re: #248 wheat-dogg

A hypothesis does not become a theory. It and many other verified hypotheses form the basis for a theory.

Dalton’s hypothesis that elements combined in whole-number ratios was his tentative explanation for the mass ratios he measured. After many verifications, his hypothesis was proved to be right.

We did not then go immediately to the atomic theory of matter.

I know I’ve explained this here before, because it bugs me, as a former science teacher, that even people who try to explain the difference between a hypothesis and theory are still fuzzy about it. If you’re going to debate a creationist or other “alternative science” crank, it is absolutely necessary to get the distinctions correct, or they will then run rings around you and confuse the discussion.

A verified hypothesis comes from experimental results. A hypothesis is very limited in scope, and be proved correct or not by experiment. Often, a null result is as informative as a positive one. A hypothesis is a tentative explanation for a particular phenomenon. Once verified by repeated experiment, the explanation is no longer tentative.

A theory is an attempt to explain a variety of related experimental results and/or observational data, and is necessarily broad in scope. Theories are accepted after rigorous examination and verification, but are still regarding as tentative explanations for the host of phenomena they attempt to explain. An experimental result or observation that contradicts the predictions of a theory can invalidate the theory, and it’s back to the drawing board.

A hypothesis is small. A theory is big.