[equestria]

There are definite proofs in mathematics. In natural sciences, I think you're sort of restating what I said: there are various levels of confidence based on experimental data. Because it's not binary, the hypothesis / theory language doesn't convey a particularly useful distinction.

It's not a sign of a lack of sophistication or knowledge to use simpler language if the point you're making is still clear.

[cogman10]

> Because it's not binary, the hypothesis / theory language doesn't convey a particularly useful distinction.

I don't think we agree here. The distinction between a theory and a hypothesis is fairly binary. Theories have supporting evidence; hypothesis either have no evidence or so little evidence that they need further investigation.

But I would agree that the general understanding of the words is such that no useful distinction is made by using one or the other. I bristle a little at it, though, because the word "theory" is often used by scientific critics because they conflate "theory" with "guess". In fact, for general communication I would rather an article like above use "guess" instead of "theorized" as it's both simpler language and it doesn't trigger this sort of conversation.

[cryptonector]

> There are definite proofs in mathematics.

We prove theorems, which until proved are referred to as conjectures. But even in mathematics we don't prove theories. E.g., group theory. This is because a) the definition of mathematics theory is not quite the same as scientific theory since mathematics theories are axiomatic, and b) because it's entirely possible that some mathematics theory (e.g., group theory) could eventually be shown to be inconsistent (which is essentially how you disprove a theory in mathematics).