Patrick Reany wrote:
If science education had done its job right, you'd all be able to
correctly define the following terms: (physical) theory, (physical)
law, (physical) hypothesis, (physical) model, scientific method. So,
those of you that are so smug that you KNOW what the hell science is
really all about can define these terms for us here and now.

I can not remember one time in any class I've taken in science and
even in physics (I took the entire undergraduate core of physics
classes at a major university) in which any of these terms were
defined clearly, if they were defined at all! If your experience was
different, let us know what are those definitions you read. Please
give the references too.

I think you're right (except perhaps about who's at fault) - those are
commonly used terms that don't usually get clearly defined. After
thinking about it for a while, here's what I came up with. I hope it
generates some discussion.

Theory - an axiomatic system consisting of undefined terms, relations
and an assumed consistent set of axioms (presumed relationships between
terms) from which theorems are derived using inferential logic.

(physical) Interpretation - a 1-1 correspondence between the terms and
relations of a Theory and natural phenomena.

Model - an Interpretation in which all the Interpreted axioms and
theorems are true.

(physical) Principle - the Interpretation of an axiom.

(physical) Law - the Interpretation of a theorem that's been confirmed
by a "sufficient" amount of experimentation.

(physical) Hypothesis - a conjecture about Nature - a proposed theorem.

Scientific method - the development of a Theory together with an
Interpretation that's proposed as a Model for some subset of Nature and
the subsequent attempt to refute that proposal through experimentation.