Well which is it, a theory or a hypothesis?

In both the “real world” and the “online world” there is some major misusage of words going on. People often use the words "theory" and "hypothesis" interchangeably, but little do they know, the words have two separate meanings. So, I believe it’s time to crack down on this. Deny Ignorance, right?

In the scientific method, the primary means by which science develops and tests ideas, a hypothesis is one of the first things you come up with. It’s simply a statement or idea of what is happening. According to Dictionary.com a hypothesis is, "A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation." It is also defined as, "an assumption." People use the word "theory" more often to describe this, when in fact they should be using the word "hypothesis."

After a hypothesis has been scientifically tested through a wide variety of methods can it be called a "theory." According to Dictionary.com a "theory" consists of "a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

So now that we have that cleared up, let's see some change going on!

[edit on 11/3/2005 by cmdrkeenkid]

This right here is the reason the opponents of evolution have such a hard battle - they're misusing words.

Thanks, cmdr, this is something absolutely vital to the discussion of many topics here at ATS.

I think it is a theory, but hypothesis fits also, although in slightly different contexts.
For instance, if you type both words, such as this: [ reptilians: theory or hypothesis]
Most of the sites given call anything to do with the Reptilians Theory, not Hypothesis.
Actually, you could call it either, why bicker over such a thing? Are we not here to learn new things? I fully realize that some will call me crazy, and worse, this bothers me not. I am her to learn, and to tell what I know, and research things out for those who don't know how, or lack the time.
See these links:
/72uku
/avj7m
/dnp7l
"The foremost expert on Reptoids" is researcher John Rhodes, reports cryptozoologist Karl Shuker.
/cm3qq

Originally posted by Magickman
Most of the sites given call anything to do with the Reptilians Theory, not Hypothesis.

Just because a lot of people do it, doesn't make it right. That's the entire point of this thread.

Actually, you could call it either, why bicker over such a thing?

ATS Credo: Deny Ignorance!

Since the "tests" done are askewed, and results are forced to fit predetermined desires, while the "scientists" are quick to hail new fossil discoveries that prove their theories but one has to really dig deep to find out that the discoveries were nothing more than extinct apes...

I can go on and on, but there is no need.

The definitions of the words are not in question. Most of us stayed awake in science classes. The ones whow do the "fuzzy science" are the ones who have a problem with definitions - and honesty.

But, I forget, one may not mention the devious tactics of the evolutionists, only the religious motivation of the anti-evolutionists.

In reading, I come across anti-evolutionists that are blinded by their motivation and will warp facts to push their agenda. Every one of you here will agree to that, I have no doubt. What you will not agree to, but it just as much fact, is that the other side does the same thing, but have the children's text books with which to push their agenda.

This crap has no place among the hard sciences, and the education system would be no worse off without it being taught.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Since the "tests" done are askewed, and results are forced to fit predetermined desires, while the "scientists" are quick to hail new fossil discoveries that prove their theories but one has to really dig deep to find out that the discoveries were nothing more than extinct apes...

A modest attempt to clear up confusion about the definitions of some words, turned into yet another Evolution vs Creation debate, and by an Administrator no less.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
What you will not agree to, but it just as much fact, is that the other side does the same thing, but have the children's text books with which to push their agenda.

Yeah children's textbooks are alot more effective than fundamentalist parents and support from the President......

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
This crap has no place among the hard sciences, and the education system would be no worse off without it being taught.

Biology is an elective class so the only kids who learn it, are the ones that choose to.

Hypotheses are statements of relationships between variables: The introduction of the independent variable will affect the dependent variable in such and such a way, e.g., a spinning top will be knocked off its axis by contacting an object.

We can test this hypothesis by spinning a top and throwing a baseball at it to see if it will be knocked off its axis.

A hypothesis is a scientist's best estimation, based on scientific knowledge and assumptions, of the results of an experiment. It usually describes the anticipated relationship among variables in an experiment. The anticipated relationship between the dependent and independent variables is the result you expect when one variable reacts with another. A hypothesis typically leads to the crucial questions that must be addressed in the lab: did you find what you expected to find? Why or why not? ...

www.ncsu.edu...

Usually, a null hypothesis is devised, such as: a top will continue to spin on its axis regardless of any intervention and the experiments seeks to disprove the null hypothesis.

The null hypothesis is a term that statisticians often use to indicate the statistical hypothesis tested. The purpose of most statistical tests, is to determine if the obtained results provide a reason to reject the hypothesis that they are merely a product of chance factors. For example, in an experiment in which two groups of randomly selected subjects have received different treatments and have yielded different means, it is always necessary to ask if the difference between the obtained means is among the differences that would be expected to occure by chance whenever two groups are randomly selected. In this example, the hypothesis tested is that the two samples are from populations with the same mean. Another way to say this is to assert that the investigator tests the null hypothesis that the difference between the means of the populations from which the samples were drawn, is zero. If the difference between the means of the samples is among those that would occur rarely by chance when the null hypothesis is true, the null hypothesis is rejected and the investigator describes the results as statistically significant.

www.animatedsoftware.com...

