Theory or Hypothesis?

I'm not entirely sure why I'm posting this. Perhaps it's just my pet peeve taking reins for a bit, but I think that understanding the difference between a theory and a hypothesis is important. I see a lot of threads where people proclaim new theories and whatnot. More often than not, however, these theories would be better described as hypothesis.

What is the difference, one may ask? That's easy.

Hypothesis:

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory.

Theory: The official definition of a Theory from the United States National Academy of Sciences is as follows:

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena,

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

In short, a theory is a hypothesis that has stood repeated testing and proven true. While theories /can/ be disproven (and have through the years), they are far more concrete than a hypothesis.

Hope I didn't annoy anyone with my nit-picking of grammar, but I think it's important to understand the differences between scientific theory and scientific hypothesis.

this bothers me only because i had someone come into my thread and tap me on the shoulder about it.

i was accused of claiming "theory" status for my OP, when i made no such claim.

people 'round here get so caught up in their effort to "deny ignorance" that they forget something VERY IMPORTANT::

*there is not a moratorium on ideas*, i dont care WHAT you call it.


...best, OP.

reply to post by BriggsBU


A theory is a collection of hypothesis? Am I correct in saying that, cause some time back that is the conclusion I came with, but now not sure.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

A theory can have hypothesis? Right?

Actually, a hypothesis becomes a theory once it's been subjected to the scrutiny of one's peers, and those peers have been unable to prove it false...if that makes any sense.

I know it's been explained more eloquently.

My hypothesis is that I just can't remember the words right now.





edit to add: If the hypothesis cannot be proven false by peer review, yet can't be proven true either, it remains a theory. If said theory is later shown (scientifically) to be true, it simply becomes proven fact.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by lernmore]

A hypothesis is a concept. A thesis statement declares what you believe and what you intend to prove. The "hypo" part implies that your thesis has not yet been tested by any conjecture or experiment.

Once your hypothesis has been tested by conjecture and or experiment, but not proven to be correct or false it becomes a theory, where it remains until it becomes proven false or proven to be an accepted fact

The accepted fact is not the same as proven true, but instead means that your hypothesis - theory has been accepted as true by whatever guidlines the group judging it requiures to consider it to be true

Ultimately many accepted scientific facts are overturned as false when our ability to judge the facts by new more accurate standards are established

...like the earth revolving around the sun

My personal belief is that all truth is scalar and it is the singularity you share with your designated group that makes it true

BUT

To establish a hypothesis to become a "theory"....is a huge wank fest!

Where selected CLUB credentialled ....brain -wash-ees... collectively decide... they agree or or do not/ cannot dispute it!

Curved "space time" ....BS!

Originally posted by Has2b
BUT

To establish a hypothesis to become a "theory"....is a huge wank fest!

Where selected CLUB credentialled ....brain -wash-ees... collectively decide... they agree or or do not/ cannot dispute it!

Curved "space time" ....BS!

Utter garbage. Have you ever been through the peer review process? I'm thinking not. Deny Ignorance and all that.
2nd line.

It's a pet peev of mine too! I was going to start a similar thread but thought it likely that someone had beaten me to it, hence a star and flag for you!