But this mapping is not part of the theory; it is done by the experimenter who wants to use the theory. Each time someone finds a new way of testing the theory, the mapping changes! In your case, there are many possibilities to do the mapping, hence a multitude of interpretations.Exactly. You have to go beyond the mathematical framework and map the experimental results to the labels.
Then please expand your theory fragment (or another one of your choice) to a complete theory that we can discuss.The part of the context that gives the mapping from the framework to experiment is part of the theory. This is precisely the point where your misuse of the term “theory” is causing problems.
No. he does not even give it the status of a definition - he admits only that it is the standard sketch, and emphasizes this weak status!even someone who is openly antagonistic to the standard definition admits that it is in fact the standard definition.
You are indeed not aware of the state of the art! Not only Suppes, your only witness among the philosophers of science, but also Wikipedia, your only other authoritative source, testify against you:But as far as I am aware the standard sketch remains the standard meaning of the terms and the scientific community has not adopted his “better informed” opinion.
It explicitly separates scientific theory (''an explanation of an aspect of the natural world"") and the relation to experiment (''the scientific method'').Wikipedia said:A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. [...] theory [...] describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid.
Wikipedia cites other authorities to support its definition; none of them requires a map between theory and experiment as part of the theory:
Stephen Jay Gould said:Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts
The United States National Academy of Sciences said:The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science said:A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
Wikipedia said:The logical positivists thought of scientific theories as statements in a formal language.
This is exactly my view, except that they have ''logical framework'' where you had suggested the term ''mathematical framework''!Wikipedia said:The semantic view of theories, which identifies scientific theories with models rather than propositions, has replaced the received view as the dominant position in theory formulation in the philosophy of science. A model is a logical framework [...] One can use language to describe a model; however, the theory is the model (or a collection of similar models), and not the description of the model. A model of the solar system, for example, might consist of abstract objects that represent the sun and the planets. These objects have associated properties, e.g., positions, velocities, and masses.
Wikipedia said:Engineering practice makes a distinction between "mathematical models" and "physical models"
Maybe our dispute comes from the fact that you are an engineer and I am a mathematician and physicist!Wikipedia said:In physics, the term theory is generally used for a mathematical framework
But note that this discussion is in a physics forum, not an engineering forum.