hypothesis vs theory vs law vs fact

• View on Facebook Page (Opens in a new tab)
• View our Twitter Page (Opens in a new tab)
• View our Instagram Page (Opens in a new tab)
• View our Youtube Page (Opens in a new tab)

The Difference Between a Fact, Hypothesis, Theory, and Law In Science

Words like “fact,” “theory,” and “law,” get thrown around a lot. When it comes to science, however, they mean something very specific; and knowing the difference between them can help you better understand the world of science as a whole.

In this fantastic video from the It’s Okay To Be Smart YouTube channel , host Joe Hanson clears up some of the confusion surrounding four very important scientific terms: fact, hypothesis, theory, and law. Knowing the difference between these words is the key to understanding news, studies, and any other information that comes from the scientific community. Here are the main takeaways:

Fact: Observations about the world around us. Example: “It’s bright outside.”

Hypothesis: A proposed explanation for a phenomenon made as a starting point for further investigation. Example: “It’s bright outside because the sun is probably out.”

Theory: A well-substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Example: “When the sun is out, it tends to make it bright outside.”

Law: A statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some phenomenon of nature. Proof that something happens and how it happens, but not why it happens. Example: Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation .

Essentially, this is how all science works. You probably knew some of this, or remember bits and pieces of it from grade school, but this video does a great job of explaining the entire process. When you know how something actually works, it makes it a lot easier to understand and scrutinize .

Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law... Explained! | YouTube

In order to continue enjoying our site, we ask that you confirm your identity as a human. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Scientific Hypothesis, Model, Theory, and Law

Understanding the Difference Between Basic Scientific Terms

Hero Images / Getty Images

• Chemical Laws
• Periodic Table
• Projects & Experiments
• Scientific Method
• Biochemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Medical Chemistry
• Chemistry In Everyday Life
• Famous Chemists
• Activities for Kids
• Abbreviations & Acronyms
• Weather & Climate
• Ph.D., Biomedical Sciences, University of Tennessee at Knoxville
• B.A., Physics and Mathematics, Hastings College

Words have precise meanings in science. For example, "theory," "law," and "hypothesis" don't all mean the same thing. Outside of science, you might say something is "just a theory," meaning it's a supposition that may or may not be true. In science, however, a theory is an explanation that generally is accepted to be true. Here's a closer look at these important, commonly misused terms.

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. It's a prediction of cause and effect. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven but not proven to be true.

Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. This hypothesis can be disproven if you observe a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying 1,000 detergents, there might be one more you haven't tried that could be different.

Scientists often construct models to help explain complex concepts. These can be physical models like a model volcano or atom  or conceptual models like predictive weather algorithms. A model doesn't contain all the details of the real deal, but it should include observations known to be valid.

Example: The  Bohr model shows electrons orbiting the atomic nucleus, much the same way as the way planets revolve around the sun. In reality, the movement of electrons is complicated but the model makes it clear that protons and neutrons form a nucleus and electrons tend to move around outside the nucleus.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say that it's an accepted hypothesis.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908, in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It was theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon , and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this theory, generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.

A scientific law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it's made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you the means to explain "why." The word "law" is used less and less in science, as many laws are only true under limited circumstances.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity . Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object but he couldn't explain why it happened.

As you can see, there is no "proof" or absolute "truth" in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is "proof" in science. Some work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define the terms hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What's important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.

• Null Hypothesis Examples
• Theory Definition in Science
• Hypothesis, Model, Theory, and Law
• What Is a Scientific or Natural Law?
• Scientific Hypothesis Examples
• The Continental Drift Theory: Revolutionary and Significant
• What 'Fail to Reject' Means in a Hypothesis Test
• What Is a Hypothesis? (Science)
• Hypothesis Definition (Science)
• Definition of a Hypothesis
• Processual Archaeology
• The Basics of Physics in Scientific Study
• What Is the Difference Between Hard and Soft Science?
• Tips on Winning the Debate on Evolution
• Geological Thinking: Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses
• 5 Common Misconceptions About Evolution

• Comment Rules
• Global Warming
• Nature of Science
• Vaccines/Alt. Medicines

Facts, Hypotheses, Theories, and Laws: What’s the Difference?

