Why do some people use the term "theory" & "scientific theory" interchangably as if they meant the same thing?

Question

Why do some people use the term "theory" & "scientific theory" interchangably as if they meant the same thing?

Answer 1

because they are...a scientific theory is just a more educated guess with some kind of reason pointing to what they believe to be truth...but the facts don't back it up enough to be called a fact...

Answer 2

A theory need not be scientific, in the sense that people commnly understand science.

A theory is, according to Miriam Webster "the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art".

Actually science means knowledge, so in that sense any theory is scientific.

Unfortunately people call evolution a theory. It is not since it is not based on fact. It is a hypothesis. One that does not explain the evidence at all well.

Answer 3

Because they are poorly educated and their pastors told 'em that "evolution is only a theory"

As Scientific American says...

"Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain. "

Answer 4

Scepticism

Answer 5

Because they've never studied science. A theory in science is as good as it gets- indisputable facts are for mathematicians.

Answer 6

because they are unaware of the many other kinds of theories that can be conceptualized.

Answer 7

Blatant ignorance.

Answer 8

I think that's primarily americans, isn't it? And we all know how terrible the american education system is.