Perhaps we're splitting hairs. But this doesn't sit right with me.
Consider what is meant by a thought experiment in popular literature. Take Einstein's elevator. Would you call that "Einstein's elevator theory?" Or is that a prediction based on the theory of equivalence?
Maybe in this vein a clear distinction is that a thought experiment is a proof discovery technique. It is working with heuristics and intuition. At the end there is something; a statement or prediction that seems right. But no matter how much intuition confirms it, in the physical sciences it needs to be tested and in the mathematical sciences it needs a formal proof. Beyond that, it is just another hypothesis. After that it leads to a theory.
With all due respect, but you're both not just splitting hairs: you're splitting hairs about something you don't know enough about. There's a whole body of literature on the subject and you're not going to reinvent all of that in the course of this small discussion. If neither of you have heard of, for instance, Carl Hempel, then this discussion is completely pointless.
If you don't standardize your terminology first, then you're just discussing the boundaries of your personal definitions, instead of embarking on actual intellectual discovery of the terrain.
This discussion is an 'intellectual discovery' for its participants. Its unfortunate you wish to hinder that through dismissive remarks instead of constructively participating.
When I was 12, I once had a night-long discussion with a friend about the implications of faster-than-light travel. Once I learned some actual physics, I realized none of that discussion made any sense at all.
Something isn't intellectual discovery just because information is exchanged and both people feel they are learning stuff. Intellectual discovery makes sense if you are trying to structure the knowledge and are connecting it to knowledge you already have. Without things to connect it to, such as a shared definition of 'theory', you end up running around in circles.
It's like being dropped into a maze and not trying to solve it, but just running around in it. It may be fun, and you won't hear me complain, but as soon as someone starts wondering whether they are going too much into the details of solving it ("maybe I'm splitting hairs"), I feel obliged to point out they haven't really started to solve it. They've just been randomly discovering the territory, not noticing whether they returned to the same point several times.
I'm not trying to be disparaging; I'm just pointing out that talk of 'splitting hairs' is really premature.
I often find it highly useful to flesh out terrain in my own mind before exploring the literature. You're remarks were extremely condescending and you could have made the same point without the poor tone.
Oddly, you nearly admit the usefulness of it. "They've just been randomly discovering the territory". Discovering territory is valuable, whether it's random or not!
But the oddest thing is that you don't provide any useful information. You don't link to a page with the info you think we should read, or to a book on the matter, or a paper. Nothing, but condescension.
I'm sorry, it was not my intention to be condescending; merely to be critical. Searching for 'philosophy of science' should provide plenty of resources; which ones suit you is impossible for me to guess, because it strongly depends on background/prior knowledge, which is why I refrained from advising anything specific.
The link looks interesting, but does it talk specifically about models and their relation to theories which is what we were discussing that you found to be a waste of time
Consider what is meant by a thought experiment in popular literature. Take Einstein's elevator. Would you call that "Einstein's elevator theory?" Or is that a prediction based on the theory of equivalence?
Maybe in this vein a clear distinction is that a thought experiment is a proof discovery technique. It is working with heuristics and intuition. At the end there is something; a statement or prediction that seems right. But no matter how much intuition confirms it, in the physical sciences it needs to be tested and in the mathematical sciences it needs a formal proof. Beyond that, it is just another hypothesis. After that it leads to a theory.