Perhaps no topic in science garners more confusion among the general public than the distinction between a theory and a hypothesis. This confusion is highly regrettable, because the distinction is one of the most fundamental concepts in science, and a lack of understanding about these definitions leads to a great deal of confusion. Therefore, I will attempt to alleviate the maelstrom of nonsense and bewilderment surrounding these terms and endow my readers with a proper understanding of their meanings.

Let’s begin with the definition of “fact.” This is actually the hardest of these terms to define. Basically, it’s just something that has been observed and tested and shown to be true. Importantly, facts generally don’t offer explanations, they are just how things are. If we want an explanation of why things are the way that they are, we have to turn to hypotheses and theories.

This is where most people mess up. In the common vernacular, a theory is “an educated guess,” but in science, an educated guess is a hypothesis, not a theory. Further, when I ask my students to define a theory, I often get answers like, “something that we think is true, but haven’t tested,” or even worse, “an idea that can’t be tested.” Television further reinforces these misconceptions, by constantly misusing “theory.” In virtually every episode of shows like “House M.D.” and “Bones” someone says, “my theory is that…” The reality is that in science, a theory is much, much more than just an educated guess. In fact, theories are the highest form of scientific certainty. They have been rigorously test over and over again and they have been shown to have a very high predictive power. In other words, they consistently and accurately predict the outcomes of experiments.

For example, suppose that I am currently holding a pen in the air. What will happen if I release my hand? Hopefully, you all thought, “the pen will drop,” but why did you make that prediction? In fact, you were simply applying the theory of universal gravity. This is the theory that all bodies produce gravity and are acted upon by the gravity of other bodies. Also note that by dropping the pen, I would demonstrate the fact of gravity. In other words, it is a fact that gravity took hold of the pen and caused it to fall. To explain that fact, we apply the theory of universal gravity which tells us that the earth produces a field of gravity which attracted the pen (in reality of course the theory also tells us the exact rate of acceleration of the pen). So you see, we use theories to explain facts. As such, they actually supersede facts in their certainty and importance.

So if a theory is an explanatory framework with a high predictive power, what then is a hypothesis? A hypothesis is basically an educated guess. It’s a possible explanation that hasn’t yet achieved the certainty of a theory. There may be experimental support behind it, but not on the level that a theory has. It is, however, entirely possible for a hypothesis to become a theory once enough evidence has been accumulated.

At this point, you all are probably wondering what a law is, because my explanation of a theory probably sounds a lot like what you expected for the definition of a law, and there is a very good reason for that. Namely, the terms “theory” and “law” are essentially synonymous. “Law” is an older term that we don’t use as much anymore, but it has the same level of certainty as a theory. For example, the law of universal gravity and the theory of universal gravity are synonyms. They mean the exact same thing and either one is equally correct.

So why does this matter? Other than scientists, who really cares if people say “theory” when they mean “hypothesis?” The reality is that this confusion leads to a great many misunderstandings and faulty arguments. The most prominent example is the argument that, “evolution shouldn’t be being taught as a fact because it’s just a theory.” As we’ve just seen, theories are actually our highest form of scientific certainty, and they actually supersede facts because they explain the facts. So saying, “evolution is just a theory” is no different from saying, “gravity is just a law.” Theories make up the cornerstones of every branch of science. For example, the germ theory of disease states that viruses, bacteria, etc. make us sick, cell theory states that all living things are made of cells, atomic theory states that all matter is made of atoms, etc. Obviously, there aren’t any outcries about people teaching the notion that matter is made of elements as a fact, even though its “just a theory.” Further, all theories contain a factual component because they explain the facts (I illustrated this previously with my gravity example). So, when it comes to evolution, the idea that life on this planet has slowly changed over millions of years is considered scientific fact. We have ample evidence for it from fossils, genetics, etc. The theory is the “theory of evolution by natural selection” which states that natural selection has been the primary driver of evolution. So the core thing that most creationists oppose (i.e., the idea that life has evolved) is not a theory, it is a fact. The theory of natural selection simply explains what caused those changes to take place.

In summary, a fact is a tested and confirmed observation or measurement. A hypothesis is basically an educated guess, and the terms theory and law synonymously describe a thoroughly tested explanatory framework which has a high predictive power and explains facts.

