Scientific hypothesis?
537184
it might be.\n\nYou would have to make a major study and ask everyone what their favorite pet was.  It would be grueling and you would have to ask people this question in many, many different languages, but it is testable, but not logical for you to test everyone.  It would be better to test in localized areas beforehand if you wanted to do that.
390756
A theory, as opposed to a hypothesis, has a great deal of evidence supporting it.  To rise to the level of theory, and explanation must be internally and externally consistent, have no strong evidence disputing it, and have a preponderence of testable and relicatable evidence supporting it.  It is also useful if the theory is flexible and able to be fine-tuned based upon new evidence.  A hypothesis, on the other hand, must merely be a testable, comprehensible, and logical explanation of the known facts.  No real experimental data is needed for a hypothesis, but any fundable hypothesis, in order to be taken seriously, usually must have been experimentally tested to a point.  There is a large gulf between theory and hypothesis- A theory is very well accepted, has endured years or decades of attempts to disprove it (even, and ethically especially, by those who believe it), and totally explains the observable universe as it is.  A hypothesis can have nearly no experimental support, or a great deal, but is not supported strongly enough or believed with a strong enough consensus of the cogniscenti to be elevated to theory.  Theory is usually as far as anything can be elevated, because in order to be a law of nature, it must be mathematically proven beyond any shadow of a doubt.  Scientists of all stripes are so sceptical and cautious that almost nothing ever achieves this outside of mathematical proof.  Since mathematical proof cannot at this time be applied most of scientific theory, Theory is as good as it can get.
37661
One of the characteristics of any scientific hypothesis is that it is refutable. That is, once you propose a conjecture (as Popper called them), it's not the facts that support your hypothesis what matters, but rather the facts that refute it. You may have accumulated any number of favorable data, but any new data that contradict the original proposal will lead to its reexamination, discussion, correction and/or rejection.\nSo yes, any hypothesis should be refutable. That does not mean that it WILL be refuted! \nThe theory of evolution by means of natural selection is not a single hypothesis but rather a group of interrelated statements. None of them have been refuted by evidence.
775942
a hypothesis is an educated guess\nit has to be written as an if, then statement\n For example: If this statement helps you, then i mite get 10 points for the best answer!\ngood luck!
52054
There are only theories.\nLike the Big Bang. Check source.
691140
Science has more convincing evidence
423466
not this again...\n\n1)  Something that is called a Theory in science is NOT the same thing as the common parlance of the word theory.  The popular definition could more properly be called 'hypothesis' or even 'guess'.  A scientific theory is one which has withstood numerous experimental proofs, and has remained valid.  There is no higher level than Theory.  It's not as if someone will someday discover a new piece of evidence and the scientific community will suddenly say "Aha!!  This is TRUTH!!".  Gravity, Heliocentrism, Disease caused by micro-organisms and virii, Genetic inheritance through DNA, etc. are ALL theories.  Many of them actually have less evidence behind them than Evolution.\n\n2)  Evolution in the sense of organisms changing over time and adapting to their environments is an observed fact.  The Theory of Evolution (of which Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection is just one of many theories, which are NOT mutually exclusive) is the theory used to explain this observed fact.  Denying the existence of evolution is like denying the existence of gravity.  It's something that has been physically observed.  It happens.  The only question is WHY it happens.  Denying that evolution occurs makes you look more ignorant than Flat Earthers.\n\n3)  Intelligent Design is not a theory.  It doesn't explain anything.  There is no evidence that can be used to corroborate or disprove it.  It doesn't make any predictions about what kinds of patterns we would see, and is not useful as a tool for predicting what other evidence we might find.  Think of a murder scene.  You find two individuals, Mr. Cain and Mr. Abel.  Mr. Abel is dead.  Mr. Cain is alive.  These are facts.  You have a theory, that Mr. Cain killed Mr. Abel.  Mr. Abel's pooling blood is fresh, and there is a large dent in his forehead.  This leads you to conclude that he was killed recently, and possibly by being hit in the head with a blunt object.  Mr. Cain is holding a large rock covered in blood and hair.  This evidence provide support for your theory.  Further support comes when the hair colour and blood type on the rock match Mr. Abel's.  Your theory is upheld.  Your partner has a different 'theory' though.  God did it.  God acted through Cain and he was the one who guided the rock and made Cain smack Abel upside the head.  An interesting theological possibility perhaps, but not scientifically provable.  There is no physical evidence you can use that will disprove your partner's theory.  At every point, he can simply say 'that's the way God did it'.  It doesn't help solve the mystery.\n\nI have no idea why this idea that a theory is 'just a theory' and not proven has taken hold in the States.  It seems to be driven by a small sector of the population who believe that if any small statement in the bible is shown to be incorrect it somehow invalidates the underlying philosophy that it's much better to be nice to people than it is to kill them and covet their property.  They also seem uncomfortable with the idea that humans evolved from apes, but I'm really not sure why that is.
424149
I believe it is a scientific matter...my opinion
738733
A hypothesis is an educated guess used by scientists to guide their experiments.\n     Example:  If we see the sun moving from east to west, then the sun must be revolving around the earth. (Just a guess, not necessarily true)\n\nA theory is a statement that has been tested many times, and most experiments seem to support it.\n     Example:  The earth rotating on its axis allows humans on the earth to see the sun moving, when it really isn't.\n\nA law is a statement that has been tested many times, but unlike a theory, it has been proven and supported by experimental evidence.  There are no exceptions to it.\n     Example:  Careful measurements of the sun and the earth and all other planets PROVE that planets revolve around the sun, and not the other way around.
395010
the scientific method is an approach to investigation of phenomenon. it has as it's basis the concept of observation of a system, hypothesis of the function of that system, testing the hypothesis to determine validity, all with an eye to discovering the fundamental truth of a given phenomenon.
566701
5.\n\nIt is pseudoscience.\n\n6 might also make sense.
886109
No. I say you are exactly right. There's no science in intelligent design. So it can't be a scientific theory. Sorry ID believers - there's just no process of discovery in your belief.
374191
cannot prove or disprove this hypothesis.\n\npast empirical proof has been to tell someone to throw something up and see.  this worked until we started putting things in orbit...and beyond.\n\nnow, how do we know (or not) that those items that have exceeded our known local planetary orbit patterns will not come back because of a larger as yet unforeseen orbit?\n\nif anyone attempts to prove or disprove this it must include a hypothesis that effectively refutes the steady-state universe vs. the big-bang theories.\n\nthis would effectively place matter consumed by black-holes back to the initial "down" and all "up" would eventually return to the same place or "come down."\n\notherwise it is a lie.  technology and our knowledge of the structure of up and down have already effectively refuted this infantile "law" of gravity.  but thanks for reminding us of our humble beginnings in thinking.
47692
Not rumours, actually scientific research conclusions.\nCheck out below web site for discussions & links to what's happening.
557287
If a theory can be proven, then it becomes a proven fact.  I suspect you'll find a lot of denial, even if someone could prove theories like this.
79989
Still more theory than fact.\nIt is responsible for the force of gravity.
443660
Somebody made a hypothesis that says there is a relationship between thing A and thing B. A relationship does not say that A caused B or that B caused A, just that knowing about the state of A tells you something about the state of B. \n\nFor example, I could hypothesize that there is a relationship between people's stress levels and their body temperatures, but not be able to say that running a fever is the result of or the cause of stress.