N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
I said “major advances are made mostly by proposing and testing potential explanations, and that is the job of hypotheses”.
Gary, you said, “You are then testing theories” and “The hypothesis is the only one of the two that does not require explaining how something works.”
Yes, we do test theories and theories are ultimately tentative, but they differ from hypotheses generally in terms of being much broader explanations and in terms of having passed more tests and having more confirmation and wider acceptance. Gary, you disagree, because you call your pile of rank speculation a scientific theory.
So, let’s see what some other people, much smarter than both of us put together, have to say. I’ve annotated the quotes below with “(A)” to indicate that the quote addresses whether hypotheses can contain potential explanations and “(B)” to indicate that it addresses whether proposals need to be significant confirmatory evidence and acceptance before rising to the level of a theory.
First a general caution: | Quote | Don’t confuse hypothesis and theory. The former is a possible explanation; the latter, the correct one. The establishment of theory is the very purpose of science.
Martin H. Fischer
[Also, (A), (B): 2 points to me]
|
And about theories requiring considerable confirmation:
| Quote | A theory is a verified hypothesis, after it has been submitted to the control of reason and experimental criticism. The soundest theory is one that has been verified by the greatest number of facts.
Claude Bernard
Introduction à l'Étude de la Médecine Expérimentale (1865), 385.
[(B): 1 point to me]
|
| Quote | A theory is certainly NOT mere subjective speculation, or something that is probably wrong, but, quite the contrary, something that has been scrutinized by the scientific process of empirical validation and has, so far, passed the test of explaining the data.
MARCELO GLEISER, "Why Is 'Theory' Such A Confusing Word?", NPR, March 23, 2016
[(B): 1 point to me]
|
| Quote | Theories are neither hunches nor guesses. They are the crown jewels of science.
CARL ZIMMER, "In Science, It's Never 'Just a Theory'", New York Times, April 8, 2016
[(B): 1 point to me]
|
Let’s look at a nice old quote from Robert Boyle: note how “good hypotheses.....explicate phenomena”
| Quote | The Requisites of a good Hypothesis are:
That It be Intelligible.
That It neither Assume nor Suppose anything Impossible, unintelligible, or demonstrably False.
That It be consistent with Itself.
That It be lit and sufficient to Explicate the Phaenomena, especially the chief.
That It be, at least, consistent, with the rest of the Phaenomena It particularly relates to, and do not contradict any other known Phaenomena of nature, or manifest Physical Truth.
The Qualities and Conditions of an Excellent Hypothesis are:
That It be not Precarious, but have sufficient Grounds In the nature of the Thing Itself or at least be well recommended by some Auxiliary Proofs.
That It be the Simplest of all the good ones we are able to frame, at least containing nothing that is superfluous or Impertinent.
That It be the only Hypothesis that can Explicate the Phaenomena; or at least, that do's Explicate them so well.
That it enable a skilful Naturalest to foretell future Phaenomena by the Congruity or Incongruity to it; and especially the event of such Experlm'ts as are aptly devis'd to examine It, as Things that ought, or ought not, to be consequent to It.
Robert Boyle
[(A): 1 point to me]
|
And again on hypotheses including explanations:
| Quote | History, human or geological, represents our hypothesis, couched in terms of past events, devised to explain our present-day observations.
Marion King Hubbert
'Critique of the Principle of Uniformity', in C. C. Albritton (ed.), Uniformity and Simplicity (1967), 30.
[(A): 1 point to me]
|
In the following quote, note how his hypotheses contain potential explanations and how hypotheses get raised to theories by confirmation.
| Quote | I am now convinced that we have recently become possessed of experimental evidence of the discrete or grained nature of matter, which the atomic hypothesis sought in vain for hundreds and thousands of years. The isolation and counting of gaseous ions, on the one hand, which have crowned with success the long and brilliant researches of J.J. Thomson, and, on the other, agreement of the Brownian movement with the requirements of the kinetic hypothesis, established by many investigators and most conclusively by J. Perrin, justify the most cautious scientist in now speaking of the experimental proof of the atomic nature of matter, The atomic hypothesis is thus raised to the position of a scientifically well-founded theory, and can claim a place in a text-book intended for use as an introduction to the present state of our knowledge of General Chemistry.
— Wilhelm Ostwald
In Grundriss der allgemeinen Chemie (4th ed., 1909), Preface, as cited by Erwin N. Hiebert and Hans-Gunther Korber in article on Ostwald in Charles Coulston Gillespie (ed.), Dictionary of Scientific Biography Supplement 1, Vol 15-16, 464
[(A), (B), 2 points to me]
|
Here’s a guy pointing out that an hypothesis that involves only whether a supposed fact is true is unexciting.
| Quote | A biologist, if he wishes to know how many toes a cat has, does not "frame the hypothesis that the number of feline digital extremities is 4, or 5, or 6," he simply looks at a cat and counts. A social scientist prefers the more long-winded expression every time, because it gives an entirely spurious impression of scientificness to what he is doing.
