Comment by neuromanser

2 years ago

You mean it's not just a hypothesis.

I would really, really expect users of this site to know the difference.

16 comments

neuromanser

Reply
andrewflnr  2 years ago

Users of this site who pay attention to how science is actually practiced, and not the oversimplified cartoon version they teach us in school, know that the boundary between a "theory" and a "hypothesis" is rather blurry. For instance, have you ever noticed how it's called "string theory" despite having no real evidence for it? Have you ever heard anyone, let alone a real scientist, complain about this nomenclature?

Early theories and fleshed-out hypotheses overlap a lot. There's no sharp transition from one to the other.

  • snowwrestler  2 years ago

    String theory is supported by a ton of evidence in that it can produce many predictions and hypotheses that match observed data. That’s why it’s called a “theory” and why people continue to study it.

    What’s missing is a test that would produce evidence that would allow us to distinguish between string theory and competing theories. But that’s not nearly the same thing as saying it has “no real evidence.”

    • andrewflnr  2 years ago

      In fact that's exactly what I meant by saying it has "no real evidence". Otherwise you could claim the totality of the universe as evidence for your pet Theory of Everything as long as it's not actually falsified yet, including but not limited to a theory where fundamental particles are fairies who use slide rules to decide how to interact.

      1 reply →

    • philipswood  2 years ago

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but string theory is still in the "it's so pretty and elegant is must be true kind of territory".

      Not only do they have no proof, most of the potential experimental confirmations are at energies so high they're effectively out of reach for the foreseeable near future.

      6 replies →

  • infamouscow  2 years ago

    I think it's important to draw a distinction between the formal and natural sciences. HN is overrepresented by folks with backgrounds in mathematics and computer science where using "theory" is correct, e.g., set theory.

    Bret Weinstein explained the distinction between a hypothesis and theory a few weeks ago on YOUR WELCOME.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac4MnNrs6g4

    • andrewflnr  2 years ago

      I specifically cited an example in the natural sciences, specifically physics. IIRC chemistry and biology do similar shenanigans at times. Again, consider how you could possibly draw a sharp distinction when accumulation of evidence is so often a gradual process.

      I'll consider responding to the video if you give me a reasonable timeslice, but I'm not going to watch the whole hour.

elpocko  2 years ago

What if they don't? Will they cease to be users of this site? What if they speak a lot more languages than you, just not perfectly? Does it even matter what you would expect?