Hypothesis vs. Theory

I have hypothesis that you are a stick in the mud. :)

Exactly!

I have a theory...AND a hypothesis.

It bugs me as well.. I don't usually bother to correct simple pet peeves such as this or perhaps grammar/spelling nazi-ism.. But a lot of harm can come from not understanding the difference between the two!

People will say "Evolution is ONLY a theory," and then expect me to understand why they don't "believe" it.

No. That's bullshit. Get your egotistical head out of your fucking ass. Living a life of ignorance will not, contrary to popular belief, lead to bliss.

How intelligent would I sound if I were never to use a vehicle because I don't "believe" in them because they're ONLY theories.

In your scenario the only difference is the assumption a number of repeated observations dictates future consistency in the observation. I can't buy that, so there is no difference to me other that a hypothesis is less likely to demonstrate validity within the set of chosen parameters to predict a particular outcome.

It's all some nerdy scientific jargon !!

It does means that, the person think that he knows of what he is talking about, but "on the other hand", he think that he could be wrong.

Theory is a cognitive lens whereby one can see the world. To the degree that what you see is what, in fact, is real, the theory is a good theory. To the degree that the theory obscures reality, it is a bad theory.

Hypotheses are used to make predictions about what the 'reality' will be that is seen using a particular theory. To the degree that an hypothesis is unable to be falsified is an indication of the validity and reliability of the theory in question. To the degree that an hypothesis can be falsified, i.e., the null hypothesis is rejected, the theory used to generate said theory is weakened and, given enough falsifications, the theory can be totally discredited.

Science can never find what is true; it can only prove that which is false to be false. What is left, no matter how bizarre may, in fact, be the truth but there is no guarantee that it is, in fact, the truth.

So, then, therefore, all we are able to see is information proving that something is highly likely to be false. What is left as truth is, well, foundational material upon which a theory may rest for a time.

All this said, evolution and creation are both theories. Neither can be proven. They are equal contenders in science if you are a REAL scientist.

Definitions for some very important words in general Science

Hypothesis - a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

Postulate - a proposition that requires no proof, being self-evident, or that is for a specific purpose assumed true, and that is used in the proof of other propositions; axiom; a fundamental principle. A hypothesis advanced as an essential presupposition, condition, or premise of a train of reasoning

Axiom - a generally accepted proposition or principle, sanctioned by experience; a self-evident statement; A well-formed formula which is taken to be true without proof in the construction of a theory.

Theory - a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena; a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Theorem - a rule or law, especially one expressed by an equation or formula; a proposition that can be deduced from the premises or assumptions of a system.

Proper Steps of the Scientific Method (with commentary)

1) Define the question - What is in need of understanding?
2) Gather information and resources (observe) - What is already understood about this subject matter?
3) Form hypothesis - From the known data what would I expect?
4) Perform experiment and collect data - What ways can I examine or explore my ideas to see if they are correct or incorrect?
5) Analyze data - Does the data support my ideas?
6) Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis - What other avenues of exploration and investigation does this open up? If the Data did not support my Ideas what Ideas does it support?
7) Publish results - Share with others the information obtained
8) Retest (frequently done by other scientists) - Both to confirm for yourself your results as well as to allow others to confirm the same results with in acceptable margin of error.

I disagree with your premise. There are times when we can in fact discern true knowledge, however infrequent those times may be.

And how can you say evolution can't be proven? We are living proof of it.

Unfortunately this is not true.

In order to be Theory it must be testable. There are plenty of tests for evolution, there are none for creation.

Evolution is Theory and can be proven in part.

Creation is a Theocratic suppositional axiom that has prerequisites, it requires faith and acceptance of the existence of a supreme being of a sort.

please see my previous post in this thread.

+1 for logic

thank you AC 1368948

There is no box.

A theory is a preset about how an issue of concern gets dissolved.

Any statement that comes not to this point is less than a theory.

Wheter hypothesis or theory, the stone for proofing is the praxis or how things really dissolve.

Oh there's a box...we're just not IN it.

for continued discourse

Well, no theory is developed from empirical observation purely. since observation is subjective to individual. different people use empirical data differently.

In order to ethically adhere to the Scientific Method one must do all one can to remove oneself from both overt and subtle influence on the subjective nature of the analysis of the empirical data, and strive to achieve true objectivity. This is the reason peer review is such an import part of science and that a consensus must be reached to both establish validity of experimental results and continued validity of established theories.

Science if oft mistaken for being a static thing, rather it is a continued learning process; what is known today is often clarified, revised, or improved upon tomorrow.

accidental post

Last Edited by Sol-Magmatard 26 on 06/10/2011 01:34 PM

There is till now no mankind made theory on the table that fits the results delivered by praxis without complains.

You will argue but into the limits that is set by the theory we will have a 100% relability in praxis.

But you forget, every theory is not a selfpurpose or a piece of art but has to solve a problem. The effort should be worth. It should improve the level of already existing solutions.

Most destinity of theories they work in praxis but the result is a state you can say things have gotten worser. You will deliver cheap energy, theory atomic power works, but the outcoming of the theory doesn't really fit the purpose. The theories involved work as part, but fail in a whole and does not improve the level of already existing solutions.

Watch like this and and even the best working theory has not a higher ranking than a theory.

The very living process of creating a solution can not be foreseen by any means. It's the medium human being and its sensiblity for the needs of a situation wich frames the outcoming of a good solution that fits the desired effort: to deliver a better level of solution than there was before.

To make a difference between theory and hypothesis therefore it doesn't rest more than the already said: a theory is a kind of a larger idea and is concerned about how something can get dissolved or solved. The place for the hypothesis - it does not claim for a solution.

The solution for the problem as it is: to consider a hypothesis a theory on the bench to get proofed first is more handsome. I agree.

If the problem goes into position, here we have evos and there creas, so they stand clearly to make a difference at gunpoint, the problem reaching its finest solution by military intelligence. You know who wirtes the history.

After the battle has taken place we will know the truth.

For not running away from the battlefield: creation is always as a following of competition for the best solution. It says just nothing or all. To describe what has happend out of this frame, for the theory of evolution I know no better.

Arg this is way too much Maths.... it's a friday guys... go drink some beer.... chite

%-) I understand English is not your first language but if this was a translate.google.com thing then it's a major FAIL on Google's part as I understood almost none of that.

for one no Idea what praxis means and I am unable to find it in english or a translation for it from german to english.
{found it it's greek literally, the practical application of theory.}


Please try conveying that again in simpler terms.

Last Edited by Sol-Magmatard 26 on 06/10/2011 06:42 PM

Thanks, when are classes forming and how much is tuition?

Great lets use your example for our first GLP hypothesis.

I propose that we study caffeine intake per poster per day vs the quality of their posts. It is suggested on this site 5 cups of caffeine a day can cause hallucinations. Some posters claim they drink 2 pots a day or more. We need volunteers and we need site input to formulate the above rough rough draft hypothesis.

And you will be in charge of running it, right, brilliant then carry on!!!

Then we will put the final hypothesis to the test empirically, (scouts honor of course always here)and develop our theory for peer review at? Rense, C to C, other....?

Finally I think Trinity could have someone on this site that writes proposals and grant requests fill one out and get Government funding for the project. I believe it can be done.

Thanks for taking this challenge on buddy and cheers to ya!

Where is the volunteer sign up sheet?