0
No. In science, facts are those phenomena which can be consistently observed and measured. A hypothesis is a testable, educated guess about what sort of rules might govern the behavior of the observed phenomena.
Once a hypothesis is formed, it is then tested to determine how well it fits teh phenomena, and whether it can therefore provide a useful means of predicting the behavior of similar phenomena. If the hypothesis fails to provide an explanation with verifiable predictive power, it is rejected, and a new hypothesis is formed, then that new hypothesis is tested.
If the hypothesis is verified -- testing shows that it does provide a useful explanation of teh phenomena with some predictive power -- then it may eventually become a _theory_, providing it stands up to repeated testing, and is not falsified (and therefore rejected). A theory represents a well-tested explanation for how a particular phenomenon or particular phenomena behave.
All of the "testing" refered to above will be carried out according to the _scientific method_.
So a "theory" is not a fact, but an -explanation- for observed facts. And a "Hypothesis" is a working model for a theory, a model awaiting testing, or in the process of being tested.
Wiki User
∙ 9y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
During the 1800's scientists first considered the idea that all living things might be composed of cells When the idea was first proposed should it have been called a hypothesis or a theory?
It would have been a hypothesis. It was an early idea before running experimentation. Theories are formed after running test and having some fact to base them off of.
Are humans being born without an appendix?
Some scientists think that the appendix was made for digesting tougher materials the human would eat (to keep from starving) such a grass and leaves, but no one knows for certain what it's for.
What is the one gene-one polypeptide hypothesis?
The one gene-one polypeptide hypothesis is an idea in an attempt to fix the one gene-one protein hypothesis (previously one gene-one enzyme hypothesis) after scientists realized that proteins can be made up by more than one polypeptide chain and that each polypeptide chain is specified by its own gene. An example would be a protein like hemoglobin, the oxygen transporting protein of vertebrate blood cells. Hemoglobin is made up of two kinds of polypeptides. Because of the two polypeptide chains, hemoglobin is made up of two genes. While this hypothesis was an improvement, it wasn't entirely true. While the example is true, the fact of the matter is, eukaryotes are much more complex than 1940s (around the time that Tatum and Beadle first came up with the one gene-one enzyme hypothesis ) technology allowed for scientists to understand. There is a step in RNA processing or post-transcriptional modification where parts of the transcribed gene is cut out (the cut out part is called the intron). Because of this mechanism, it is possible for a single gene to create more than 1 polypeptide.
Is a hypothesis a tentative explanation?
A theory or a hypothesis.
Why do scientists call evolution a theory?
Because it cannot be proven or replicated.AnswerIn science, a hypothesis is a good idea, a possible explanation, which might be right and might be wrong. Hypotheses can be refuted by experimentation. If the expectation from the hypothesis is not met by the outcome of experiment, the hypothesis is refuted. The longer a hypothesis survives unrefuted the more confidence we have in it. Evidence can support a hypothesis. The more evidence one has in support of a hypothesis, the more grows our confidence in it. Within the philosophy of science of Karl Popper, a hypothesis cannot be proven, but one can have a mighty amount of confidence in one, proportional to the amount of evidence in support of it. Unrefuted and with backing evidence, a hypothesis is promoted to a theory! A theory is better than a hypothesis. Evolution has much evidence from comparative genetics, comparative morphology and the fossil record. Evolution was once a hypothesis. Darwin collected a large mass of evidence for On the Origin of Species and now we have evidence from Mendelian genetics and comparative genetics, which Darwin knew nothing of. We now have a greater fossil record than Darwin did. There is far more evidence these days (for what is now called Neodarwinism or the Modern Synthesis- the combination of genetics and Darwin's basic 1859 ideas) than there was in Darwin's time. Evolution now has so much evidence that it is best to call it a theory, rather than a hypothesis. Yes, theories are unproven, but in Popperian philosophy of science they cannot be proven. Theories survive refutation and have much evidence and explain a lot. Biology regards evolution as its baseline, its most important idea ever. It might only be a theory of which we can only be 99% confident, but it explains everything so well that most biologists should better call it a fact rather than a theory. Evolution is such a good theory that its pedantic differentiation from 'fact' is entirely unnecessary.
Do scientist consider a hypothesis to be a fact?
yes scientists consider hypothesis to be a fact
Is it ture or false Scientists consider a hypothesis to be a fact?
true
Does a scientist consider a hypothesis to be a fact?
Scientist consider hypothesis to be an educated guess on what they are studying. If that scientist researches and experiments more, he will see if his hypothesis is true or false.
Is it true that scientists consider a hypothesis to be a fact?
English: I think its true...............yes it is trueSpanish: si moreano ad;eownaBurmese: ade dar ka true phit taefranch: goe seadae
Does a hypothesis have to be true?
No. In fact, in statistics, an hypothesis is a statement whose truth is to be tested. In science, an hypothesis is a way of summarising a body of information that is capable of being shown to be false.
What must you do in order to consider something a fact?
Thorough Research about that hypothesis, background check, history and reading verified research about it.
Is a hypothesis a fact or prediction?
A hypothesis is a prediction.
Why does Answers com publish an etymology of the phrase carbon neutral which states that carbon IS a contributor to global warming when according to all research so far this is not proven to be fact?
Because there is no such thing as a 'scientific fact'. Even gravity is not a 'scientific fact'. Scientists do not work with 'facts' but will levels of confidence, of probability. When there is a high level of confidence among the entire scientific community on a particular issue, that is called a 'consensus'. When a scientists has a different opinion (ie, after conducting research and writing a scientific paper), such a differing opinion is generally called a 'hypothesis'. For example: the general scientific consensus is that the earth is round. However, there are still some hypothesis regarding the earth being flat. As long as scientists claiming the earth being flat are not able to convince their fellow scientists through validated research methods which can be repeated by others and peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals, the scientific consensus will not alter. Same is applicable to carbon. The general consensus is that it is a contributor to Global Warming while a minority of scientists have differing hypothesis. Some day their hypothesis might become the general consensus but for that to happen they first have to convince their fellow scientists of the validity of their scientific claims and their research.
How does a hypothesis help scientists understand natural world?
It's an idea which can leard to theory and/or fact. Any ideas will help, even the ones that sound crazy
Is a hypothesis a proven fact?
A hypothesis is the idea of what the conclusion will be of your experiment.
Is A hypothesis is a proven fact.?
no
Is a hypothesis a testable?
Yes, a hypothesis is testable. In fact, a hypothesis is formulated for that very reason; to be tested.
