Common misconception between theory and hypothesis

[The_Strict_Nein]

In light of the recent news of the Pope accepting that Evolution and Creationsim can co-exist, as well as the Big Bang, a lot of responses people post to it (not necessarily on this site) say "it's just a theory, which means its no better than guessing". This shows an ignorance as to what theory means.

 

A Theory is a peer-reviewed and accepted truth. It is the best explanation we have for an existing phenomenon. It's the closest science has to a doctrine. To all intents and purposes, it is a fact.

 

An hypothesis is a statement of belief. An hypothesis is simply guessing, until you obtain sufficient evidence to prove it true.

 

In order to compare to the Catholic Church, let's make some examples.

 

A theory would be that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Based on all available evidence, there is little to dispute it and it's accepted as fact within the Church. A hypothesis would be that he was born while a man two towns over danced. It's a guess at best, and if you can find evidence to support it it becomes theory.

 

It's well worth knowing this distinction, as very few seem to know.

[Fred Castellum]

Following thread

[Manny Calavera]

Spaghetti flying monster agrees.

 

This shows SFM is real.

 

Christianity busted. You gonna cook in noodles for ethernity.

[T.Vengeance]

I do think that you have to specify it even more with the addition of "scientific" theory. A theory in general still means just a guess. But because this is within a scientific context, it becomes a different meaning. The phrase "I have a theory" still holds true for it being synonymous to a guess. I think that the scientific community chose the wrong word that makes it very much a misnomer. I wish I could go back in time and change it to something else. 

[Victorious Secret]

When people start to argue with me about theories, I tell them that even gravity is just a theory. 

 

Of course, scientific theories are well known and often very attacked. Why? Cause scientists want to find holes in the armour so they can make a better theory. Calling something a theory in science is basically the best honour you could give it. But that doesn't place it above reproach. 

 

A theory is still open to attack and open to improvement. Just how things work. 

 

To lay people, they think theories and hypothesis are one and the same, and they don't understand how important a distinction being a theory is. 

[Volbet]

Your example a bit off

 

A theory would be that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Based on all available evidence, there is little to dispute it and it's accepted as fact within the Church. A hypothesis would be that he was born while a man two towns over danced. It's a guess at best, and if you can find evidence to support it it becomes theory.

 

It's well worth knowing this distinction, as very few seem to know.

That Jesus was born in Bethlehem is a hypothesis. We only have one document (the gosples) to confirm this.

Usually this is what a hypothesis would then be based on. A observation, that we don't know what to think off. Then we would look at other documents to confirm that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

This search has left historians empty handed.

Therefor it is closer to the everyday usage of the word ´theory´, rather than the scientific use.

 

A scientific theory wouldn't describe something that is accepted as fact only by part of the population. It would be true for everyone, not just one group.

Science doesn't care who believes what, and should be the best current explanation of a part of reality.

[The_Strict_Nein]

Your example a bit off

 

That Jesus was botn in Bethlehem is a hypothesis. We only have one document (the gosples) to confirm this.

Usually this is what a hypothesis would then be based on. A observation, that we don't know what to think off. Then we would look at other documents to confirm that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

This search has left historians empty handed.

Therefor it is closer to the everyday usage of the word ´theory´, rather than the scientific use.

 

A scientific theory wouldn't describe something that is accepted as fact only by part of the population. Science doesn't care who believes what, and should be the best current explanation of a part of reality.

 

It's as close to a Theory as the church has.

 

When people start to argue with me about theories, I tell them that even gravity is just a theory. 

 

Of course, scientific theories are well known and often very attacked. Why? Cause scientists want to find holes in the armour so they can make a better theory. Calling something a theory in science is basically the best honour you could give it. But that doesn't place it above reproach. 

 

A theory is still open to attack and open to improvement. Just how things work. 

 

To lay people, they think theories and hypothesis are one and the same, and they don't understand how important a distinction being a theory is. 

 

A theory is open to attack, yes, but to call it "just a theory" ignores and belittles the thousands of hours of work and lives that have gone into turning a hypothesis into a theory.

 

When you say "it's just a theory" you're attacking it without evidence, which is as good as come back as saying "Yeah, well you suck".

[T.Vengeance]

When people start to argue with me about theories, I tell them that even gravity is just a theory. 

 

Of course, scientific theories are well known and often very attacked. Why? Cause scientists want to find holes in the armour so they can make a better theory. Calling something a theory in science is basically the best honour you could give it. But that doesn't place it above reproach. 

 

A theory is still open to attack and open to improvement. Just how things work. 

 

To lay people, they think theories and hypothesis are one and the same, and they don't understand how important a distinction being a theory is. 

That's the thing though. I feel like scientist don't get to make the call on what defines a word. I really do feel like the science community chose the wrong word, especially when (in the modern day at least) science is supposed to be for the people. For all of humanity, not just the elitist or the academic. You can't just go around saying that a theory is now a different definition just because of the way science is structured with respect to theories based on evidence. I think that's the fundamental problem here. English is made up of the collective speakers and not just scientists and academics; they only a small percentage of it. Scientist used the wrong word to begin with.

