Either way, they exist to be scrutinized. They must be continually revised to conform to new observations, by restricting the class of phenomena the theory applies to or changing the assertions made.

Sometimes, scholars set aside a theory because there is no way to examine its assertions analytically. These may continue on in the popular imagination until some means of of examination is found which either refutes or lends credence to the theory. But, it does not simply turn into fact just because it's a long-standing theory. Whether it's about relativity or evolution, theories have to be a work in progress.