When and when not to use the word "Theory"

There is a subtle, but crucial difference between having a "hypothesis" and having a "theory".

A hypothesis is an idea.

A theory is a hypothesis that has undergone rigorous testing and has yet to be proven false.

If you hear someone exclaim, "I have a theory!" before detailing an idea, they are wrong. What they have is a hypothesis.

For example:

It is a scientific fact that everything which exists above the temperature of absolute zero gives off Electromagnetic (EM) radiation. This radiation manifests as a collection of energy waves, some of which can be seen with the naked eye. An example of this would be how most healthy humanoid eyes can view the Visible Light Spectrum, or in the case of the Dark Elves and Dark Dwarves, how their eyes are able to see in the infrared spectrum.

There are those in our society that claim to be able to "see spirits" or to "view the Weave". While there is no quantifiable scientific data to prove or disprove their claims as of yet, I hypothesize that what they are in fact "seeing" is a portion of the EM spectrum that is not visible to the average humanoid eye. A close parallel to this would be how undead are capable of "sensing life"; they are not in fact sensing something as mysterious as a being's "life force" but are in fact sensing the EM radiation given off by a living body.

Please note that in the above two paragraphs, I never mentioned that fickle and oft misused phrase, "I have a theory" and instead asserted, "I have a hypothesis" because as of yet, I have not run enough tests to prove/disprove my idea. So please, if you hear someone foolishly utter the phrase, "I have a theory" when they in fact do not have a theory, kindly enlighten them.

On a side note, if you are one of the people who claims to be able to see spirits, the weave, or magic and you wouldn't mind making a donation to science I could really use the samples.

Bolton,

Your differentiation between the terms "theory" and "hypothesis" are very welcome sights indeed. In your example, however, you yourself note that what you propose is not as of yet testable. The ability to verify, or for the pessimists out there, falsify an idea is what makes it a hypothesis. Otherwise, it's just conjecture, or at best the seeds from which hypotheses are birthed.

A hypothesis is testable and falsifyable.

Thank you for your valuable input.

~Amalthea Meril

Bolton,
I do find myself wondering what sort of donations you seek from those of us who can see the weave or spirits

Ms. Meril: Perhaps I worded my example poorly. What I meant to convey is, while there has been no scientific as a yet able to quantify the existence of a "soul" or "weave", given the proper samples and time with which to experiment, I am confident that I can come up with a model that explains that they are in fact simply a certain wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum. Thank you for asking for clarification and I'm sorry for the confusion.

Ms Guildmistress,
Donations of time or remote sensory organelles, whichever is easier to acquire, would be greatly expedite the testing phase of this hypothesis.

The fact I know and understand all these big words the doctor is using makes me wanna get drunk so I can forget them...

Signed, With Truth,
Jack Dimms

Mr. Bolton,

I have a... hypothesis... that is somewhat along the lines of your interest. Being a Healer, I work with life energy... and I have noticed some curious things that perhaps someone of your profession might understand better than me. Maybe we can have a chat?