Editing Scientific theory (section)

==Characteristics==

===Essential criteria===
{{more citations needed|date=October 2015}}
For any theory to be accepted within most academia there is usually one simple criterion.  The essential criterion is that the theory must be observable and repeatable.  The aforementioned criterion is essential to prevent fraud and perpetuate science itself. [[Image:Plates tect2 en.svg|thumb|300px|The tectonic plates of the world were mapped in the second half of the 20th century. Plate tectonic theory successfully explains numerous observations about the Earth, including the distribution of earthquakes, mountains, continents, and oceans.]]

The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make [[falsifiable]] or testable [[Predictive power|predictions]].<ref>{{Cite book |last=White |first=Theresa L. |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1305844348 |title=Research Methods |publisher=Cengage |others=Donald H. McBurney |year=2012 |isbn=978-1-285-40167-6 |edition=9th |location=Mason, OH |pages=21 |oclc=1305844348}}</ref> The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a scientific theory at all. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is not applicable.

A body of descriptions of [[knowledge]] can be called a theory if it fulfills the following criteria:
* It makes [[Falsifiability|falsifiable]] predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as [[mechanics]]).
* It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation.
* It is consistent with preexisting experimental results and at least as accurate in its predictions as are any preexisting theories.

These qualities are certainly true of such established theories as [[special relativity|special]] and [[general relativity]], [[quantum mechanics]], [[plate tectonics]], the [[modern synthesis (20th century)|modern evolutionary synthesis]], etc.

===Other criteria===

In addition, most scientists prefer to work with a theory that meets the following qualities:
* It can be subjected to minor adaptations to account for new data that do not fit it perfectly, as they are discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_20 |title=Even theories change |work=Understanding Science |accessdate=2021-02-12 }}</ref>
* It is among the most parsimonious explanations, economical in the use of proposed entities or explanatory steps as per [[Occam's razor]]. This is because for each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with [[ad hoc hypotheses|''ad hoc'' hypotheses]] to prevent them from being falsified; therefore, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more [[test method|testable]].<ref name="fn_(109)">{{cite book |orig-year=2004 |year=2010 |author=Alan Baker |chapter=Simplicity |title=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |chapter-url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/ |publisher=Stanford University |place=California |issn=1095-5054 }}</ref><ref name="fn_(110)">{{cite journal |year=2008 |vauthors=Courtney A, Courtney M |title=Comments Regarding "On the Nature Of Science" |journal=Physics in Canada |volume=64 |issue=3 |pages=7–8|arxiv=0812.4932 }}</ref><ref name="fn_(114)">Elliott Sober, Let's Razor Occam's Razor, pp. 73–93, from Dudley Knowles (ed.) Explanation and Its Limits, Cambridge University Press (1994).</ref>

===Definitions from scientific organizations===
The [[United States National Academy of Sciences]] defines scientific theories as follows:

<blockquote>The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the Sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.<ref>[http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=11 National Academy of Sciences] (2008), ''Science, Evolution, and Creationism.''</ref></blockquote>

From the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]]:

<blockquote>A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory". It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.</blockquote>

Note that the term ''theory'' would not be appropriate for describing untested but intricate hypotheses or even [[Scientific modelling|scientific models.]]