Scientific theories change in light of new evidence, and rarely are theorems and established theories completely discarded, particularly in the modern scientific era.
I'm quite able to distinguish between beliefs and facts. You? Apparently not so much.
Aliens and ghosts are not theories and no one with an IQ number above room temperature mistakes those beliefs for the scientific theory of E=Mc2.
You make the mistake RE the meaning of the word 'theory' that a lot of poorly educated people do and yes, that's a label you have earned on this board.
Q. How come so many people misunderstand what the word ‘Theory’ means in a scientific context?
I theorize that the abysmal understanding of ‘scientific theory’ is because of the following reasons.
(2a) The word ‘theory’ is bandied around colloquially, carelessly, loosely in and outside Science. Thus, it conjures all manner of notions from the ironclad, to whimsical fluff.
(2b) The word ‘theory’ carries different meanings, rigour, precision in different realms: Science, Social Sciences, Economics, Philosophy, etc. This confuses people.
(2c) The confusion between ‘theory’ and ‘hypothesis’.
•Science Theory Pretty ironclad stuff Hypothesis? Testable conjectures
•Non-Science Theory Something unproven or speculative ? “I have a theory that the fcuktard is sleeping with his secretary” Which is actually ‘hypothesis’ in the scientific sense “I have a hypothesis that the fcuktard is sleeping with his secretary. Let’s test it tonight”
Hypothesis? I guess…
(2d) Science itself as a realm has not done a good job, if it was done at all, to define Science, in a Philosophy of science sense.
•What is Science? •What does Science aspire to achieve? •What are the boundaries of Science? •What qualifies as Science? Homeopathy? Traditional Chinese medicine? Intelligent design? •What is the Scientific method? •What is the Paradigm of Science (testability, repeatability, peer review, publicity, Falsifiability)? •How does Science deal with the pesky annoying Problem of induction? (Induction vs Deduction) •Given the Scientific Method, and the Paradigm of Science, how ‘bulletproof’ is Science? •Science and Technology are often uttered in the same hot breath. What’s the difference?
School and university Science curriculums are bureaucratically divided into academic silos: Physics, Chemistry, Biology, run by different academic departments in a byzantine hierarchy.
On day-1 of your education journey, you shuffle into your Physics class, and you dive headlong into Physics.
There is no overarching Philosophy of Science type introduction into the broader realm, to bedrock the learning journey. Maybe Philosophy of Science is somewhat too heavy and high-minded abstract in year-1 of primary school education. Don’t want to fry their tender brains on day-1.
So, the can was kicked down the road. And forgotten over time. By the time the education authorities think about it, it’s like: Oh! These students have been on Science for the longest time, since year-1. It’ll be odd to bring up the sidebar matter of the Scientific Method just now”
(2f) And then, there is theory, and there is practice. So, what is not practice is theory?
(3) Get started here on Philosophy of Science.
•Why you need it? Sam Qwato's answer to Do we need philosophy of science?
•Immerse here: Sam Qwato's answer to Regarding the scientific method, who was right, Thomas Kuhn or Karl Popper?
DrHarleyboy, Maybe he isn't. Maybe you're talking about an alternate universe, to fit with Conway's idea there are "alternate facts."
Your idea that facts don't exist is about as silly a conservative statement as your use of the idea that the evolution of science supports that statement.
At any moment is time somethings are true. The window beside me is open. That's a fact.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
