Post: #1

These two terms tend to be used interchangeably, but it seems to me a hypothesis proceeds from a theory. A theory is defined as a rational and contemplative way of thinking about an observed phenomena, whereas an hypothesis is used as a proposed explanation for such phenomena.
I bring this up because there is a proliferation in all kinds of "studies" and schools of "theory" in academia. You have "Queer Theory" (I am not making this up), "Literary Theory" and "Postmodern Theory" among others. No one seems to want to test out any of these theories to see if they have any basis in reality.
Comments?

Post: #2

Strictly construed, hypothesis precedes theory. Theories are an overarching framework in which several hypotheses fit.

For example, in evolutionary theory, a key hypothesis is that organisms that adapt to their surroundings tend to survive and reproduce. This is only one piece. Another piece would involve common biochemical structure and homologous organs.

Post: #3

What RVF conversations would be improved by correct usage?

WIA

Post: #4

In the sciences an accepted theory is about as good as it gets: the theory of evolution, the theory of general relativity, quantum theory, etc. these are not the "ultimate truth" but they are the best models explaining phenomena that we have, and are supported by years of tests, experiments, and studies, etc.

That's different than the casual use, which is more or less the same as a "hypothesis" which is just an idea for a possible explanation.

A hypothesis may be yet untested.

Post: #5

I was reading an online review of a book on archaeology and the reviewer began to whine about the lack of "theory" in the book:

"Just as it neglects to take into account theoretical considerations in the archaeology of religion, so 'Pagan Britain' fails to engage with theoretical currents within the history of religions or religious studies more broadly."

Excuse me, since when is a current theoretical? Is this an example of a confusion of hypothesis with theory?

Post: #6

Academic speak.

I think "theoretical current" = "a theory that is currently popular in the academic community"

History and archaeology are not hard sciences, though.

Post: #7

(12-28-2015 09:36 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  Academic speak.

I think "theoretical current" = "a theory that is currently popular in the academic community"

History and archaeology are not hard sciences, though.

Yeah, I think you're right. History and archaeology may not be hard sciences, but they do have theoretical models by which evidence is interpreted.

For example, as has been discussed in the 3rd quest for the historical Jesus, we need to understand information about Jesus in the context of Second Temple Judaism. Hence why the mythic comparisons to Osiris/Attis/Dionysus/etc. fail.

Post: #8

In common speech, they are interchangeable ideas.

In science, they have a specific meanings.

A hypothesis is a thought on something and how it works. But it needs to be tested to demonstrate to be true.

A theory explains how something is functioning.

Laws explain strict consistent functions.

Post: #9

Might as well throw in precision vs accuracy too. Two interchangeable terms, yet both convey two very different meanings.

Post: #10

(12-28-2015 07:30 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  In the sciences an accepted theory is about as good as it gets: the theory of evolution, the theory of general relativity, quantum theory, etc. these are not the "ultimate truth" but they are the best models explaining phenomena that we have, and are supported by years of tests, experiments, and studies, etc.

That's different than the casual use, which is more or less the same as a "hypothesis" which is just an idea for a possible explanation.

A hypothesis may be yet untested.

This is a pretty good explanation. Just to add to it:

A hypothesis is an "educated guess" about a phenomenon. You observe something, then guess an explanation for why it occurred, then perform an experiment to test your hypothesis. You keep performing experiments until you disprove the hypothesis.

For example, you witness a hot chick leave a bar with a dude. You make a guess why she went home with him. Maybe it's because he's rich? Or maybe his muscles? Or maybe his cocky funny wit? Each one of these could be a hypothesis. Then you start watching more chicks leave the bar with more dudes, making notes what combination of traits seem to be more attractive and testing out each one yourself.

If the experiments keep proving your hypothesis, you eventually expand on the original concept and form a synthesized body of knowledge detailing your observed phenomenon and a model of how it works. That is called a theory.

In my above example, you keep performing experiments proving and disproving your various hypotheses until you have enough information to write "Bang" or "The Mystery Method", each of which would now be your theory.

But like RexImperator said, theories aren't the "ultimate truth". They're just the best model we have for explaining how something works, until they're replaced by a newer theory that incorporates newer knowledge or pushes the limits of the original theory.

In my above example, it would be like how "Bang" replaced "The Mystery Method." Mystery wasn't wrong, but Roosh has provided a better model for seducing women. And maybe someday, another PUA will provide an even better model.

Similarly in science, Newton's Laws of Motion are a theory that pretty accurately describes objects in motion. However, experiments show that objects in motion start behaving quite differently as they approach the speed of light. Thus, Einstein gave us the Theory of Special Relativity. Again, that doesn't mean Newton was "wrong", just that Newton's model has limits on its accuracy. And maybe someday, a future scientist will find limits on Einstein's model. And just like Einstein's theory reduces to Newton's in the case of very slow speeds compared to light, a new theory replacing Einstein's would have to reduce to Einstein's in certain cases.

Also, the most important component is that a theory must have predictive power. The theory of gravity predicts that if a ball is thrown upward, it will fall back down to Earth. So far, every experiment I've personally done shows that to hold true.