Share this:

• Search for:

Follow The Logic of Science on Facebook.

Follow The Logic of Science via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address:

• May 2024  (1)
• April 2024  (1)
• January 2024  (1)
• September 2022  (1)
• July 2022  (1)
• January 2022  (2)
• August 2021  (1)
• July 2021  (1)
• June 2021  (2)
• March 2021  (1)
• October 2020  (1)
• September 2020  (2)
• August 2020  (1)
• June 2020  (2)
• May 2020  (1)
• April 2020  (1)
• February 2020  (1)
• January 2020  (1)
• November 2019  (2)
• September 2019  (2)
• August 2019  (2)
• July 2019  (2)
• May 2019  (1)
• March 2019  (3)
• February 2019  (2)
• January 2019  (2)
• December 2018  (1)
• October 2018  (1)
• September 2018  (1)
• August 2018  (3)
• July 2018  (3)
• June 2018  (2)
• March 2018  (3)
• February 2018  (1)
• January 2018  (1)
• December 2017  (2)
• November 2017  (1)
• October 2017  (3)
• September 2017  (1)
• August 2017  (2)
• July 2017  (1)
• June 2017  (3)
• May 2017  (2)
• April 2017  (3)
• March 2017  (3)
• February 2017  (3)
• January 2017  (4)
• December 2016  (2)
• November 2016  (2)
• October 2016  (5)
• September 2016  (2)
• August 2016  (5)
• July 2016  (4)
• June 2016  (5)
• May 2016  (2)
• April 2016  (3)
• March 2016  (6)
• February 2016  (4)
• January 2016  (4)
• December 2015  (4)
• November 2015  (5)
• October 2015  (4)
• September 2015  (4)
• August 2015  (5)
• July 2015  (4)
• June 2015  (2)
• May 2015  (3)
• April 2015  (6)
• March 2015  (8)
• February 2015  (10)
• January 2015  (17)
• ad hoc fallacies
• alternative medicine
• anecdotal evidence
• anti vaccine arguments
• appeal to antiquity fallacies
• appeal to authority fallacies
• appeal to emotion fallacies
• appeal to nature fallacies
• argument from ignorance fallacies
• Bad arguments
• burden of proof
• cherry picking
• conflict of interest
• creationism
• evaluating evidence
• global climate change
• logical fallacies
• natural selection
• peer-reviewed studies
• post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies
• rules of logic
• scientific consensus

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law… Explained!

Some people try to attack things like evolution by natural selection and man-made climate change by saying “Oh, that’s just a THEORY!”

Yes, they are both theories. Stop saying it like it’s a bad thing! It’s time to learn the difference between a fact, a theory, a hypothesis, and a scientific law.

Special thanks to Joe Hanson, Ph.D., for allowing us to publish his terrific videos.

It’s Okay To Be Smart is written and hosted by Joe Hanson, Ph.D. @jtotheizzoe Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/itsokaytobesmart For more awesome science, check out: http://www.itsokaytobesmart.com Produced by PBS Digital Studios: http://www.youtube.com/user/pbsdigita…

Joe Hanson – Creator/Host/Writer Joe Nicolosi – Director Amanda Fox – Producer, Spotzen Inc. Kate Eads – Producer Andrew Matthews – Editing/Motion Graphics/Animation Katie Graham – Camera John Knudsen – Gaffer

Theme music: “Ouroboros” by Kevin MacLeod

Other music via APM Stock images from Shutterstock, stock footage from Videoblocks (unless otherwise noted)

Recommended for You

The Art of Scientific Illustration

Get to Know a Scientist: Geneticist Michelle T. Juarez

“Worrisome Waters” Tackles Water Pollution

• EXPLORE Random Article

How to Explain the Difference Between Theory, Law, and a Fact

Last Updated: December 2, 2021 References

This article was co-authored by Bess Ruff, MA . Bess Ruff is a Geography PhD student at Florida State University. She received her MA in Environmental Science and Management from the University of California, Santa Barbara in 2016. She has conducted survey work for marine spatial planning projects in the Caribbean and provided research support as a graduate fellow for the Sustainable Fisheries Group. This article has been viewed 154,778 times.

