An Epistemological Appraisal of Hypotheses and Theories

In common parlance the terms hypothesis and theory are used interchangeably. There is nothing improper about this in everyday usage. However if one is to become philosophically pedantic about such matters, then these terms and their derivatives signify concepts and activities with vastly different epistemic values. Cursory attempts to disambiguate and epistemologically rank these distinct constructs will invariably result in further confusion. The avoidance of such confusion necessitates a thoughtful consideration of the nature of these abstractions and the purpose of their underpinning functions.

Consistent with my preferred analytic approach, a semantic inquiry will precede a philosophical one. The Webster’s All-In-One Dictionary & Thesaurus (Second Edition) provides the following definitions for these abstractions:

Hypothesis: An assumption made especially in order to test its logical or empirical consequences.

Theory: A plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle offered to explain observed facts.

As can be seen, a linguistic inquiry is a good starting point to start delving into the devilish details. Technically speaking, a hypothesis is an assumption which is formulated to test for veracity and accuracy. This is not at all purporting that assumptions and hypotheses are coterminous. Rather, a hypothesis is a specific kind of assumption, the teleology of which distinguishes it from its taxonomical predecessor. In this sense, a hypothesis can properly be thought of as a subset of an assumption. An assumption is a mere placeholder that, unlike a hypothesis, is not tested for veracity and accuracy; it is a postulate that is regarded as certain with very limited or no evidence and then used as a basis for further reasoning.

Theories, on the other hand, are in form and function quite different from assumptions (i.e., from hypotheses). They are proposed explanations to observed and observable phenomena. These explanations are crafted after a careful review of the results of borne from the testing of the relevant hypotheses. The formation of a theory ideally involves evaluating the test results of multiple hypotheses. The aggregate outcome of the tests usually points toward an answer – hopefully a correct one. Ultimately, through the review and evaluation of the evidence (i.e., the outcome of the tests) a theory is proposed. Thus theories have a fair, if not a very high, degree of assurance depending on the rigor and efficacy of the test employed.  Examples of theories include Sir Isaac Newton’s theory of gravity and Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

The foregoing discussion should make it obvious that the process of hypothesizing necessarily precedes the process of theorizing. The implication of the order is such that one moves from a lower to a higher rung on the epistemological scale as one moves toward a greater degree of assurance. Let alone faulty hypotheses, even valid hypotheses—especially when formulated in multiples in response to complex phenomena—necessarily yield lower epistemic value than theories. Theories objectively occupy a much higher rung on the epistemological scale than hypotheses.