Is there any difference between scientific knowledge and scientific theory? (For Ragman)

I guess the underlying premise of my statements is that we can only be said to "know" facts. If you want to say that we can "know" what we call opinions, beliefs, subjective certainty, etc., then you would definitely arrive at a different position than I have taken. That is, if we can be said to "know" things that are not facts, then what is called "knowledge" would encompass many more things. Virtually everything, actually.

For starters, we have to pick a field of science as to what constitutes a theory as it is different in most branches .

Like what, for example, Ionus? Offhand, I would think that the general definition of (and criterion for deciding) what a "scientific theory" is is pretty uniform across the board and independent of subject matter.

What am I overlooking?

In Physics alone, there are different definitions of a theory . If I am demonstrating something by holding a glass above a hard floor and dropping it so it shatters, I could be demonstrating a law of physics and suggesting a theory . Engineering is based on these sorts of practical experiments based on theory .

In sub-atomic particle theory, I will see a large amount of mathematical calculations and sensor readings . Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions . When you only have one Hadron Collider it is difficult to confirm a theory as most scientists are dependent on the one set of data . If that is wrong, then we are off in a strange new direction with some basing new theories on those theories, despite a lack of proof .

Chemistry is fairly rock solid in that many of its theories have demonstrable outcomes . Astro-physics not so much as we cant make a star .

Theories themselves have been tested and proven wrong but had quite a following in their day . Einstein was wrong, Hawking was wrong, Newton, and so on .

Some theories are not testable at all . Evolution of large animals for example . We can not wait for thousands of years to see it happen so we rely on a theory as to how it might have happened . We can demonstrate the theory of evolution on a microscopic level but does that translate without amendment to large intelligent animals ?

Many of the sciences have to modify that or they wont have any theories at all . Many, like GW, cant use the scientific method to gather data . They can not repeatedly test as in the example of the Hadron Collider .

A lot of theories are in fact hypothesis because they lack methodology, repeatability and sheer visible evidence . That they become theories is based on their popularity with scientists . These scientists have a need to fill the gaps and will just as quickly swing to a new theory when a better one comes along .