Within scientific communities, “theory,” “law,” and “fact” are technical terms which have distinct and complex meanings. Many people who do not have a scientific background—including students in introductory science classes in high school and colleges—do not have a firm understanding of the differences between these 3 terms. Many adults are also unaware of the distinctions between these 3 terms, and can benefit from a polite, conversational explanation. This article will help you understand and explain the differences between proper scientific uses for each of the three terms.

Explaining the Difference between Scientific Theory and Law

• Laws have never been refuted (hence their relatively small number) and are not explanations; they are descriptions and are often stated through relatively simple mathematical equations.
• Scientific laws, despite their formality, can change or have exceptions as scientific understandings of phenomena evolve. [2] X Research source

• As an example, the Law of Gravity has been known in the scientific community since the late 17th century. The law describes the natural phenomenon of gravity, but does not provide an explanation as to how and why gravity functions.

• A theory builds from initial hypotheses (educated guesses) and can be revised in accordance with the development of a scientific understanding of a phenomena’s cause.
• A theory is confirmed by all available evidence such that it can be used to predict new, as yet unobserved phenomena.

• For example, the scientific Theory of Natural Selection corresponds with the Law of Evolution. [5] X Research source While the law states an observed natural phenomena (life forms develop new characteristics based on external circumstances), the theory describes how and why this happens.

Explaining the Difference between Scientific Law and Fact

• While facts can be scientifically refuted or may not be consistent across time and place, they are held as true until they have been proven wrong.

• When explaining a scientific fact, start with a point of general observation.
• For example, begin your explanation by saying something like, “it is always bright outside at noon.” This is a fact in that it describes a state of nature—however, this statement may not be true in Antarctica or Greenland, where darkness lasts throughout the day in certain seasons.
• Explain how this will lead to a revision of the scientific fact: “within certain degrees of latitude, it is always bright outside at noon.”

• Facts are less formal than laws, and are not seen as an “official” definition of a phenomenon that occurs or of the reason that something happens.
• Facts are more localized and generalize less than laws. Explain that, if the Law of Evolution describes the way that species throughout the world evolve over time, a scientific fact related to evolution (and natural selection) could be: “giraffes with long necks can reach more leaves than giraffes with short necks.”

• For example, scientific theories do not develop into scientific laws. To explain the difference, focus on this distinction: laws describe phenomena, theories explain phenomena, and facts describe observations.

Explaining Scientific Theories, Laws, and Facts in the Classroom

• A theory is worth very little if it doesn't correctly predict all known evidence.
• Theories are subject to changes as new evidence becomes available. (Most theories that you will discuss in a high school science class are well-confirmed and are unlikely to be revised in any significant sense.)

• The theory of relativity: that the laws of physics are the same for all observers
• The theory of evolution by natural selection: that the observed changes in species occur due to selection of well adapted specimens over less well adapted specimens.
• Big Bang theory: that the universe began as an infinitely small point that underwent expansion to form the universe as we know it today.

• For example, we know that the germ theory of illness is a fact because we can take bacteria from someone suffering from an illness, look at that bacteria under a microscope, and then inject that bacteria into another individual, who will then get that same illness.
• We know that the Earth is round because we can travel due west and eventually end up where we started from.

• Ancient peoples noticed peculiar points of light that “wandered” among their background. (We now know these to be the planets.)
• The planets moved through the sky because they, like the Earth, were orbiting around the sun, each at different speeds, different distances from the Sun.
• Nicolaus Copernicus is generally considered to be the first to propose this theory, and supported his theory with hard evidence, but ancient cultures stumbled upon this through speculation.
• We now consider this a fact because we have sent many craft to these planets and can predict their motions to a very high precision. Of course, our predictions come from the theory (and the laws underlying that theory).

• Newton's Law of heating and cooling: the change in temperature of two bodies in thermal contact is proportional to their difference in temperature.
• Newton's Laws of motion: statements about how large objects made of atoms behave when moving at low speeds relative to each other.
• The Laws of Thermodynamics: statements about entropy, temperature, and thermal equilibrium.
• Ohm's Law: the voltage across a purely resistive element is equal to the current through the element times its resistance.

