A hypothesis (usually) takes place within the context of a given experiment.
When you set up an experiment, you have a hypothesis about some observable phenomena. The experiment should be designed to detect a difference between a background state and some behavior that you hope to observe and then explicate. The null hypothesis is that nothing is going on except the background state, ie, there are no statistically significant observable "whatevers" happening. If you are able to detect a statistically significant set of observable differences, you've rejected the null hypothesis (that nothing other than random chance is going on). Then you can try and see if there are any other alternate hypotheses that might explain the differences you saw and use the data and (possible) lack of alternate hypotheses to support your hypothesis. Now, you've got a hypothesis or 3 that seem to adequately account for the phenomena observed. How does it become a theory? If you are able to take your hypothesis about your observed data and generalize it to account for a whole category of observable phenomena and turn it into something that has predictive value as well as explanatory value, then you have a theory. Your theory should say: "Here's the general rule for these types of things and how they interact" and be able to show that it predicts the phenomena already observed and then also be able to say "It also would predict these other things, so we're proposing these experiments/observations to see if it holds true". Cheers, Judah On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 9:05 AM, PT <[email protected]> wrote: > > A hypothesis can easily be proven wrong. That is the whole idea behind > the scientific method. The goal is to prove them to be incorrect guesses. > > Theories are hypotheses that have not, as of yet, been proven wrong even > after repeated testing and observation. They can be considered fact in > as much as they they are not proven wrong based on all we know so far. > So, like Gel said, they can be considered fact *right now* until better > models replace them. Fact does not mean fact for all of eternity. For > the purposes of science, theories can be considered factual enough to be > a foundation from which to build. A theory is not a guess nor an > assumption. > > Evolution happens. We have seen it. We have tested it. The results > are repeatable. That is the fact part. The mechanism behind it, the > change in allele frequency in a population over time, is what is not > completely understood and is generally debated in science (I am speaking > in very broad terms here). > > I think part of the problem is that people don't understand the > scientific method. The method does not attempt to prove anything. In > fact, it is designed to disprove. So, theories are really hypotheses > that cannot be disproved. Laws are "super theories". They have been > tested so much that whatever explanation is left has to be the correct > one. Still, they are not unchangeable. You will never prove something > 100% in science, because science doesn't work that way. > > "Like the > > Theory of evolution. We can't prove that is how life on earth came > to be" > > Evolution is not an origin theory and has absolutely nothing to do with > it. It does not explain how life began. It is simply an explanation of > the mechanisms behind the fact that species change over time. > > > I know. I know. TL/DR, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:342514 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
