| > What dictionary did you use for those definitions? Oxford Languages. First one offered by Google. Oxford's definitions are close enough to Merriam Webster's. Consider gravity. A hypothesis 400 years ago might have been that massive bodies exert a pull on each other, but that would not have been a theory. To get to "theory status" you'd have to add enough content that one could start making falsifiable predictions. That would require working out that gravity is an inverse square law, and that's exactly what Newton did. There were gravity hypostheses before Newton, but to be a theory required adding enough mathematics to make those falsifiable predictions. So I'd say that both, hypotheses and theories are suppositions, but hypotheses are weakly supported by evidence and lack predictive power, while theories have predictive power but must be falsifiable. Both hypotheses and theories can be falsified, and once falsified we refer to them as such (incorrect, failed, falsified). In mathematics a theory doesn't even need to have "evidence" for it -- it's just a system of axioms and principles, though it could prove to be inconsistent. I would also say that even in scientific communities we're a bit loose with these things. Is the Big Bang a hypothesis or a theory? I would think we'd need quite a bit in the form of equations and thinking behind them that yield falsifiable predictions, but I'm not sure that those exist in the level of detail that we'd normally require. The less amenable a scientific field is to experimentation, the more we can expect this sort of looseness from. In Big Bang theory we mostly make predictions that can't be subject to experiments, only to measurements of reality (e.g., the uniformity of the CMB, the distribution of visible matter, etc.). |