>From: alphachi <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Alph's only word on hypotheses and cross-cultural ferrets >I have always enjoyed when a laymen So where's the layman? I gave credentials. Professional work has been in spectroscopy, information/communications theory, and rocket science (okay satellite design). Some in applications of hard math such as data compression and error detection and correction. >Both words, hypothesis and theory are essentially interchangeable with >the exception of "journalspeak" Nope. Hypothesis is first based on gathering data. Theory is after testing. Law is even more thoroughly proven and even then can be later proven wrong. For example from physics (one of my areas) some of Newton's laws of motion are now viewed as only approximations after work in quantum mechanics proved that despite earlier testing proving the laws at a finer resolution they are incorrect as eveything exists and moves in quantum steps rather than continuous values. Its not "journalspeak". Its the ways things "are". It ill serves the "layperson" to further confuse them by diluting the term theory just to be argumentative on a mail list. >Some hypotheses are in reality more complex than some theories. When given a choice between two possible solutions the simpler is more likely to be correct. Complexity has nothing to do with the meanings of the terms "theory" or "hypothesis". >As I said before, EL's proposal is not guilty of your charge of linguistic >abuse by any stretch in the eyes of those who do not play scientist wanna-be's, >and is in essence, quite tolerable to all those not prone to concrete thinking. And please what area of science do you work in? It doesn't appear to be one of the natural sciences such as biology or physics. We believe we've read it was one of the soft sciences such as psychology which is not particularly "concrete". Do you really not distinguish between theory and hypothesis? Perhaps when the study further matures. Ed Lipinski proposed a hypothesis. Bob Church scientifically (and sarcastically <gri>) disproved it. Let it go. Reanalyze the data and propose a new hypothesis if you wish. But the hypothesis that ferrets are not very well domesticated because they attack human infants after hearing their cries is dead. bill and diane killian zen and the art of ferrets http://www.zenferret.com/ mailto:[log in to unmask] [Posted in FML issue 2271]