In the context, yes they are.
No they're not. And I will show you.
Sauna said:
Fact is proved.
Theory is not.
Theory:
"a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. "
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Theory&x=0&y=0
Also from your link:
a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
[...]
—Synonyms 1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.
You conveniently ignored the
very first definition of the word "theory", the one which proves
my assertion, in order to make it seem like you had the edge. That is intellectual dishonesty, but I suppose I couldn't have expected anything else from you.
And from my links:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=theory
the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
http://m-w.com/dictionary/theory
Notice that I'm giving you the
very first definitions of the word. These definitions are the ones used in scientific discussion, which you are participating in. The other definitions conveying conjecture are not the proper definitions of the word in science, but is rather common parlance. Basically, you're speaking Dutch while we're speaking Latin.
Sauna said:
Fact eliminates speculation. Theory should not.
Not in science. A theory is an explanation of an observed phenomenon. "Theory" and "fact" in science are like apples and oranges; you can't compare them. This is why they are not ranked in order of truth like rungs on a ladder. Theories are not more or less true than facts. They are in layman's terms, but not in science. And need I remind you that you're participating in a scientific discussion, not a casual chit-chat with your bud over a beer?
Sauna said:
Back again then to the usual ad hominem - straw man instead of valid argument are we?
Oh yeah, like you know everything about the scientific method. Ask any scientist, and you will find my assertion to be correct. You cannot be taken seriously if you misunderstand what you're talking about. And you really do misunderstand what you're talking about. That's not strawman; that is truth. Like I said, go read a book about the basics of science. You need it.
You can't be taken seriously if you don't know what you're talking about. You're the annoying, computer-illiterate guy looking over the computer repairman's shoulder saying, "Are you sure that fancy-looking piece of plastic goes there? The color doesn't match. Do you know what you're doing?".
Sauna said:
Too bad not yet to be mature enough to know better.
Throw ad hominems back at me however much you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you refuse to understand the scientific method properly. Why should you be taken seriously in your criticism of the scientific consensus when you don't even know what the fuck you're talking about? Tell me, why should you?
Sauna said:
This thread is about morality. Jurisprudence is therefore the applicable discipline, not virology.
Nice try. You and the other nutcases have sidetracked the thread into an argument over whether you're right or scientists are. As such, you are having a scientific discussion, not a moral one. As such, I think I'll ask another mod to move the thread to a forum where it would fit in better, as I have no jurisdiction over this forum.