Evolution predicts what will happen to species over millions of years and how they will adapt and change based on their environment. That makes it a theory. Creationism, such as the story of Adam and Eve, can't ever be a theory because it can't make any predictions about the future, even if it is the "ultimate truth" to the universe.

Trust me, I'm a physicist.

Post: #11

@ WIA: Evolution, social psych, kinesiology, general understanding of the nature of the english language, the deep forum, a conversation about deep dish pizza, game theory, theories and hypotheses about what game tactics will work best, a discussion of the proven or debunked hypotheses that led to the theory propounded in Bang, Gorilla Mindset, a random ROK article, a poorly constructed theory (hypothesis?) about rape in MSM or SJW media...

Post: #12

(12-29-2015 03:11 AM)h3ltrsk3ltr Wrote:  @ WIA: Evolution, social psych, kinesiology, general understanding of the nature of the english language, the deep forum, a conversation about deep dish pizza, game theory, theories and hypotheses about what game tactics will work best, a discussion of the proven or debunked hypotheses that led to the theory propounded in Bang, Gorilla Mindset, a random ROK article, a poorly constructed theory (hypothesis?) about rape in MSM or SJW media...

In most of your examples, insisting on a pedantic usage of theory and hypothesis would undermine those conversations.

Who here has done a clinically controlled 100 first approaches?
Game theory is anything but rigorous.

As for MSM/SJW claptrap, the social science often helps their agenda more than it hurts it. When you see various pundits rip apart "social science' as pseudo science when it hurts their agenda, they promote it when it suits their beliefs.

Insisting on this is folly, as it will hurt your movement.

WIA

Post: #13

(12-29-2015 08:45 AM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 03:11 AM)h3ltrsk3ltr Wrote:  @ WIA: Evolution, social psych, kinesiology, general understanding of the nature of the english language, the deep forum, a conversation about deep dish pizza, game theory, theories and hypotheses about what game tactics will work best, a discussion of the proven or debunked hypotheses that led to the theory propounded in Bang, Gorilla Mindset, a random ROK article, a poorly constructed theory (hypothesis?) about rape in MSM or SJW media...

In most of your examples, insisting on a pedantic usage of theory and hypothesis would undermine those conversations.

Who here has done a clinically controlled 100 first approaches?
Game theory is anything but rigorous.

As for MSM/SJW claptrap, the social science often helps their agenda more than it hurts it. When you see various pundits rip apart "social science' as pseudo science when it hurts their agenda, they promote it when it suits their beliefs.

Insisting on this is folly, as it will hurt your movement.

WIA

I've noticed this from people who suddenly think science is "cool" when is supports their belief system.

Post: #14

Sharodax:

"If the experiments keep proving your hypothesis, you eventually expand on the original concept and form a synthesized body of knowledge detailing your observed phenomenon and a model of how it works. That is called a theory."

What I have noticed about the social sciences is a tendency to promote the "theory" as the endgame. No attempt is made to test it. Its like my story of why I never went into political "science": lack of reproducible results. When I had a teaching assistant tell me they were still trying to find "great truths", I told him any discipline with such a shoddy record needed to be junked. I never took another poli science class again.

Post: #15

WIA:
"Who here has done a clinically controlled 100 first approaches?"

Good point, its why psychology gets such a bad reputation. Some people try to excuse the lack of reproducible results in psychology as situational, I think there are too many damn variables.
As a former chemist, one of the first things you learn is how the variables can futz any chemical reaction. Chaos theory, Automata, etc. was an attempt to pile all the variables into one big ecunemical holding company from what I can see. Same thing with "Anti-Fragile" discussions.

Doesn't seem to have accomplished much.

Post: #16

(12-29-2015 08:45 AM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 03:11 AM)h3ltrsk3ltr Wrote:  @ WIA: Evolution, social psych, kinesiology, general understanding of the nature of the english language, the deep forum, a conversation about deep dish pizza, game theory, theories and hypotheses about what game tactics will work best, a discussion of the proven or debunked hypotheses that led to the theory propounded in Bang, Gorilla Mindset, a random ROK article, a poorly constructed theory (hypothesis?) about rape in MSM or SJW media...

In most of your examples, insisting on a pedantic usage of theory and hypothesis would undermine those conversations.

Who here has done a clinically controlled 100 first approaches?
Game theory is anything but rigorous.

As for MSM/SJW claptrap, the social science often helps their agenda more than it hurts it. When you see various pundits rip apart "social science' as pseudo science when it hurts their agenda, they promote it when it suits their beliefs.

Insisting on this is folly, as it will hurt your movement.

WIA

I'm lost here...insisting on defining terms is a folly that will hurt my movement? To where am I moving?

I suggested discussions on the forum, not between "various pundits".

I'd like to present my own theory here...you came into the thread, made an offhand remark, and then felt the need to defend your pride instead of providing actual, considered input.

And dude, you're calling someone pedantic?

"H3S"

Post: #17

(12-29-2015 09:28 AM)ColSpanker Wrote:  WIA:
"Who here has done a clinically controlled 100 first approaches?"