Regarding a theory, this from Wikipedia is a good explanation:

In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e., it

1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,

2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,

3. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory,

4. is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting certainty, and

5. is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing Occam's Razor.

en.wikipedia.org...

Most often when someone on this board announces that they have a theory, what they mean to say is that they have a conjecture, at best, a delusion, at worst.


[edit on 2005/11/13 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
So now that we have that cleared up, let's see some change going on!

As TC so bluntly showed, the problem has never been that people don't understand what the words mean. It's that some people just look for a fight, and semantics is a very easy one to get into.

Bluntly?
I thought I was tip-toeing!
Charley, I have no idea how to sort out your convolution. That is a tactic I have seen many times, and I am going to handle it the best way. Right now.

There.

Regardless, I am a skimmer, and it seems I might have allowed that to drag me off course.
This being admitted, Commander, to what specific were you referring when you assembled this thread? What went through your mind that triggered this? Surely, it wasn't the age old and often found to be false assumption that Starbucks is the coffee to die for!?!

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
This being admitted, Commander, to what specific were you referring when you assembled this thread? What went through your mind that triggered this? Surely, it wasn't the age old and often found to be false assumption that Starbucks is the coffee to die for!?!

There really wasn't any set specific... I just see it happening all the time on the boards and hear it all the time in classes. I'm tired of hearing it and it's about time someone tried to do something positive with what's left of the English language.

Starbuck's coffee is rediculously good... Though far too overpriced!

I suppose one might feel that way, if one thought that dark roast was the best. Dark roast simply means that the coffee bean is burned beyond all recognition.

Personally, I like a light roast.

Ah, this was in reference to conspiracy "theorists", right?

Let's face facts; saying Conspiracy Hypothesisamaticians is way to cumbersome!

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Most often when someone on this board announces that they have a theory, what they mean to say is that they have a conjecture, at best, a delusion, at worst.

Aw, Grady... Just when I'm ready to write you off completely, you come out with the best post in the thread.

And the thong doesn't hurt...

cmdrkeenkid, I'd love to see this change, but as others have said, I doubt we will. The best I hope for is to point it out when it's a relevant part of the discussion, as in, yes, evolution vs. creationism. It's germane to the discussion of whether either should be taught as science.

And TC, if you think dark roast is just burnt, you haven't had a good French Roast. It is possible to burn it, but it's also possible to get it juuuust right! Mmmmm.

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

I'm tired of hearing it and it's about time someone tried to do something positive with what's left of the English language.

[sigh] I used to think that way. I spoke and wrote carefully, and with great respect for language. Educated people were uniformly impressed. Many offered rewards along with compliments. But most people didn't bloody listen to what I had to say. My audience was restricted to the educated elite.

I wanted to reach out. Go beyond the boundaries of my closed community. And to do that, I had to change the way I use language. If I speak or write quickly I slip and get verbose, dense, correct to a fault. But if I stay loose, and adopt the vernacular, my world is a bigger place.

I like big.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Let's face facts; saying Conspiracy Hypothesisamaticians is way to cumbersome!

I'm so going to be using the word "hypothesisamaticians".

Starbucks is overpriced swill. I get better coffee at the gas station for about 1/5 the cost. Of course, given the price of gas, I guess they can afford to cut us some slack on the java.

But that's just my deluded conjecture.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
cmdrkeenkid, I'd love to see this change, but as others have said, I doubt we will.

The only thing that needs to happen to get the change going is for people to take action. I'm calling for people to Deny Ignorance both online and off, and no one seems to want to do it!

Just because a lot of people misuse a word doesn't make it okay. Just because a lot of people thought racism was okay, was it? Sure, it's a very extreme example there, but the point is still the same. Just because everyone does it doesn't make it right.

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Just because a lot of people misuse a word doesn't make it okay.

I'm totally with you on that and so I, for one, hereby do swear and affirm to use the proper words from now on! If you see that I've messed it up, you have my explicit permission to give me a ration of crap about it.

If there's one thing I HATE it's seeing that nu-ku-lar is now an acceptable pronunciation of the word nuclear, in the dictionary, simply because some people say it that way.

Pronunciation: 'nü-klE-&r, 'nyü-, ÷-ky&-l&r
www.m-w.com...

It even has the audio file of the mispronunciation!
Sorry... rant...

[edit on 15-11-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]