One Theory Vs. Another Theory and Their Observations

Science is a community of observers, and their observations become theories. These theories don't always match up though, nor do they always encompass a wide range of observations. Sometimes theories like the theory of quantum mechanics are made, but they don't account for large particles of matter. The theory in itself explains particles smaller than 10^-9 m, but anything larger than that, characteristics and explanations cannot be devised. Then scientists created the String Theory which explains both large and small particles' characteristics. Both theories share the same observations for small particles, however, the string theory uses these observations in a different way, and includes large particles. Yet some scientists don't think the string theory is technically a theory, even though a theory is just an explanation for observations. Those scientists say that you can never really observe such small or large particles properly, and that you cannot ever test any of your ideas based on any observations. Therefore they classify the string theory as actually a philosophy of physics. A theory or a philosophy, the string theory fits observations and encompasses a wide range of observations as well, and supports the idea that even though one observation is used in one theory, doesn't mean that it cannot be used in a better way in another theory that encompasses more observations than the first.

"Theories are proven by experiments..."

Experiments and theories both occur in the scientific method and start with a simple observation. Someone could say that a theory is proven by an experiment, however this is not the case. Hypothesises are proven or disproved by experiments, and experiments then can test a larger theory, but experiments themselves never prove a theory. Looking at Howard Gardner's work with multiple intelligences one of the biggest issue people have with it is that his theory is based too much on intuition. Gardner has indeed done experiments, but they do not prove his theory correct. Experiments are just evidence to support a theory, not to prove one. However because Gardner's work is so controversial it is hard to say that it can be called a theory at all. Some scientists like Doug Rohrer do not believe there is scientific evidence to back up the idea that different learning styles will help students learn. Now Rohrer didn't necessarily look into Gardner's work, but the overall idea of experiments supporting theories not proving them is there as well. Evidence is needed for a theory to be accepted, and experiments are just evidence to support a theory. Theories are not proven by experiments, but supported by them.