Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[LadyForCamus]

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?

"Well-supported" isn't fine, but we can at least count the number of papers in support of a theory to categorize it as such. We can't do that with "well-established."

I saw the essential bit; and its questionable. For example, what do you call pre-theories awaiting to be "well-supported" full-fledged theories? In my personal experience, I've only been taught how to deduce hypotheses from theories, never these pre-theories, does it work the same way? And again, how many supporting papers need to be published for a pre-theory to become a scientific theory?

These question are important, so we know what qualifies as a theory given the "essential bit"

Well, a pre-theory is one step after a post-hypothesis, and one half-step before a full fledged theory. In between those two are semi-laws which require no less than three scientific papers, but may not exceed ten, lest it cross into theory territory which would require well-established, but perhaps wholly unsupported, yet still “essential” data.