• For example, one must infer that the derived laws actually predict the facts. Accumulating all of the previous forms of knowledge, a scientist makes a general statement to explain all the evidence.
• Other scientists reaffirm the facts and use the theory to make predictions and obtain new facts.

Expert Q&A

You Might Also Like

• ↑ http://lifehacker.com/the-difference-between-a-fact-hypothesis-theory-and-1732904200
• ↑ http://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html
• ↑ https://ncse.com/library-resource/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work
• ↑ http://futurism.com/hypothesis-theory-or-law/
• ↑ https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2008/12/21/terminology-what-scientists-mean-by-fact-hypothesis-theory-and-law/

About this article

Did this article help you?

• About wikiHow
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

The Scientific Hypothesis

The Key to Understanding How Science Works

Hypotheses, Theories, Laws (and Models)… What’s the difference?

Untold hours have been spent trying to sort out the differences between these ideas. should we bother.

Ask what the differences between these concepts are and you’re likely to encounter a raft of distinctions; typically with charts and ladders of generality leading from hypotheses to theories and, ultimately, to laws.   Countless students have been exposed to and forced to learn how the schemes are set up.  Theories are said to be well-tested hypotheses, or maybe whole collections of linked hypotheses, and laws, well, laws are at the top of the heap, the apex of science having enormous reach, quantitative predictive power, and validity.  It all seems so clear.

Yet there are many problems with the general scheme.  For one thing, it is never quite explained how a hypothesis turns into a theory or law and, consequently, the boundaries are blurry, and definitions tend vary with the speaker.  And there is no consistency in usage across fields, I’ll give some examples in a minute.  There are branches of science that have few if any theories and no laws – neuroscience comes to mind – though no one doubts that neuroscience is a bona fide science that has discovered great quantities of reliable and useful information and wide-ranging generalizations.  At the other extreme, there are sciences that spin out theories at a dizzying pace – psychology, for instance – although the permanence and indeed the veracity of psychological theories are rarely on par with those of physics or chemistry.

Some people will tell you that theories and laws are “more quantitative” than hypotheses, but the most famous theory in biology, the Theory of Evolution, which is based on concepts such as heritability, genetic variability, natural selection, etc. is not as neatly expressible in quantitative terms as is Newton’s Theory of Gravity, for example.   And what do we make of the fact that Newton’s “Law of Gravity” was superceded by Einstein’s “General Theory (not Law) of Relativity?”

What about the idea that a hypothesis is a low-level explanation that somehow transmogrifies into a theory when conditions are right?  Even this simple rule is not adhered to.  Take geology (or “geoscience” nowadays):  We have the Alvarez Hypothesis about how an asteroid slamming into the earth caused the extinction of dinosaurs and other life-forms ~66 million years ago.  The Alvarez Hypothesis explains, often in quantitative detail, many important phenomena and makes far-reaching predictions, most remarkably of a crater, which was eventually found in the Yucatan peninsula, that has the right age and size to be the site of an extinction-causing asteroid impact.  The Alvarez Hypothesis has been rigorously tested many times since it was proposed, without having been promoted to a theory. 

But perhaps the Alvarez Hypothesis is still thought to be a tentative explanation, not yet worthy of a more exalted status? It seems that the same can’t be said about the idea that the earth’s crust consists of 12 or so rigid “plates” of solid material that drift around very slowly and create geological phenomena, such as mountain ranges and earth-quakes, when they crash into each other.  This is called either the “Plate Tectonics Hypothesis” or “Plate Tectonics Theory” by different authors.  Same data, same interpretations, same significance, different names. 

And for anyone trying to make sense of the hypothesis-theory-law progression, it must be highly confusing to learn that the crowning achievement of modern physics – itself the “queen of the sciences” – is a complex, extraordinarily precise, quantitative structure is known as the Standard Model of Particle Physics, not the Standard Theory, or the Standard Law!  The Standard Model incorporates three of the four major forces of nature, describes many subatomic particles, and has successfully predicted numerous subtle properties of subatomic particles.  Does this mean that “model” now implies a large, well-worked out and self-consistent body of scientific knowledge?  Not at all; in fact, “model” and “hypothesis” are used interchangeably at the simplest levels of experimental investigation in biology, neuroscience, etc., so definition-wise, we’re back to the beginning.

