okay, remember when i asked if you had mixed hypothesis around in there, larry? now i know why there was a misunderstanding:

when you described "importance in science", i thought it meant, "holds more water", or "is more definitely true", and was wondering why a "fact" is so low, and why a "hypothesis" is above anything at all.

what's actually described is really how much useful information is there, i guess. or how interesting they are. the scale is not a measure of truth.

on the other end of the scale are those who misunderstand and say "it's a theory because it's true". it's actually a theory because it could be true, based on scientific evidence. there are other criteria, but you get the idea.

the theory that the earth was the centre of the solar system and the sun revolved around it was a perfectly valid theory until proven wrong.

so, yeah, "theory" is thrown around in the wrong way, and are (in general) no more valid than laws. but be careful explaining it. the impression is often left that a scientific theory is always true, but a theory is actually just a plausibility.

julz