Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[GrandizerII]

There is no such fucking thing as a "law" of gravity you braindead cretin.

I'm getting a strong stench of CDF47 off this bozo.  Especially considering he's got exactly the same monomania and "debating style".

Newton's takes the form of "F = Gm1m2/r2"  The copy/paste option sucks, but hopefully its decipherable.

Edit: That's the equation for it anyway.

Looks like you also need a lesson in what "law" is and the difference between "law" and "theory" and the fact that you are talking about an equation while we're talking about the explanation itself. Start Googling again.

---

If not mistaken, LFC already posted a snippet or two that answers your question.

Otherwise, Wikipedia Scientific theory and you can see the criteria there.

Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

I did a quick search for "established" in your Wikipedia link. Sadly, it doesn't appear to list the scientific criteria for well-established. Moreover, the page also seems to treat the term well-established as describing some, but not all theories. Which I agree with. Some theories are well established, others are not.

Surely, if well-established isn't just a subjective description of a theory (like good, bad, terrible), criteria must exist between being well-established and not. How would we ever know when something is a theory, is we have no measure of how well-established it is?

Did you not read the Essential Criteria section? You really need the word "well-established" to be there for you to get it?

And there may be philosophical debates about what really makes a theory a theory, but doesn't change the fact that no reasonable learned person would argue that the space pixies explanation is a theory ...

Read, dammit. Don't just skim. Especially since you need the education badly.