The reason that the Standard Model is a model and not a theory seems basically to be the same as the reason that the Alvarez Hypothesis is a hypothesis and not a theory or that Evolution is a theory and not a law:  essentially it is a matter of convention, tradition, or convenience.  The designations, we can infer, are primarily names that lack exact substantive, generally agreed-on definitions.

So, rather than worrying about any profound distinctions between hypotheses, theories, laws (and models) it might be more helpful to look at the properties that they have in common:

1. They are all “conjectural” which, for the moment, means that they are inventions of the human mind.

2. They make specific predictions that are empirically testable, in principle.

3. They are falsifiable – if their predictions are false, they are false – though not provable, by experiment or observation. 

4.  As a consequence of point 3., hypotheses, theories, and laws are all provisional; they may be replaced as further information becomes available. 

“Hypothesis,” it seems to me, is the fundamental unit, the building block, of scientific thinking. It is the term that is most consistently used by all sciences; it is more basic than any theory; it carries the least baggage, is the least susceptible to multiple interpretations and, accordingly, is the most likely to communicate effectively.  These advantages are relative of course; as I’ll get into elsewhere, even “hypothesis” is the subject of misinterpretation. In any case, its simplicity and clarity are why this website is devoted to the Scientific Hypothesis and not the others.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Hypothesis vs. Theory

A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science , a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors. A theory is always backed by evidence; a hypothesis is only a suggested possible outcome, and is testable and falsifiable.

Comparison chart

Examples of Theory and Hypothesis

Theory: Einstein's theory of relativity is a theory because it has been tested and verified innumerable times, with results consistently verifying Einstein's conclusion. However, simply because Einstein's conclusion has become a theory does not mean testing of this theory has stopped; all science is ongoing. See also the Big Bang theory , germ theory , and climate change .

Hypothesis: One might think that a prisoner who learns a work skill while in prison will be less likely to commit a crime when released. This is a hypothesis, an "educated guess." The scientific method can be used to test this hypothesis, to either prove it is false or prove that it warrants further study. (Note: Simply because a hypothesis is not found to be false does not mean it is true all or even most of the time. If it is consistently true after considerable time and research, it may be on its way to becoming a theory.)

This video further explains the difference between a theory and a hypothesis:

Common Misconception

People often tend to say "theory" when what they're actually talking about is a hypothesis. For instance, "Migraines are caused by drinking coffee after 2 p.m. — well, it's just a theory, not a rule."

This is actually a logically reasoned proposal based on an observation — say 2 instances of drinking coffee after 2 p.m. caused a migraine — but even if this were true, the migraine could have actually been caused by some other factors.

Because this observation is merely a reasoned possibility, it is testable and can be falsified — which makes it a hypothesis, not a theory.

• What is a Scientific Hypothesis? - LiveScience
• Wikipedia:Scientific theory

Related Comparisons

Share this comparison via:

If you read this far, you should follow us:

"Hypothesis vs Theory." Diffen.com. Diffen LLC, n.d. Web. 3 Jun 2024. < >

Comments: Hypothesis vs Theory

Anonymous comments (2).

October 11, 2013, 1:11pm "In science, a theory is a well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven hypotheses." But there's no such thing as "proven hypotheses". Hypotheses can be tested/falsified, they can't be "proven". That's just not how science works. Logical deductions based on axioms can be proven, but not scientific hypotheses. On top of that I find it somewhat strange to claim that a theory doesn't have to be testable, if it's built up from hypotheses, which DO have to be testable... — 80.✗.✗.139

May 6, 2014, 11:45pm "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." this statement is poorly formed because it implies that a thing is a theory until it gets proven and then it is somehow promoted to fact. this is just a misunderstanding of what the words mean, and of how science progresses generally. to say that a theory is inherently dubious because "it isn't a fact" is pretty much a meaningless statement. no expression which qualified as a mere fact could do a very good job of explaining the complicated process by which species have arisen on Earth over the last billion years. in fact, if you claimed that you could come up with such a single fact, now THAT would be dubious! everything we observe in nature supports the theory of evolution, and nothing we observe contradicts it. when you can say this about a theory, it's a pretty fair bet that the theory is correct. — 71.✗.✗.151

• Accuracy vs Precision
• Deductive vs Inductive
• Subjective vs Objective
• Subconscious vs Unconscious mind
• Qualitative vs Quantitative
• Creationism vs Evolution

Edit or create new comparisons in your area of expertise.

