Thanks!
Here is a exempt or quote about the differences between Hypothesis and Theory...
http://psychology.about.com/od/researchmethods/ss/expdesintro_2.htmKendra Van Wagner wrote:A theory is a well-established principle that has been developed to explain some aspect of the natural word. A theory arises from repeated observation and testing and incorporates facts, laws, predictions, and tested hypotheses that are widely accepted.
A hypothesis is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in your study. For example, a study designed to look at the relationship between study habits and test anxiety might have a hypothesis that states, “This study is designed to assess the hypothesis that students with better study habits will suffer less test anxiety.” Unless your study is exploratory in nature, your hypothesis should always explain what you expect to happen during the course of your experiment or research.
While the terms are sometimes used interchangeably in general practice, the difference between a theory and a hypothesis is important when studying experimental design. Some important distinctions to note include:
* A theory predicts events in general terms, while a hypothesis makes a specific prediction about a specified set of circumstances.
* A theory is has been extensively tested and is generally accepted, while a hypothesis is a speculative guess that has yet to be tested.
But I bet you know that already...
I have not always been as open minded nor as skeptical (or rather inquisitive) as I have become in the last five or six years. I was more of a narrow minded skeptic and an atheist and had a hard time to keep an open mind on things. Though, I have realized that such a position usually makes you draw conclusions from very little facts (too fast) and usually they are very biased.
What changed for me was the fact that I started to care more about others and I think that is what separates a real skeptic from a Pseudo-skeptic or a True Believer.
In my opinion what drives a pseudo-skeptic are usually egoism and power. They need to enforce their thought pattern onto others and they hardly ever change their standpoint. They usually are very quick to make up their mind and then stand by that view even if they have to disregard or forge/twist some evidence.
Then there is always the area of grey in everything. The grey area tend to be where we fill in the blanks ourselves, we take a guess. There are many different shades of grey from white to black. What I mean by grey are the areas in a claim where there are no questionable evidence and how much weight they will have on a result so that you can make an opinion. This area is very important for the non scientist when they are supposed to make up their mind about something.
Let me take an example…
“Global Warming” is a “hot” topic and everyone picks one or the other side and claim that they are right. As a person (me) who does not have access to all the facts except from what media and internet tell me, there is a large grey area. The thing here is that the grey area can practically take any shade on this issue based on your personal feelings and ofcorse the information given to you. But there is a personal choice in whose argument that you believe. Since I don’t have access to all the fact and even if I did I probably could not analyze them properly I need to way the different argument and then decide what shade of grade I will make White or Black. Or, you can keep the grey and basically say that you can’t make a decision on the matter.
The biggest problem with the above example is basically where your faith lies. Do you trust in the word of the establishment and the majority of the world or du you trust the small group of knowledge disbelievers (they usually are).
The problem is that both groups use a fundamentalist style of proclamation where facts are hard to come by and some may also be forged.
The problem with us common people is that we really don’t know where to turn to be certain that we are fed the right information. Internet has certainly helped in providing information and a better way to get hold or understand the correct data, but you find quite allot of bad data as well.
This is why I have become a Postmodern and skeptical Agnostic and I loathe all type of circular argument and biases to turn to one or the other based on faith.
I base all my decisions at the end on the following grounds.
* Logical and reasonable factual evidence (usually very hard to come by in many cases)
* Ethical and moral values (Human basic rights)
* Least harmful according to ethical standards (sometimes you need to choose between two evils)
* Unless none of the above can be applied I take no position at all.
Even with these rules it is sometimes difficult. With global warming above I need to consider the larger issue. If it is a real problem then we stand in front of great misery, but some claim that poor people with suffer from the climate mafia… so what do you do?!?
There are clearly those that gladly jump on the bandwagon either way and enter the barricades. I would gladly do the same, but I really don’t know enough to actually understand what the lesser evil is.
Anyway, this is a long winding post that deviate some from the point… but I define a pseudo-skeptic to be a fundamentalist of some sort who are rash to jump to conclusion based on very little or third grade data (such as hearsay). They are usually very good at circular argument and avoiding direct questions.
).
