What is the difference between a Hypothesis and a Theory?

First, nice to meet you, Kalangi. And thank you for this seemingly simple, but incredibly complex, and lovely, question.

So what is the difference? I’m going to offer two directions in which to look for an answer: in an origin story, and by using logical geometry. First the story.

*************************

In my early forties, I had a young doctor ask me if I knew the origin of the word, “theory.” He’d asked me what I did for a living, and I’d told him, “I’m a personality theorist.” To be honest, while I did offer him dictionary-style definitions which were similar to what has been posted here, in truth, these words had never felt solid, let alone adequate. But at the time, I had no idea why.

This young doctor then proceeded to tell me a story I love retelling to this day; where the word theory comes from.

He said that in ancient Greece, when medical doctors trained, they trained in amphitheaters. Can you picture the bowl shaped seating, with an operating table in the open area in the middle? He then said, the least experienced doctors sat in the lowest seats, those closest to the operating table. Whereas the most experienced doctors sat in highest seats, literally, the seats furthest away.

He paused. Then he asked, ‘do you know what they called those highest seats?”

I, of course, didn’t know.

Can you guess?

He told me they were called, the “theoria.” And if you now consider what it felt like to sit in those two levels of seating, you will have a genuinely personal sense of the words theory and hypothesis.

Those doctors who had worked and studied for years came to have a professionally qualified overview; a theory as to how things work. Whereas those new to the profession sat closer, as they needed to acquire the requisite experience to flesh out their baby-minded sense (guesses) of what was happening. These wonderful baby-minded guesses are “hypotheses.”

From this, we could say that hypotheses are, in the ideal sense, curiosity-driven, educated guesses regarding part of the nature of something. They come at the beginning of an education or exploration. Whereas theories are, in the ideal sense, carefully constructed explanations for parts of nature which arise only after years of education and experiments. They come at the end, in effect, summarizing the outcomes of years of hard work.

The problem, of course, is that science, as it’s currently practiced, still employs too many dictionary-style definitions. Dictionaries list single words or phrases, then equate these words or phrases to one or more vague and nebulous descriptions. (Here, a good example would be the word, fact. Despite the idea that science constantly refers to facts, it never scientifically states what a fact is.)

The result? Even professionally qualified scientists often treat words like theory and hypothesis so casually, these two words get treated as if they are interchangeable.

To me, this attitude hardly qualifies as science. Which brings us to the second way to define the two terms: by using logical geometry.

***************************************************************************************

Having taken up far too much space already, I will skip the part where I formally explain logical geometry. Hopefully, my little example will suffice to arouse your curiosity, and you can always pose Quora questions elsewhere.

Let’s start with a logically geometric explanation of science. First the drawing, then the explanation.

So what does this logically geometric drawing represent? Know we’re only interested in the relevant parts.

Focus on the red cross in the middle. This cross divides the drawing into four complementary quadrants; the four kinds of discoveries. Material discoveries. Empirical discoveries. Rational discoveries. And Intuitive discoveries.

If you now join adjacent quadrants, you define the four kinds of science: physical science (facts plus experiments), mental science (intuitions plus concepts), theoretical science (concepts plus facts), and real world science (intuitions plus experiments).

Finally, if you look at the ends of the horizontal and vertical arms of this red cross, you find the sine quo non of each of these four sciences.

The essence of theoretical science; what makes it theoretical science?

It limits itself to measurements and “logical explanations for these measurements” which are unchanging. In other words, the essence of a theory is that it purports to offer a final, lasting explanation for some part of nature.

This reflects what has been said about the timing of theories; that they occur at the end.

Whereas the sine qua non of real world science (the complementary opposite of theoretical science) is that it limits itself to intuitions and experiments, the outcomes of which constantly change (never repeat the same way twice).

Finally, were you to look for origin stories for these two forms of science, you’d find they also have Greek origins.

Parmenides said that, in truth, nothing ever changes, while Heraclitus said, “you can’t step into the same river twice.”

In this way, we could hypothesize that Parmenides is the original proponent for theoretical (ideal) science, and that Heraclitus is the original proponent for real world (pragmatic) science.

Hopefully, this will add a bit to your personal sense of the differences.