— Anthony Standen
In Science is a Sacred Cow (1950), 151.
|
| Quote | A theory is a supposition which we hope to be true, a hypothesis is a supposition which we expect to be useful.
— G. Johnstone Stoney
As quoted by William Ramsay, in 'Radium and Its Products', Harper’s Magazine (Dec 1904), 52.
|
| Quote | All interpretations made by a scientist are hypotheses, and all hypotheses are tentative. They must forever be tested and they must be revised if found to be unsatisfactory. Hence, a change of mind in a scientist, and particularly in a great scientist, is not only not a sign of weakness but rather evidence for continuing attention to the respective problem and an ability to test the hypothesis again and again.
— Ernst Mayr
The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance (1982), 831.
[(B): One point for me]
|
| Quote | It is often held that scientific hypotheses are constructed, and are to be constructed, only after a detailed weighing of all possible evidence bearing on the matter, and that then and only then may one consider, and still only tentatively, any hypotheses. This traditional view however, is largely incorrect, for not only is it absurdly impossible of application, but it is contradicted by the history of the development of any scientific theory. What happens in practice is that by intuitive insight, or other inexplicable inspiration, the theorist decides that certain features seem to him more important than others and capable of explanation by certain hypotheses. Then basing his study on these hypotheses the attempt is made to deduce their consequences. The successful pioneer of theoretical science is he whose intuitions yield hypotheses on which satisfactory theories can be built, and conversely for the unsuccessful (as judged from a purely scientific standpoint).
— Sir Fred Hoyle
Co-author with Raymond Arthur Lyttleton, in 'The Internal Constitution of the Stars', Occasional Notes of the Royal Astronomical Society 1948, 12, 90.
[(A), 1 point for me]
|
Well, those are old dudes, and perhaps traditions have changed. After all, the way Newton used terminology about hypotheses and the like certainly does not follow modern usage. So let’s see some recent treatments. You like dictionary definitions, so let’s start with Merriam-Webster:
Merriam Webster
| Quote |
A hypothesis is an assumption, something proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true. .....A hypothesis is usually tentative, an assumption or suggestion made strictly for the objective of being tested. ..... A theory, in contrast, is a principle that has been formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data. It is used in the names of a number of principles accepted in the scientific community, such as the Big Bang Theory. Because of the rigors of experimentation and control, its likelihood as truth is much higher than that of a hypothesis.
[(B): 1 point to me]
|
https://lifehacker.com/the-dif....2904200
| Quote | Fact: Observations about the world around us. Example: “It’s bright outside.”
Hypothesis: A proposed explanation for a phenomenon made as a starting point for further investigation. ..... Example: “It’s bright outside because the sun is probably out.”
Theory: A well-substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Example: “When the sun is out, it tends to make it bright outside.”
Law: A statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some phenomenon of nature. Proof that something happens and how it happens, but not why it happens. Example: Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.
[(A), (B): 2 points for me]
|
https://www.diffen.com/differe...._Theory
| Quote | A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors. A theory is always backed by evidence; a hypothesis is only a suggested possible outcome, and is testable and falsifiable.
Hypothesis versus Theory comparison chart
Definition--
Hypothesis: A suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena.
Theory: In science, a theory is a well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven hypotheses.
Based on--
Hypothesis: Suggestion, possibility, projection or prediction, but the result is uncertain.
Theory: Evidence, verification, repeated testing, wide scientific consensus
Testable? --
Hypothesis: Yes
Theory: Yes
Falsifiable? --
Hypothesis: Yes
Theory: Yes Yes Yes
Is well-substantiated?
Hypothesis: No
Theory: Yes
Is well-tested?
Hypothesis: No
Theory: Yes
Data:
Hypothesis: Usually based on very limited data
Theory: Based on a very wide set of data tested under various circumstances.
Instance:
Hypothesis: Specific: Hypothesis is usually based on a very specific observation and is limited to that instance.
Theory: General: A theory is the establishment of a general principle through multiple tests and experiments, and this principle may apply to various specific instances.
Purpose
Hypothesis: To present an uncertain possibility that can be explored further through experiments and observations.
Theory: To explain why a large set of observations are consistently made.
[(A), (B): 2 points to me]
|
From https://futurism.com/hypothe....-or-law
| Quote | Hypothesis
A hypothesis is a reasonable guess based on something that you observe in the natural world. And while hypotheses are proven and disproven all of the time, the fact that they are disproven shouldn’t be read as a statement against them. In truth, hypotheses are the foundation of the scientific method. As a refresher, here’s how the scientific method works: After making an observation and formulating a question, a scientist must create a hypothesis — a potential answer to the question. They then make a testable prediction, test this prediction (over and over and over), and analyze the data. Once this is done, they can then state whether or not their hypothesis was correct. Even then, a hypothesis needs to be tested and retested many times by many different experts before it is generally accepted in the scientific community as being true.