[The_Strict_Nein]

That's the thing though. I feel like scientist don't get to make the call on what defines a word. I really do feel like the science community chose the wrong word, especially when (in the modern day at least) science is supposed to be for the people. For all of humanity, not just the elitist or the academic. You can't just go around saying that a theory is now a different definition just because of the way science is structured with respect to theories based on evidence. I think that's the fundamental problem here. English is made up of the collective speakers but scientist and academia is not, but only a small percentage of it. Scientist used the wrong word to begin with.

 

And the Catholic Church totally didn't co-opt faith, did they?

[T.Vengeance]

And the Catholic Church totally didn't co-opt faith, did they?

How does that even relate to what I just said. I'm talking about the fundamental reason why people argue "It's just a theory". This somehow makes you think I'm now choosing sides. When scientist talk about science to a relatively science illiterate population, of course they react they way they do. Scientist ultimately failed at this point because the science illiterate default to their present understanding of what a theory is. So we can do either: 1. Educate the public more (which seems unlikely knowing lack of interest in science class) or 2. Use a different word altogether (which would've been easier and less of a misnomer). It's like getting mad at a 5 year old for not knowing why x = +/- 1 when solving for x² = 1.

[The_Strict_Nein]

How does that even relate to what I just said.

 

You dismiss the notion of the sanctity of the word Theory just because "scientists chose the wrong word".

 

If you told a religious person they were stupid to use the word Faith because it actually means nothing significant at all, they'd be annoyed. It's the same with dismissing the use of theory in science. Religion ultimately failed to pass across the idea that religion is anything more than the notions in a persons brain.

[T.Vengeance]

You dismiss the notion of the sanctity of the word Theory just because "scientists chose the wrong word".

 

If you told a religious person they were stupid to use the word Faith because it actually means nothing significant at all, they'd be annoyed. It's the same with dismissing the use of theory in science. Religion ultimately failed to pass across the idea that religion is anything more than the notions in a persons brain.

I edited that post by the way. You're still not seeing the point here I'm making here. I'm not too sure why you keep on adding religion into this. Even without religion, this would still hold true. If you had a population of atheist who had a lack of understanding of science, they would still say "Oh it's just a theory". Keep religion vs atheism out of this topic and maybe you'll see my point more clearly.

[The_Strict_Nein]

I edited that post by the way. You're still not seeing the point here I'm making here. I'm not too sure why you keep on adding religion into this. Even without religion, this would still hold true. If you had a population of atheist who had a lack of understanding of science, they would still say "Oh it's just a theory". Keep religion vs atheism out of this topic and maybe you'll see my point more clearly.

 

The point I'm making is that just because a word was chosen to mean something and you think that's stupid doesn't excuse ignorance. You don't have the right to insult the works of someone who spent far more of his life researching something than you ever will just because he used a word accepted by millions to mean a thing, but not you.

[T.Vengeance]

The point I'm making is that just because a word was chosen to mean something and you think that's stupid doesn't excuse ignorance. You don't have the right to insult the works of someone who spent far more of his life researching something than you ever will just because he used a word accepted by millions to mean a thing, but not you.

But it's not. What I'm saying is that the definition of a word is defined by the population. It is why fanny packs is defined differently in the UK compared to the US. Maybe at every point, the word scientific should be added to theory as a way to indicate that the theory is justified through countless peer review, and evidence support through multiple tests world wide. While I can see how saying "It's just a theory" can be insulting, it is justified because as I mentioned, the population knows a theory as a guess. This is why we have experts. Not everyone is expected to know differential calculus, or market growth or sheer material stress, or fluid dynamics. This is what I mean by scientists are using a misnomer to ultimately describe something else. Either way I guess we've said our points and there's no more reason why this should go on.

[LukaP]

An hypothesis is a statement of belief. An hypothesis is simply guessing, until you obtain sufficient evidence to prove it true.

a theory cant be proven true it can merely stand strong through all testing. but have one result that doesnt fit into the theory, and that theory is either rubbish, or needs adjustments even a billion results fitting it wont confirm it though 

 

that is my only disagreement with you

[The_Strict_Nein]

a theory cant be proven true it can merely stand strong through all testing. but have one result that doesnt fit into the theory, and that theory is either rubbish, or needs adjustments even a billion results fitting it wont confirm it though 

 

that is my only disagreement with you

 

True beyond reasonable doubt then. Evolution has been attacked from all sides since its conception and has remained a theory since it was accepted as one. I'd say that's beyond reasonable doubt.

[kingkickolas]

To be fair, this isn't the only term that's misused by the public.

 

The phrase "in general" means something very different in a scientific or mathematical context, than in a colloquial one. It's commonly used to mean "most often" or "on average", which is technically not correct.

 

For example, in the last two weeks, I went to bed between 10:30pm and 1:00am every day except one, on which I went to bed at 3:00am.

