what is the difference between a theory and a hypothisis?
105503
A hypothesis is an educated guess about a scientific problem.  A theory is what you get when your hypothesis has evidence to back it up.
6351
You are probably talking about Freud's psychoanalytical theories. They are called 'psychodynamic' theories. The branch is 'psychoanalysis'.
318450
Most people don't simply believe theories.........they just acknowledge them as a possible reason or explanation.\n\nIt's called having an open mind.
1059613
its not really a theory.  its more scientific fact.\n\ncollapse of the entire world economy is the theory part
934235
The scientific definiton of "theory" is not what your average person on the street would think it is.  It is NOT a hypothesis, it is NOT just a clever idea that sounds right.  It is something that has been supported over and over again, in all aspects of biology.  \nEvolution is a theory, and so it gravity.  Gee, better start arguing against that, too...
10295
There is a difference between belief and the practice of verifying things by observation. I'm not one to say that science can address every aspect of what it is to be human. We need art, and storytelling, and music, and things that don't lend themselves well to scientific explanations. I could describe for you the mathmatical relationships between notes in a symphony, but that would be somewhat missing the point.\n\nEvery society has stories that have been told through the ages about how the world came into existence. Humankind has had a need for mythology to explain things about the human experience that are beyond our understanding. Teach all of it. It's a part of being human. But recognize the difference between mythology, philosophy, religion, and science. We have for the most part given up using primitive belief systems as the basis for, say, medical treatments. In most cases there is an understanding that science does a better job of predicatably explaining what will happen with, say, food poisoning or small pox than any of the other systems of thought that I mentioned. Schizophrenia is a more enlightened explanation than demonic possession, and has more explanatory power.\n\nSo teach the belief systems, but don't teach them as science. Evolution is not a theory, it is the basis of modern biology. For decades, modern advances do nothing but support what was already known. There is no reason to revert to mythology to explain things that can be verified with evidence. Keep your faith, keep your beliefs, whatever they may be, but accept the world we live in and the understanding we have of how it works.
552127
A hypothesis- It doesnt become theory until a very large amount of data is collected to support it, and the hypothesis is generally accepted by experts in the field.  It takes a lot more than just an experiment or two for a scientific hypothesis to be raised to a theory.
656883
There is a difference in the definition of ... IGNORANCE and STUPIDITY... \nIgnorance is the absence of knowing or knowledge... but...\nStupidity is having knowledge but using that knowledge in a negative action... and racism.... is STUPIDITY!
1102045
an analogy draws a picture between to similar events and homology draws a line between two people, organisms, etc... that share traits of a common ancestor.\n\nanalogy- she was as pure as snow\nhomology- people and chimps
828385
A scientific theory is very, very different from a layman's theory.\n\nA scoentific theory has gone from a hypothesis (which is closer to the layman's term theory) to having been tested repeatedly and having been proven correct. However, the difference between a theory and a law is falsification, which is a crazy word to define.\n\nBasically, a theory cannot be made into a law until it has been proven that the *opposite* of that theory is false.\n\nFirst law of thermodynamics, for example. In any process, the total energy of the universe remains constant. This has been proven. It has also been proven that the opposite is NOT true--the total energy of the universe not remaining constant is false.\n\nTheory of evolution. People and so on evolved from lower organisms. This is provable. However, "people did not evolve from lower organisms" has not yet been proven false.\n\nBoggles the mind, doesn't it?
41518
Yes. All theories exist. When a theory is proven, it becomes a law or a fact.
1104172
You don't understand the definition of a theory and a fact do you? I presume, judging from your words, you believe that a theory is essentially a conjecture, a guess, that sort of thing? Well, you thought wrong.\n\nScientific definitions and mathematical definitions are far different and more precise than everyday language. For us, a salt is that white stuff that preserves foods and gives the food, obviously enough, that "salty" taste. In chemistry, a salt is any ionic compound formed by anions and cations so that the net charge of the compound is neutral. \n\nIn that same manner, a theory is not just a "guess." Theories and facts are not rungs on a ladder of credibility - they complement each other. Theories are really models for explaining a series of natural phenomena, backed by strong evidence. Theories explain facts. Again, they are not "guesses."\n\nAnd, in that manner, evolution is both a theory AND a fact. There is the theory of evolution, which explains it, and there is the fact of evolution. This is similar to the theory of gravity; how the theory explains the fact that gravity exist, and the reason why apples fall down and hit us on the head. \n\nThere is plenty of evidence to support evolution and it is a strongly-backed theory. Also, all theories are incomplete and subject to revision. That applies to all theories - not just evolution. The atomic theory expanded over the last century as the Bohr model evolved into the current electron-cloud model. \n\nAlso, another misconception to clear up - there is nothing proven in science; there is just evidence to support it.\n\nAlso, people who criticize evolution often forget that it doesn't deal with the origin of life, it is NOT random, that the concept of uniformitarianism in science make evolution valid, etc.\n\nI suggest you read a little.
429802
Scientific theories will generally always remain theory, because there are very few things (if anything) that we completely understand from start to finish.  I personally would worry about anyone coming out and saying something they were proposing was totally right without any doubts.  Keep in mind, though most theories are modified, they are usually correct in essence.
636657
Which part of the theory? Remember theories are setup as place holders until disproven. They are not right or wrong as such.
1167406
When scientists make observations, they attempt to explain what is happening through a hypothesis. B/c it is a best educated "guess" it has to be tested over & over again.\n\nA theory, on the otherhand, is well-tested & widely accepted by members of the scientific community. Well-tested means that it has been tested time & time again w/ the same end result each time.
520241
Depends on the person. A closeminded person -willfully- ignores evidence that are contrary to personal beliefs, while an openminded person will integrate them into their belief system, granted that the evidence is justified. However people have a natural tendency to resist new ideas and evidence.
132871
No, not at all, although reason is an important part of the way people think. We tend to conflate reason with thinking because of Western civilization's philosophical traditions.\n\nHowever other kinds of thought certainly exist. An interesting one is the use of similitude - drawing conclusions because one sentence phonetically resembles another, or evokes similar imagery. Just like logic, those thoughts then chain together, in a way similar to logic, but not strictly speaking based on it. \n\nThis tends to be most apparent in religious systems, where symbolic numbers might repeat in various scenarios so that new situations can be tied to old ones, because of the presence of the symbolic number in both.