The phrase "a theory without" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when discussing a theory that lacks a certain element or component, often to highlight a deficiency or limitation.
Example: "A theory without empirical evidence is often considered speculative and less credible."
Alternatives: "a hypothesis lacking" or "a concept devoid of".
"This is a theory without a witness".
"This is a theory without a case," Mr. Brafman said.
Indeed, one can recognize the explanatory power of a theory without taking it to be true.
On this account, even an ideally rational person might accept a theory without being able to determine its ontological commitments.
But, one might naturally think, no scientist can acknowledge the explanatory power of a theory without taking the theory to be true.
This has hitherto been a theory without actual examples in the clinical setting and, to our knowledge, this is the first report of RCVS associated with AD.
Thirteenth-century essentialist assumptions were dropped from modal syllogistic, the Aristotelian version of which was regarded as a fragmentary theory without a sufficient explication of the various fine structures of modal propositions.
This distinction itself is important, to be sure – particularly in the context in which Darwin wrote – but it does not qualify natural selection as a general theory without a great deal more development.
To arrive at this result, Jensen, Karch, and Sonner use the so-called holographic principle, a concept invented by Maldacena that states that a quantum theory with gravity in a given space is equivalent to a quantum theory without gravity in a space with one less dimension that makes up the original space's boundary.
The Dialectics sketch a normative theory without presenting a fundamental justification for it, thus leaving some uncertainty as to the nature of the theory's foundation.[5] The fragmentary, unsystematic nature of the texts does not allow us to rule out the possibility that the later Mohists held a mixed theory, incorporating both consequentialist and deontological elements.
Furthermore, it is impossible to add a true consequence to a false theory without thereby adding additional false consequences (or subtract a false consequence without subtracting true consequences).
