Fact, Hypothesis, and [Scientific] Theory & How Not to Do Science

Hey all,

Often when discussing science and experiments, etc., people confuse hypothesis with scientific theory. In laypersons terms, "hypothesis" is synonymous with "theory", and also speculation and conjecture. However in science, "hypothesis" is not synonymous scientific "theory". There is often confusion about the term "theory" because it used differently by laypersons and scientists.

The following links should help explain the difference, and why scientific theory is not a hypothesis:

and your point is?

Really? It's not self evident to you?

The reason I wrote this thread is to point out the difference between what most people consider to be the definition of theory, and how it is the polar opposite of the definition of theory used by scientists. This is a science based sub-forum, so I thought it was a very appropriate thread because this issue often comes up on cananbis forums; re: people misusing the term theory in a scientific based discussion/debate.

Many people do not realize that theory does not mean what they think it does, depending upon the context of the discussion/debate. Very often people tell me/write to me: "...yea but, you are only stating theory"; as in, what I wrote is hypothesis, even when it is not. And when I try to explain the difference it is often lost on some people because they keep misusing the word theory when I (and many others I have seen) are presenting scientific theory.

This thread was posted as a means to help further high quality discussion/debate in this sub-forum. I posted this with hope people who read it, and were unaware, will not misuse the word theory in a scientific context. I am especially interested in trying to preemptively avoid an attempt by some folks to debate/argue against a scientific theory by dismissing it as hypothesis/speculation/conjecture.

@pseudo - my theory is that the point of the initial post is to share knowledge on the fact that scientific theory is in fact based on some sort of fact and that theory is not something merely pulled out of thin air with zero fact or observation.

in the first link, an article is quoted, it is funny that this layperson (me) even sees the humor in it, the causation seems backwards in the article they are quoting, having a theory before observing any evidence whatsoever, hmmm, it just doesn't compute

smokefrogg said:

@pseudo - my theory is that the point of the initial post is to share knowledge on the fact that scientific theory is in fact based on some sort of fact and that theory is not something merely pulled out of thin air with zero fact or observation.

Click to expand...

Yes that, and well worded to boot! I like how you got both forms of 'theory' in there

smokefrogg said:

in the first link, an article is quoted, it is funny that this layperson (me) even sees the humor in it, the causation seems backwards in the article they are quoting, having a theory before observing any evidence whatsoever, hmmm, it just doesn't compute

Click to expand...

I too find it smart and funny that the author of the article quoted a study that misused the term theory in a scientific context:

From "Fact, Hypothesis, and Theory"

"It starts with scientific theory. That's how all science starts."

Click to expand...

Oh, I hope not. This would be science in reverse. A theory has to have a basis, in fact, it must have a very strong basis. A theory is a scientifically acceptable principle that is offered to explain a vast body of facts, and is supported by an overwhelming body of evidence. You can't have a theory before you have the evidence. Science starts out with observations - facts that are not generally disputed. For example, the sky is blue; grass is green; birds migrate south for the winter and find their way to specific locations; the high temperature at the airport yesterday was 52 degrees. Accumulate enough facts and you can ask and perhaps answer a general question (why is the sky blue, or the grass green? How do birds know where to go? What makes the weather change?).

The author was probably using the lay person's definition of a theory, as in speculation, conjecture, or maybe even a legitimate hypothesis.

Click to expand...

You make a very good point with this thread, it is a most friustrating explaining scientific theory to laypeople. Great post.

- Layperson and scientist alike often view the world from a lens of wanting to "prove" their particular ideas are real.

-Funding sources are often a source for bias in any particular scientific research.

- This has nothing to do with an honest goal of discerning mechanisms for observations made.

- This is the difference between figuring out what is, from what you want.

- Interpretations must be based on data.

- How to interpret the data can be up for debate.

- Here bias and honesty can walk a narrow line and each is their own judge, imperfect and corruptible.

A simplified way to think of what Spurr said is:

- A layperson's "theory" is an idea.
- A scientist's hypothesis is an idea.
- Either may or may not have evidence to support them.
- A scientist's theory, or scientific theory, is a well evidenced fact or large body of facts.

*Examples;
Politician: "I have a theory that humans are not responsible for anthropogenic global warming.
Scientist: "I have a hypothesis that the universe we live in may be just one of many universes."
Scientist: "Anthropogenic global warming is a scientific theory, much like the theory of gravity, and theory of evolution."