What's the word for commonly a accepted theory, though not yet proven?

parc

There's a word for this...I know it but just can't think of it

For example: The theory that winning the lotto will lead to happiness is widely accepted though not thoroughly proven or disproven

This theory would be called a.....something

Curly Judge

Surely it is still a theory until proven ,when it becomes a fact

Is supposition the word you are looking for?

mathepac

Hypothesis - proposal / concept?

Consensus?

28064212

Curly Judge wrote: »

Surely it is still a theory until proven ,when it becomes a fact

^ This. Theory is the word you're looking for e.g. theory of evolution, theory of relativity, theory of gravity

28064212

28064212 wrote: »

^ This. Theory is the word you're looking for e.g. theory of evolution, theory of relativity, theory of gravity

Clearly theory is not the word he is looking for, as he has written it several times already.

newmug

Deleted User wrote: »

Clearly theory is not the word he is looking for, as he has written it several times already.

Ah it is. He just has his own definition of the word "theory" confused with something else.

Orim

Hypothesis would probably be the word the OP is looking for. As this would be something that is not proven but is valid for further research.

A theory is held to be true based on available evidence and afaik theories are corrected or abandoned(?) if new evidence is discovered.

Chuck Stone

Curly Judge wrote: »

Surely it is still a theory until proven ,when it becomes a fact

The theory of evolution seems to straddle this way ^^ of perceiving theory and fact.

There is masses of evidence for Evolution and yet it is still called a theory for some reason.

I guess the above highlights the difference between evidence and proof.

28064212

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The theory of evolution seems to straddle this way ^^ of perceiving theory and fact.

There is masses of evidence for Evolution and yet it is still called a theory for some reason.

I guess the above highlights the difference between evidence and proof.

It's called a theory because it is a theory. It is not a fact, it has not been proven (and never will be). Newton's theory of gravitation had masses of evidence and was considered pretty damn iron-clad; then Einstein came along

Chuck Stone

28064212 wrote: »

It is not a fact, it has not been proven (and never will be).

It isn't proven but there is masses of evidence for it which means that it's more than just a 'naked' theory.

newmug

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It isn't proven but there is masses of evidence for it which means that it's more than just a 'naked' theory.

Nah, you have it wrong Chuck. Sure thats what a theory is - a well accepted idea with masses of evidence, just one that cant be proven.

finality

Orim wrote: »

Hypothesis would probably be the word the OP is looking for. As this would be something that is not proven but is valid for further research.

A theory is held to be true based on available evidence and afaik theories are corrected or abandoned(?) if new evidence is discovered.

A hypothesis is essentially a guess, used as a starting point for further investigation. A theory is arrived at once there is evidence to support an initial hypothesis. I'd agree that the word the OP is looking for is in fact "theory". :P

Although, other possibilities are "inference" or "supposition", although they mean essentially the same thing as theory.

Or you could say "consensus", but I'd hold that theory is a better word in this case.

Chuck Stone

28064212 wrote: »

It's called a theory because it is a theory. It is not a fact, it has not been proven (and never will be).

That sounds a bit like a creationist argument tbh...

Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming.

The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun.

talkorigins.org

Improbable

The scientific definition of theory is different from the lay definition of theory.

28064212

Chuck Stone wrote: »

That sounds a bit like a creationist argument tbh...

Only if you don't understand what a theory is. And no-one mentioned the mechanism of biological evolution, only the theory of evolution

Adamas

parc wrote: »

There's a word for this...I know it but just can't think of it

For example: The theory that winning the lotto will lead to happiness is widely accepted though not thoroughly proven or disproven

This theory would be called a.....something

Do you mean that something like this is a notion, or even possibly, in this case, a popular notion?

Notions are based on impressions, beliefs, whims , ideas that are not really proven or disproven, as they haven't been tested. They may be right, they may be wrong, but they can't be classed as factual or known truths. They tend to be held in the mind as an untested impresssion, and are often not really questioned enough to be fully thought out by the holder so as to be either validated or discounted. LINK

They are something like UFOs flying about in the no-man's-land of the mind, where they may be perceived in some vague and blurred way, but never clearly seen as to what they are, notional. These areas of study touch on the wider headings of perception, which may be true or false, or a mixture of both.

