lt is always good to see scientists engaging in philosophical reflection on the nature and practices of science. lt was thus a delight to read Root Gorelick's (forthcoming) paper in which he attempts to answer the very important question posed in the title: What is theory? Gorelick brings his scientific experience to this question and makes a great deal of progress on trying to distinguish theoretical science from the rest. To philosophers of science, this is gold. Philosophers take such philosophical reflections from scientists very seriously. After all, philosophy of science, as l see it, is in the business of understanding and systematising science as it is practiced. When the opportunity arises to read a thoughtful and clearly articulated account of what a working scientist considers to be the distinguishing features of theoretical science, l for one sit up and take notice. l take notice but, as we shall see, l do not necessarily agree. Gorelick's account is interesting and a good point of departure for an informed discussion on the issues in question, but as an account of theoretical science, l am not convinced. Let me, very briefly, draw attention to what l see as some of the shortcomings of Gorelick's account.