Comment: Wikipedia is not the final authority

(See in situ)


Wikipedia is not the final authority

Words don't depend on wikipedia's assertions either. It is odd how you find it to be the final arbiter of all disputes, when anybody can edit the thing. Here is the Merriam Webster definition of hypothesis:

hy·poth·e·sis
/hīˈpäTHəsis/
Noun

A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.

Here is the definition of theory, from the same source:

the·o·ry
/ˈTHēərē/
Noun

A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be...: "Darwin's theory of evolution"
A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based: "a theory of education"; "music theory".

So you see wikipedia has it backwards. A hypothesis is the more tentative, speculative notion than a theory.

Wikipedia sometimes just gets things wrong. You can give me no examples where scientists refer to a well established body of knowledge as an hypothesis, whereas I can give many examples where they refer to a well established body of knowledge as a theory.