5 ms·

It wasn't a terribly useful distinction to begin with - especially in natural sciences where there is usually no definite proof, just various degrees of confide

It wasn't a terribly useful distinction to begin with - especially in natural sciences where there is usually no definite proof, just various degrees of confidence. We had quite a few linguistic purity battles in tech, too. You never win and it's not particularly worthwhile to play that game.

arcbyte 2y ago
We use words because they have meaning and we communicate ideas through them because we've built a shared understanding of that meaning. If we abondon meaning, we're abandoning reason. It's worth the fight.
- amanaplanacanal 2y ago
  Language changes over time, and there is no way to make it stand still. It's just wasted energy.
  - thfuran 2y ago
    Sew their snow point inn treyeing two bee cleer ore korekt?
  - arcbyte 2y ago
    We put an enormous amount of work into teaching the correct meaning every day to humans of every age and it is not wasted energy. Don't shirk your duty to educate others.
cogman10 2y ago
There is never definite proof. The difference between a hypothesis and a theory is that a hypothesis has no evidence to support it while a theory has at least some supporting evidence. An important part of science is that, given enough evidence, any theory can be overturned in favor of a better theory. Scientific theoretical models are just "This currently fits demonstrated evidence of reality the best". Some theories have mountains of evidence in support (evolution, gravity, the standard model, for example) that will necessarily need a huge amount of evidence to overturn. It is far more likely these theories will just be refined with further evidence rather than broken by new evidence. Part of the scientific model is the built-in assumption that any model or theory is at least a little incorrect. They are fuzzy generalities that are constantly being refined to hopefully more closely match reality.
- cryptonector 2y ago
  Here's one dictionary's definition of hypothesis: "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation." Here's one dictionary's definition of theory: "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained." According to the dictionary you have it exactly backwards. A hypothesis requires some supporting evidence. A theory requires none. Though the dictionary won't reflect scientific definitions. I like these definitions, though we have to add verbiage about falsifiability to make them scientific. One can still refer to Newton's theory of gravity as a theory, and indeed one does even though it has been falsified. Well, I suppose one could say the same thing about "the flat earth hypothesis" -- there is no evidence supporting it, and one might still refer to it as a hypothesis because there might once have been evidence for it when people did not recognize the evidence for the Earth being round. So what is the difference between those words? Both are "suppositions". Both can be falsified. A theory must be falsifiable in order to be a scientific theory (the dictionary didn't say this, but this is a pillar of modern science). A theory is a "system of ideas", something much larger than a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a starting point for a theory.
  - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
    If we're going to entirely discard the substance of the article on lieu of nitpicking words, you probably shouldn't throw around "scientific" like that unqualified. Which science? It's a polysemous word. Even referring to the scientific methodology of empirical testing is insufficient because such distinctions between the terms involved aren't necessary for such methodologies. "Theories" and "hypotheses" arise from social institutions regulating consensus of empirical testing, and these same institutions regularly struggle with communication surrounding methodology and reproduction of consensus-held results. My point is not to discard the term "science" as loosely referring to much of the above, of course, but to point out that semantic ambiguity is inherent in language and should never occlude good-faith interpretation; certainly not when the semantics are so unambiguously communicated as they are here. The distinction between "theory" and "hypothesis" and indeed "supposition" is irrelevant in the context presented in the article.
thfuran 2y ago
It's maybe the most important distinction in science.

arcbyte 2y ago

We use words because they have meaning and we communicate ideas through them because we've built a shared understanding of that meaning. If we abondon meaning, we're abandoning reason. It's worth the fight.

amanaplanacanal 2y ago
Language changes over time, and there is no way to make it stand still. It's just wasted energy.
- thfuran 2y ago
  Sew their snow point inn treyeing two bee cleer ore korekt?
- arcbyte 2y ago
  We put an enormous amount of work into teaching the correct meaning every day to humans of every age and it is not wasted energy. Don't shirk your duty to educate others.

cogman10 2y ago

There is never definite proof. The difference between a hypothesis and a theory is that a hypothesis has no evidence to support it while a theory has at least some supporting evidence. An important part of science is that, given enough evidence, any theory can be overturned in favor of a better theory. Scientific theoretical models are just "This currently fits demonstrated evidence of reality the best". Some theories have mountains of evidence in support (evolution, gravity, the standard model, for example) that will necessarily need a huge amount of evidence to overturn. It is far more likely these theories will just be refined with further evidence rather than broken by new evidence. Part of the scientific model is the built-in assumption that any model or theory is at least a little incorrect. They are fuzzy generalities that are constantly being refined to hopefully more closely match reality.

cryptonector 2y ago
Here's one dictionary's definition of hypothesis: "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation." Here's one dictionary's definition of theory: "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained." According to the dictionary you have it exactly backwards. A hypothesis requires some supporting evidence. A theory requires none. Though the dictionary won't reflect scientific definitions. I like these definitions, though we have to add verbiage about falsifiability to make them scientific. One can still refer to Newton's theory of gravity as a theory, and indeed one does even though it has been falsified. Well, I suppose one could say the same thing about "the flat earth hypothesis" -- there is no evidence supporting it, and one might still refer to it as a hypothesis because there might once have been evidence for it when people did not recognize the evidence for the Earth being round. So what is the difference between those words? Both are "suppositions". Both can be falsified. A theory must be falsifiable in order to be a scientific theory (the dictionary didn't say this, but this is a pillar of modern science). A theory is a "system of ideas", something much larger than a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a starting point for a theory.
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago
  If we're going to entirely discard the substance of the article on lieu of nitpicking words, you probably shouldn't throw around "scientific" like that unqualified. Which science? It's a polysemous word. Even referring to the scientific methodology of empirical testing is insufficient because such distinctions between the terms involved aren't necessary for such methodologies. "Theories" and "hypotheses" arise from social institutions regulating consensus of empirical testing, and these same institutions regularly struggle with communication surrounding methodology and reproduction of consensus-held results. My point is not to discard the term "science" as loosely referring to much of the above, of course, but to point out that semantic ambiguity is inherent in language and should never occlude good-faith interpretation; certainly not when the semantics are so unambiguously communicated as they are here. The distinction between "theory" and "hypothesis" and indeed "supposition" is irrelevant in the context presented in the article.

thfuran 2y ago

It's maybe the most important distinction in science.