Stay connected

© All rights reserved.

Theories, Hypotheses, and Laws: Definitions, examples, and their roles in science

by Anthony Carpi, Ph.D., Anne E. Egger, Ph.D.

Listen to this reading

Did you know that the idea of evolution had been part of Western thought for more than 2,000 years before Charles Darwin was born? Like many theories, the theory of evolution was the result of the work of many different scientists working in different disciplines over a period of time.

A scientific theory is an explanation inferred from multiple lines of evidence for some broad aspect of the natural world and is logical, testable, and predictive.

As new evidence comes to light, or new interpretations of existing data are proposed, theories may be revised and even change; however, they are not tenuous or speculative.

A scientific hypothesis is an inferred explanation of an observation or research finding; while more exploratory in nature than a theory, it is based on existing scientific knowledge.

A scientific law is an expression of a mathematical or descriptive relationship observed in nature.

Imagine yourself shopping in a grocery store with a good friend who happens to be a chemist. Struggling to choose between the many different types of tomatoes in front of you, you pick one up, turn to your friend, and ask her if she thinks the tomato is organic . Your friend simply chuckles and replies, "Of course it's organic!" without even looking at how the fruit was grown. Why the amused reaction? Your friend is highlighting a simple difference in vocabulary. To a chemist, the term organic refers to any compound in which hydrogen is bonded to carbon. Tomatoes (like all plants) are abundant in organic compounds – thus your friend's laughter. In modern agriculture, however, organic has come to mean food items grown or raised without the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, or other additives.

So who is correct? You both are. Both uses of the word are correct, though they mean different things in different contexts. There are, of course, lots of words that have more than one meaning (like bat , for example), but multiple meanings can be especially confusing when two meanings convey very different ideas and are specific to one field of study.

• Scientific theories

The term theory also has two meanings, and this double meaning often leads to confusion. In common language, the term theory generally refers to speculation or a hunch or guess. You might have a theory about why your favorite sports team isn't playing well, or who ate the last cookie from the cookie jar. But these theories do not fit the scientific use of the term. In science, a theory is a well-substantiated and comprehensive set of ideas that explains a phenomenon in nature. A scientific theory is based on large amounts of data and observations that have been collected over time. Scientific theories can be tested and refined by additional research , and they allow scientists to make predictions. Though you may be correct in your hunch, your cookie jar conjecture doesn't fit this more rigorous definition.

All scientific disciplines have well-established, fundamental theories . For example, atomic theory describes the nature of matter and is supported by multiple lines of evidence from the way substances behave and react in the world around us (see our series on Atomic Theory ). Plate tectonic theory describes the large scale movement of the outer layer of the Earth and is supported by evidence from studies about earthquakes , magnetic properties of the rocks that make up the seafloor , and the distribution of volcanoes on Earth (see our series on Plate Tectonic Theory ). The theory of evolution by natural selection , which describes the mechanism by which inherited traits that affect survivability or reproductive success can cause changes in living organisms over generations , is supported by extensive studies of DNA , fossils , and other types of scientific evidence (see our Charles Darwin series for more information). Each of these major theories guides and informs modern research in those fields, integrating a broad, comprehensive set of ideas.

So how are these fundamental theories developed, and why are they considered so well supported? Let's take a closer look at some of the data and research supporting the theory of natural selection to better see how a theory develops.

Comprehension Checkpoint

• The development of a scientific theory: Evolution and natural selection

The theory of evolution by natural selection is sometimes maligned as Charles Darwin 's speculation on the origin of modern life forms. However, evolutionary theory is not speculation. While Darwin is rightly credited with first articulating the theory of natural selection, his ideas built on more than a century of scientific research that came before him, and are supported by over a century and a half of research since.

• The Fixity Notion: Linnaeus

Figure 1: Cover of the 1760 edition of Systema Naturae .

