k5083 wrote:
Nobody in this thread has defined theory and hypothesis correctly yet, nor does Merriam-Webster. In science, theory and hypothesis differ primarily in scope. A hypothesis in science is a statement about the world which, contrary to Muddyboots's definition, is empirically testable. In fact, just about all that empirical scientific research does is test hypotheses. Theory and hypothesis do not carry different connotations of credibility or level of empirical support. They are simply different levels in the reasoning chain. Theories are broad explanatory constructions and are generally not tested directly; instead, relatively narrow factual hypotheses are derived from them which seem likely to be true if the theoretical explanation is true and false if it is not. Testing of the hypothesis then provides evidence, but not necessarily conclusive evidence, for or against the theory. Hypotheses that have been tested repeatedly by a variety of researchers and always come out the same way eventually are accorded the status of fact.
Example:
Theory: The warming of the Earth is caused at least partly by human industrial activity. (This is a very crude and simple theory, and science would demand a great deal more elaboration of the causal mechanism, but it will do for purposes of an example.)
Hypothesis: The average temperature of the Earth's oceans has increased more rapidly since the advent of widespread industrialization in the past 150 years than it did in the 150 years prior to that.
The hypothesis is in principle, and perhaps in practice, testable. If it cannot be tested with available data then it is not a useful hypothesis and will be discarded. If it can be tested, the results inform our thinking about whether the theory is true.
"Global warming" is not a theory nor a hypothesis, it is a buzzword. Everybody means a different thing by it. There are a variety of legitimate theories about global warming, and those theories are generating hypotheses and those hypotheses are being tested. My opinion about the results of those tests has no value to anyone and so I will not bother to express it.
August
Erm...Have I mistyped something somewhere? I thought I had repeatedly stated that a hypothesis is simply an idea which must be testable by some scientifically measurable means. Perhaps you misread? Or perhaps I mistyped ( i think in my original post I gave an unclear inpression which I later tried to correct). My point was, however, that once a hypothesis has been tested it ceases to be a hypothesis--it is either validated to some extent and therefore a theory (however shaky) or a discarded hypothesis.
A theory does not need to be a group of data, it can be as simple as this:
I hypothesise that if I shoot a bullet at a bee hive it will piss the bees off.
How do I test it? Well, I can think of a dozen ways offhand that will allow me to test my hypothesis. Simplest way I suppose, is to shoot the beehive. That means my hypothesis is verifiable. Doesn't make it a theory yet, as I haven't tested it.
However, If I go shoot it, and the bees come out, my hypothesis has been upgraded to theory. In theory, every time I shoot a beehive the bees will come out. In practice this probably won't happen, but it makes my theory no less a theory. It simply needs the fiddly edges worked on. If it is cold out will bees come out? If I smoke the beehive will they come out? If I hide it inside Jack Cook's pickup and THEN shoot it, will Jack come out? (just teasing, Jack)
There are a number of things which may confuse watchers, but the basic theory will stand until it has been flat out shown to be wrong or in need of corrections. My Theory of Bullet impacted Bee Aggression will be nitpicked and bellowed at by every yahoo, nabob and grandee in the known universe until the only people who DISbelieve are the flat earthers, nature hating cadillac drivers, and a few fanatical Catholics who think it implies the fallibility of the Pope. But it will still be a theory, until I can prove it is right 100% of the time. (then it's a law)
The theory of global warming is indeed a theory. It is in fact a series of theories which have been strung together, along with a lot of emperical evidence, and possibly bailing wire. But it IS a theory. The bees do indeed come out. That sometimes they do not is likely due to lack of roper testing, lack of background knowledge, and a lack of bailing wire. But with enough testing, and fiddling with the parameters, eventually the theory we call global warming will either be dropped or amended until it is actually a workable theory, or a law (highly doubtful)
August, in commonly accepted parlance, global warming is indeed a theory. It is the idea that the Earth's temperature is warming, that mankind has caused much it, and that its effects will be bad for mankind in general. That you don't particularly liek the common name hung on it by the media doesn't mean the name hasn't stuck to the theory, it just means you don't like the name they chose. Pick you own, it's a free country (except in Nevada and parts of California)
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