A lay person might say, "Yeah in general, I go to bed between 10:30 and 1." However, a scientifically or mathematically accurate statement of the last two weeks would be "In general, I go to bed between 10:30 and 3."

This can sometimes lead to confusion, but not often.

 

Sometimes words do have different meanings in different contexts.

Is that problematic in the case of "theory" and "in general", yeah probably a little and I wish it would change.

[T.Vengeance]

a theory cant be proven true it can merely stand strong through all testing. but have one result that doesnt fit into the theory, and that theory is either rubbish, or needs adjustments even a billion results fitting it wont confirm it though 

 

that is my only disagreement with you

http://youtu.be/vKA4w2O61Xo?t=3m15s

 

This goes along the same lines as what you're saying

[LukaP]

True beyond reasonable doubt then. Evolution has been attacked from all sides since its conception and has remained a theory since it was accepted as one. I'd say that's beyond reasonable doubt.

fair enough. but if you want to educate people on science, use correct terms as you said, evolution is probable, beyond reasonable doubt. but its not true. hypothetically, of one day, a god showed up, to every being on earth, and said evolution is false, and he put fossils in to fuck with us, evolution would go down the toilet. (and loads of other supposedly "true" theories as well)

[Volbet]

http://youtu.be/vKA4w2O61Xo?t=3m15s

 

This goes along the same lines as what you're saying

That is actually quite a good explanation for the difference between verification and falsification in the philosophy of science.

 

fair enough. but if you want to educate people on science, use correct terms as you said, evolution is probable, beyond reasonable doubt. but its not true. hypothetically, of one day, a god showed up, to every being on earth, and said evolution is false, and he put fossils in to fuck with us, evolution would go down the toilet. (and loads of other supposedly "true" theories as well)

Yes and no.

 

Just because all the fossiles were placed in the earth by a god, that wouldn't discredit the whole of evolution. There would still be observed change and speciation in the modern day.

Of course, if a being with knowledge of everything (and we could actually trust this being) told us something was false, then it would be false.

[Pugs501]

What about speed/velocity?

[Victorious Secret]

a theory cant be proven true it can merely stand strong through all testing. but have one result that doesnt fit into the theory, and that theory is either rubbish, or needs adjustments even a billion results fitting it wont confirm it though 

 

that is my only disagreement with you

 

A lot of this. 

 

While I'm not writing papers just yet (even though my boss says I should start) the first thing we are told is to NEVER design a experiment, study or base a theory around trying to be proven right. NEVER. Nope. Don't. Just stop. 

 

Your work should be setup so that it can be proven wrong. You can't prove yourself right. You can't prove someone else right. Your goal is to come up with alternatives to prove them wrong. If you can't, it doesn't make them right. It just means its the best attempt. 

We haven't proved evolution right. We just haven't proved it wrong. There is a big difference that I think some people don't get. Its the best explanation, not the correct one. Even in a million years when people stop attacking it and poking holes; it doesn't become right. It just stays as the last, most reasonable guess that was established. 

[LukaP]

That is actually quite a good explanation for the difference between verification and falsification in the philosophy of science.

 

Yes and no.

 

Just because all the fossiles were placed in the earth by a god, that wouldn't discredit the whole of evolution. There would still be observed change and speciation in the modern day.

Of course, if a being with knowledge of everything (and we could actually trust this being) told us something was false, then it would be false.

yeah that was my premise, that he/she/it told us that he/she/it was just fucking with us.

[LukaP]

A lot of this. 

 

While I'm not writing papers just yet (even though my boss says I should start) the first thing we are told is to NEVER design a experiment, study or base a theory around trying to be proven right. NEVER. Nope. Don't. Just stop. 

 

Your work should be setup so that it can be proven wrong. You can't prove yourself right. You can't prove someone else right. Your goal is to come up with alternatives to prove them wrong. If you can't, it doesn't make them right. It just means its the best attempt. 

We haven't proved evolution right. We just haven't proved it wrong. There is a big difference that I think some people don't get. Its the best explanation, not the correct one. Even in a million years when people stop attacking it and poking holes; it doesn't become right. It just stays as the last, most reasonable guess that was established. 

BOLDED AND QFT!

 

guys just google the scientific method. im pretty sure this is explained in depth 

[Victorious Secret]

BOLDED AND QFT!

guys just google the scientific method. im pretty sure this is explained in depth

The other argument is that science should be accessible and open to understand to all.

To an extent. If you're passionate and driven, nothing in research will be beyond comprehension.

But science is not for the lay person. The prostate cancer bio marker research I do is barely comprehensible to guys with PhDs who spend 80 hours a week on, and were somehow supposed to make it understandable to normal people?

Hah. Hell no. I won't dumb down my craft for others just like a chef won't dumb down his recipes for home cookers.

There will always be a skill gap. Scientists are SUPPOSED to know better and be all that. Normal people genuinely don't care about most of this stuff, they care more about the end result. IMHO nothing wrong with that approach.