Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[GrandizerII]

A Theory is often true, but also, maybe not true. When a theory is also a hypothesis, it becomes elevated to the status of law.  But, when the unsupported law is only partly well-established, it may or not be demoted to a minimally-evidenced observation, yet to be demonstrated. When hypotheses are only minimally-evidenced observations, there is the potential for increased data testing to accumulate, and it could be elevated to a theory, but it wouldn’t be a theoretical hypothesis unless each constituent of the test results can be independently verified. I think it’s important we’re clear on these distinctions before moving forward in the conversation. Words are important.


😏

Hypothesis are predictions about the result of an experiment. Laws are summaries or descriptions for natural phenomenon. Theories are explanations or models for bodies of observations, or laws. Yes, let's be clear.

Nope, theories are neither models nor laws. And for a theory to be a theory it has to be more than just an explanatory statement (or sets of statements, rather). Otherwise, it would just be a magnified version of a hypothesis, nothing more.