Theory
A scientific theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported by repeated testing. Theories are one of the pinnacles of science and are widely accepted in the scientific community as being true. A theory must never be shown to be wrong; if it is, the theory is disproven.
[(B): 1 point to me]
|
From https://bscdesigner.com/article....od.html
| Quote | The scientific method can be broken down into four steps:
Observe and describe the phenomenon (or group of various phenomena).
Create a hypothesis that explains the phenomena. In physics, this often means creating a mathematical relation or a causal mechanism.
Use this hypothesis to attempt to predict other related phenomena or the results of another set of observations.
Test the performance of these predictions using independent experiments.
If the results of these experiments support the hypothesis, then it may become a theory or even a law of nature.
[(A), (B): 2 points to me]
|
https://www.livescience.com/21491-w....ry.html
| Quote | The process of becoming a scientific theory:
Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that doesn't fit into a currently accepted scientific theory. In other words, an hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support an hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.
[(A), (B): 2 points to me]
|
http://www.oakton.edu/user.......hod.htm
| Quote | THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
The scientific method attempts to explain the natural occurrences (phenomena) of the universe by using a logical, consistent, systematic method of investigation, information (data) collection, data analysis (hypothesis), testing (experiment), and refinement to arrive at a well-tested, well-documented, explanation that is well-supported by evidence, called a theory. The process of establishing a new scientific theory is necessarily a grueling one; new theories must survive an adverse gauntlet of skeptics who are experts in their particular area of science; the original theory may then need to be revised to satisfy those objections. The typical way in which new scientific ideas are debated are through refereed scientific journals, such as Nature and Scientific American. (Depending upon the area of science, there are many other journals specific to their respective fields that act as referees.) Before a new theory can be officially proposed to the scientific community, it must be well-written, documented and submitted to an appropriate scientific journal for publication. If the editors of these prestigious publications accept a research article for publication, they are signaling that the proposed theory has enough merit to be seriously debated and scrutinized closely by experts in that particular field of science. Skeptics or proponents of alternative or opposing theories may then try to submit their research and data, while the original proponents of the proposed theory may publish new data that answers the skeptics. It may take many years of often acrimonious debate to settle an issue, resulting in the adoption, modification, or rejection of a new theory. For example, the Alvarez Meteorite Impact theory (a 6-mile wide meteorite struck the earth 65 million years ago, ending the Cretaceous Period and causing extinction of the dinosaurs), was first proposed in 1979, and took about 10 years of debate before winning over the majority of earth scientists.
A successful scientific inquiry may culminate in a well-tested, well-documented explanation (theory) that is supported overwhelmingly by valid data, and often has the power to predict the outcome of certain scenarios, which may be tested by future experiments. There are rare examples of scientific theories that have successfully survived all known attacks for a very long time, and are called scientific laws, such as Newton's Law of Gravity.
Below is a generalized sequence of steps taken to establish a scientific theory:
Choose and define the natural phenomenon that you want to figure out and explain.
Collect information (data) about this phenomena by going where the phenomena occur and making observations. Or, try to replicate this phenomena by means of a test (experiment) under controlled conditions (usually in a laboratory) that eliminates interference's from environmental conditions.
After collecting a lot of data, look for patterns in the data. Attempt to explain these patterns by making a provisional explanation, called a hypothesis.
Test the hypothesis by collecting more data to see if the hypothesis continues to show the assumed pattern. If the data does not support the hypothesis, it must be changed, or rejected in favor of a better one. In collecting data, one must NOT ignore data that contradicts the hypothesis in favor of only supportive data. (That is called "cherry-picking" and is commonly used by pseudo-scientists attempting to scam people unfamiliar with the scientific method. A good example of this fraud is shown by the so-called "creationists," who start out with a pre-conceived conclusion - a geologically young, 6,000 year old earth, and then cherry-pick only evidence that supports their views, while ignoring or rejecting overwhelming evidence of a much older earth.)
If a refined hypothesis survives all attacks on it and is the best existing explanation for a particular phenomenon, it is then elevated to the status of a theory.
A theory is subject to modification and even rejection if there is overwhelming evidence that disproves it and/or supports another, better theory. Therefore, a theory is not an eternal or perpetual truth.
[(A), (B): 2 points to me]
|
I make that 23 points for me and none for you.
(So maybe my hypotheses that you don't know what you are talking about have become a more general theory about the state of your knowledge???)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, a warning that seems to have been written with you in mind:
| Quote | | If an explanation is so vague in its inherent nature, or so unskillfully molded in its formulation, that specific deductions subject to empirical verification or refutation can not be based upon it, then it can never serve as a working hypothesis. A hypothesis with which one can not work is not a working hypothesis. |
— Douglas Wilson Johnson
'Role of Analysis in Scientific Investigation', Bulletin of the Geological Society of America (1933), 44, 479.
|