A

GO_Bear

28064212 wrote: »

It's called a theory because it is a theory. It is not a fact, it has not been proven (and never will be). Newton's theory of gravitation had masses of evidence and was considered pretty damn iron-clad; then Einstein came along

Actually evolution itself is a fact, but only the mechanism by which it occurs is a theory, hence we should be using the proper name for it which is the Theory of evolution by natural selection

And anyways, A fact is something demonstrable and invariably consistent;

FACT
a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed

While a theory is often a collection of data used to explain facts

Theory
a. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

And a theory is not just a hypothesis, it is something that has stood the test of time in the academic arena and has yet to be disproven, modern theories are not just discarded by discoveries either, rather just improved with more recent findings as it would be extremely rare to have it just outright disproven if it has already reached Theory status

Curly Judge

Curly Judge wrote: »

Surely it is still a theory until proven ,when it becomes a fact

Is supposition the word you are looking for?

No no no!!
A theory doesn't one day grow up and become a fact!

A theory is an explanation of facts. "It is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena". It is NOT an "unproven fact".

Once a hypothesis is verified, it becomes a theory. That's the only little progress any of them make.

Curly Judge

bluewolf wrote: »

No no no!!
A theory doesn't one day grow up and become a fact!

A theory is an explanation of facts. "It is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena". It is NOT an "unproven fact".

Once a hypothesis is verified, it becomes a theory. That's the only little progress any of them make.

???
And where does that leave Fermat's Last Theorem?
Is it not now a fact because it has been proven?

3DataModem

A theorem is not a theory.

And OP I believe the phrase you are looking for is "conventional wisdom".

Curly Judge

3DataModem wrote: »

A theorem is not a theory.

And OP I believe the phrase you are looking for is "conventional wisdom".

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Theorem.html

A theorem is a statement that can be demonstrated to be true by accepted mathematical operations and arguments. In general, a theorem is an embodiment of some general principle that makes it part of a larger theory. The process of showing a theorem to be correct is called a proof.

I'm not trying to be smart!
Just seeking to learn and move forward.

3DataModem

Curly Judge wrote: »

3DataModem wrote: »

A theorem is not a theory.

And OP I believe the phrase you are looking for is "conventional wisdom".

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Theorem.html

A theorem is a statement that can be demonstrated to be true by accepted mathematical operations and arguments. In general, a theorem is an embodiment of some general principle that makes it part of a larger theory. The process of showing a theorem to be correct is called a proof.

I'm not trying to be smart!
Just seeking to learn and move forward.

No problem.

A Theorem and a Theory are still very different concepts. A Theorem is a statement of "truth" based on other given "truths".

So Fermats last Theorem was a Theorem because it was a statement of a simple mathematical truth (since proven).

A Theory could be simple or complex, and generally - but not always - only stands to be disproven. It's something that fits the observed facts, sometimes very very well. Eg the extinction of the dinosaurs has several plausible theories... including the big rock hitting gulf of Mexico and causing the long dark winter... but we don't know for 100% certainty.

Curly Judge

3DataModem wrote: »

No problem.

A Theorem and a Theory are still very different concepts. A Theorem is a statement of "truth" based on other given "truths".

So Fermats last Theorem was a Theorem because it was a statement of a simple mathematical truth (since proven).

A Theory could be simple or complex, and generally - but not always - only stands to be disproven. It's something that fits the observed facts, sometimes very very well. Eg the extinction of the dinosaurs has several plausible theories... including the big rock hitting gulf of Mexico and causing the long dark winter... but we don't know for 100% certainty.

Thank you!
In post no 20 I referred to Fermat's last Theorem.
I did this because that is how this particular l conundrum is usually referred to.
It would have probably been more correct to refer to it as Fermat's Lost Theory, because although he claimed to have solved the problem he left no proof.
It wasn't until the 1990's that Andrew Wiles solved the problem and provided proof which satisfied his mathematical peers.
Prior to that the problem should have been referred to as Fermat's hypothesis, surely?
My point,[now] is that a hypothesis is a theory, and when it is proven it moves on to the Nirvana of science, be that called a fact, theorem or...whatever?
I freely admit that this is much easier to reach in mathematics than in other branches of science, mathematics being such an exact science.

daesu

Mathematics is very different from other sciences in this respect. In mathematics it's usually possible to test a given statement for all possible cases. You can test a formula using all possible inputs. For example it's trivial to test some logic statements.

