Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[GrandizerII]

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.

Words are important. Well-established means one thing and well-supported another (I read the Essential Criteria now). I do prefer the term well-supported, however, because we already saw that a theory that isn't well supported remains a theory. I asked you if theories get demoted when wrong, you said no. Other's have brought up examples of theories that are partially or completely wrong, and are still theories.

"Well-established" is beyond subjective. But at least "well-supported," though still in need of a threshold, is measurable.

Theories (when shown to be wrong) don't get demoted to hypotheses, they're made obsolete or continue to be of some use in a narrower scope (so they would still be theories in a sense, just not one that correctly applies to the whole of reality).

And now you're trying way too hard to not be wrong. Well-established is a problematic and subjective word but well-supported is fine?

Did you get the "essential" bit?