Good point, its why psychology gets such a bad reputation. Some people try to excuse the lack of reproducible results in psychology as situational, I think there are too many damn variables.
As a former chemist, one of the first things you learn is how the variables can futz any chemical reaction. Chaos theory, Automata, etc. was an attempt to pile all the variables into one big ecunemical holding company from what I can see. Same thing with "Anti-Fragile" discussions.

Doesn't seem to have accomplished much.

There is pseudo scientific value in a lot of game practices.
Thinking that all women are constantly thinking about sex and priming themselves for it is probably false, but It's believable enough to make approaching strangers that are girls easier.

The player often needs something to hang his hat on, even after proficiency has reached. Little by Little the player learns what is working for him. As time progresses, he often realizes that palm reading was a ruse for him and for her. And with enough experiences, the game looks very different.

Post: #18

I asked what conversations here on RVF would be helped If people here started to be particular about their usage.

The reply was a laundry list of topics, including deep dish pizza.

I know when people use those words. Calling hypergamy a hypothesis versus a theory would not add much to the conversation. Having to clarify where it fits within the scientific method would actually bog down communication.

That kind of persnickety-ness rarely helps anyone understand. All it does is suggest doubt.

Oh that's only a hypothesis....

WIA

(12-29-2015 03:19 PM)h3ltrsk3ltr Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 08:45 AM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 03:11 AM)h3ltrsk3ltr Wrote:  @ WIA: Evolution, social psych, kinesiology, general understanding of the nature of the english language, the deep forum, a conversation about deep dish pizza, game theory, theories and hypotheses about what game tactics will work best, a discussion of the proven or debunked hypotheses that led to the theory propounded in Bang, Gorilla Mindset, a random ROK article, a poorly constructed theory (hypothesis?) about rape in MSM or SJW media...

In most of your examples, insisting on a pedantic usage of theory and hypothesis would undermine those conversations.

Who here has done a clinically controlled 100 first approaches?
Game theory is anything but rigorous.

As for MSM/SJW claptrap, the social science often helps their agenda more than it hurts it. When you see various pundits rip apart "social science' as pseudo science when it hurts their agenda, they promote it when it suits their beliefs.

Insisting on this is folly, as it will hurt your movement.

WIA

I'm lost here...insisting on defining terms is a folly that will hurt my movement? To where am I moving?

I suggested discussions on the forum, not between "various pundits".

I'd like to present my own theory here...you came into the thread, made an offhand remark, and then felt the need to defend your pride instead of providing actual, considered input.

And dude, you're calling someone pedantic?

"H3S"

Post: #19

Scientifically speaking...

A hypothesis is an idea on how something works, but is not readily supported by evidence or methodical testing.

A theory is an idea on how something works and it is readily supported by evidence and methodical testing supporting its validity.

Very important distinction.

Here are the wikis on the two words that break it down:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

Also, based on the scientific method a theory starts with a hypothesis.

Post: #20

A hypothesis is a testable statement regarding a specific topic that you're trying to prove. This is the starting point of any scientific experiment

A theory is an overarching explanation of some occurrence in nature, which, as opposed to a law, may be proven wrong. These are formed after observing relationships, patterns, etc, and may lead one to further/deeper hypotheses and even laws about specific topics within a field of study

A law is a statement which is thought to be have unwavering accuracy in its ability to describe and predict a specific aspect of the world around us

The differences are subtle but very important

Hypothesis: statement that is to be tested in an experiment
Theory: result that is likely to be true in all similar experiments
Law: result that will always be true in every experiment

Post: #21

Little Johnny comes running in to living room where his dad is sitting watching TV. One hand on remote, other tucked in the front of his pants, Al Bundy-esque style.

LJ- "Dad can you help me with my homework assignment?"

Dad -"Maybe. What is it?"

LJ -"The teacher assigned me to define the difference between 'theoretically' and 'realistically'

Dad -"Well that's easy son. Run upstairs and ask your sister if she'd fuck a complete stranger for a million bucks then come back down here and tell me what she says"

LJ-confused but says "Uhh..OK" and runs upstairs to his sister's room and after a few seconds runs back down to the living room and:

LJ- "Dad, Sis says 'Hell to the yes!'. So what does that mean?"

Dad- "Now go up there and ask your mother the same question"

LJ- "Huh"

Dad-"Boy run up there and ask your mother if she'd fuck a complete stranger for a million bucks then come back down here and tell me what she says"

LJ- Sheepishly says "Uhh..OK" and runs upstairs to his parents' room and after a few seconds runs back down to the living room and:

LJ- "Dad, Mom says 'Hell to the yes!' too. So what does that mean?"

Dad- "There you have it son. The answer to your homework assignment"

LJ- Scratching his head, face all scrunched up in confusion "Uhh...I don't get it Dad"

Dad- "Well son it's like this. Theoretically we're sitting on $2million bucks, but realistically we just have two whores living in the house"
_____________________________________________________________

Apropos of nothing I know. This thread just reminded me of that joke