[dartuser]

For a theory to be useful it has to predict things that are not predicted by other theories

So if a theory actually predicts that you wont find any evidence for it ... should the scientific community reject that theory as being non-scientific?

[gondramB]

>>So if a theory actually predicts that you wont find any evidence for it ... should the scientific community reject that theory as being non-scientific?<<

It could still be a scientific theory but it would be “non-useful” and would not normally be taught as part of a curriculum. Russell’s teapot is the classic example.

Some famous and important work has started as non-useful but become useful (like wave particle duality) as applications were found.

Other work continues to be non-useful but large amounts of research are applied to it because it is believed to be be promising or it fills a need to resolve a contradiction (like string theory).

But generally, if a theory is taught at the high school level, it meets the requirement of “useful.”