The comment that you were replying to was about effectiveness. You replied with an intentional equivocation between effectiveness and validity.

i.e. neither of us are confused, but you are being dishonest.

As I just pointed out, whether a theory is effective or not is irrelevant, the question is whether it is true or not. So I reinterpreted the original point so it actually made sense, and rightly so.

You are not only confused about that, but you're also incredibly arrogant (in that you think you discern dishonest motives with such sparse evidence).

A scientific theory can never be true. It can only stand as "not disproven".

Nonsense. Barring semantic games played by fools, we know the Earth orbits the Sun, not the other way around. We know that matter is composed of atoms. Etc.

Those would not be theories, those would be observations.

Theories attempt to explain why things happen as they do, observations are statements that something has or has not happened.

Gravity is an observation. Let go of an object, it travels towards the surface of the planet (usually). Gravitational theory attempts to explain why gravity happens.

Evolution is an observation. Over time, random variance occurs in living things, and when these variances are beneficial to the life of the living thing, the variance tends to spread through the species over time (give or take). Evolutionary theory is an attempt at explaining how and why this occurs.

Obama has changed his position on issues X, Y, and Z. are observations. That he has done this because he's an evil, blood-sucking politician who says anything to get approval is an attempt at explaining why Obama has changed his positions over time.

"Those would not be theories, those would be observations.

Theories attempt to explain why things happen as they do, observations are statements that something has or has not happened."

You are very confused. The observation is that it appears as if the Sun is moving across the sky. The theory is that that's because the Earth is rotating.

You should be able to work out the rest for yourself.

It's either a theory and we don't know it, or it's an observation and we do know it. You can't, definitionally, have your cake and eat it as well.

You can never know a theory to be true. A "true" theory does not exist.

You are not the arbiter of what constitutes a "theory." And it's a good thing, too...

You're mistaken if you think I'm saying I am. I'm telling you what other people hear when you say 'theory'.

Feel free to think whatever you'd like, but this is what people will be thinking of when you say 'theory'.

You should do more study on the varied senses of "theory."

Please stop.