In other sciences such as physics it's impossible to prove anything because it's impossible to test for all possible cases.

In science facts are observations that are accepted to be true. This doesn't mean they are proven. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for facts. When a hypothesis is tested repeatedly and get's very well supported by evidence then it becomes a theory. A theory never becomes a fact, a theory explains facts.

The scientific definition of theory, and fact, and other words, is very different from the colloquial usage of the word.

It's not possible to prove a theory, it's only possible to disprove it. But the more you test a theory, the more evidence that supports it, the more accurate predictions it makes, the stronger it gets.

Example:

Gravity is a fact. We have repeatedly observed things falling down. But gravity is not proven. To prove gravity it would be necessary to test every single atom in the Universe.

Gravity is also a theory. The theory explains the facts, the observations.

Evolution is a fact. We have repeatedly observed changes in organisms over generations. But it's not proven. To prove evolution it would be necessary to test every organism that ever existed.

Evolution is also a theory. The theory explains the facts, the observations.

tommy2bad

Conventional wisdom ?

Queen-Mise

Common opinion
Latest opinion

Richie15

Just skimmed through this, so sorry if I'm repeating, but it seems like everyone's trying to simplify this into a single correct answer. In fact, there are two.

In scientific terms, a statement is a hypothesis until it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt, at which point it becomes a theory. Technically speaking, there's no such thing as "fact" (all statements are questionable - including this one!) So, Gravity is a theory, but not because it's unproven. (Go on, try disprove it by jumping off a bridge.* You'll get a Darwin Award.)

In colloquial usage, a theory is something you've come up with on a hunch, with no evidence and often no even rational logic. For example, "I'm having no luck with women; my theory is that they're all lesbians."


*Neither myself nor Boards.ie encourages readers to jump off bridges. If you choose to jump off a bridge, you accept the inherent risk of serious injury or deadness.

Morbert

Richie15 wrote: »

Just skimmed through this, so sorry if I'm repeating, but it seems like everyone's trying to simplify this into a single correct answer. In fact, there are two.

In scientific terms, a statement is a hypothesis until it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt, at which point it becomes a theory. Technically speaking, there's no such thing as "fact" (all statements are questionable - including this one!) So, Gravity is a theory, but not because it's unproven. (Go on, try disprove it by jumping off a bridge.* You'll get a Darwin Award.)

A slight correction: A theory is an explanatory framework that would generate hypotheses. When these statements are tested and found to be true, the theory is affirmed. If they are falsified, the theory is falsified.

CelticRambler

finality wrote: »

A hypothesis is essentially a guess, used as a starting point for further investigation. A theory is arrived at once there is evidence to support an initial hypothesis. I'd agree that the word the OP is looking for is in fact "theory".

No, it's an hypothesis because it lends itself to prospective testing (assuming one can define suitable measures of happiness). :cool:

Black Swan

Richie15 wrote: »

In scientific terms, a statement is a hypothesis until it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt...

When commenting upon something that is to be informed by the scientific method, I would be very careful in using the words proof, "proven," or "disprove." Results emerging from the application of this method may or may not "suggest" support for the research hypothesis, and do not prove or disprove anything.

Further, when hypothesis testing, by convention we do not test the research hypothesis, rather the null. And if the results are significant, we reject the null, with such results suggesting support for the research hypothesis. If the results are insignificant, then we accept the null, and find that the research hypothesis was not supported; i.e., we would not use the terms "disprove" or disproven when referring to the lack of support.

Furthermore, as pertains to the results of the scientific method, there is always some measure of "reasonable doubt." For example, some reasonable doubt can be attributed to error in measurement, systematic error, etc., consequently we attempt to measure the probability of this error, as well as to estimate the confidence levels (and confidence intervals in certain types of research), essentially to give us more confidence in what the results suggest.

There are other sources of "reasonable doubt" when applying the scientific method. It is difficult to test theory directly, but we do operationalise theoretical concepts into measurable variables, stating the assumed relationships between variables in research hypotheses, before testing them in the null form. In addition to the problems associated with error mentioned earlier, we always struggle with attempting to identify all the necessary conditions that may be sufficient to suggesting a cause-and-effect relationship. Once again, we never prove or disprove, rather such tests may support or not support the hypothesis, suggesting some result.