Research about the origins and diversity of life proliferated in the 18th and 19th centuries. Carolus Linnaeus , a Swedish botanist and the father of modern taxonomy (see our module Taxonomy I for more information), was a devout Christian who believed in the concept of Fixity of Species , an idea based on the biblical story of creation. The Fixity of Species concept said that each species is based on an ideal form that has not changed over time. In the early stages of his career, Linnaeus traveled extensively and collected data on the structural similarities and differences between different species of plants. Noting that some very different plants had similar structures, he began to piece together his landmark work, Systema Naturae, in 1735 (Figure 1). In Systema , Linnaeus classified organisms into related groups based on similarities in their physical features. He developed a hierarchical classification system , even drawing relationships between seemingly disparate species (for example, humans, orangutans, and chimpanzees) based on the physical similarities that he observed between these organisms. Linnaeus did not explicitly discuss change in organisms or propose a reason for his hierarchy, but by grouping organisms based on physical characteristics, he suggested that species are related, unintentionally challenging the Fixity notion that each species is created in a unique, ideal form.

• The age of Earth: Leclerc and Hutton

Also in the early 1700s, Georges-Louis Leclerc, a French naturalist, and James Hutton , a Scottish geologist, began to develop new ideas about the age of the Earth. At the time, many people thought of the Earth as 6,000 years old, based on a strict interpretation of the events detailed in the Christian Old Testament by the influential Scottish Archbishop Ussher. By observing other planets and comets in the solar system , Leclerc hypothesized that Earth began as a hot, fiery ball of molten rock, mostly consisting of iron. Using the cooling rate of iron, Leclerc calculated that Earth must therefore be at least 70,000 years old in order to have reached its present temperature.

Hutton approached the same topic from a different perspective, gathering observations of the relationships between different rock formations and the rates of modern geological processes near his home in Scotland. He recognized that the relatively slow processes of erosion and sedimentation could not create all of the exposed rock layers in only a few thousand years (see our module The Rock Cycle ). Based on his extensive collection of data (just one of his many publications ran to 2,138 pages), Hutton suggested that the Earth was far older than human history – hundreds of millions of years old.

While we now know that both Leclerc and Hutton significantly underestimated the age of the Earth (by about 4 billion years), their work shattered long-held beliefs and opened a window into research on how life can change over these very long timescales.

• Fossil studies lead to the development of a theory of evolution: Cuvier

Figure 2: Illustration of an Indian elephant jaw and a mammoth jaw from Cuvier's 1796 paper.

With the age of Earth now extended by Leclerc and Hutton, more researchers began to turn their attention to studying past life. Fossils are the main way to study past life forms, and several key studies on fossils helped in the development of a theory of evolution . In 1795, Georges Cuvier began to work at the National Museum in Paris as a naturalist and anatomist. Through his work, Cuvier became interested in fossils found near Paris, which some claimed were the remains of the elephants that Hannibal rode over the Alps when he invaded Rome in 218 BCE . In studying both the fossils and living species , Cuvier documented different patterns in the dental structure and number of teeth between the fossils and modern elephants (Figure 2) (Horner, 1843). Based on these data , Cuvier hypothesized that the fossil remains were not left by Hannibal, but were from a distinct species of animal that once roamed through Europe and had gone extinct thousands of years earlier: the mammoth. The concept of species extinction had been discussed by a few individuals before Cuvier, but it was in direct opposition to the Fixity of Species concept – if every organism were based on a perfectly adapted, ideal form, how could any cease to exist? That would suggest it was no longer ideal.

While his work provided critical evidence of extinction , a key component of evolution , Cuvier was highly critical of the idea that species could change over time. As a result of his extensive studies of animal anatomy, Cuvier had developed a holistic view of organisms , stating that the

number, direction, and shape of the bones that compose each part of an animal's body are always in a necessary relation to all the other parts, in such a way that ... one can infer the whole from any one of them ...

In other words, Cuvier viewed each part of an organism as a unique, essential component of the whole organism. If one part were to change, he believed, the organism could not survive. His skepticism about the ability of organisms to change led him to criticize the whole idea of evolution , and his prominence in France as a scientist played a large role in discouraging the acceptance of the idea in the scientific community.

• Studies of invertebrates support a theory of change in species: Lamarck

Jean Baptiste Lamarck, a contemporary of Cuvier's at the National Museum in Paris, studied invertebrates like insects and worms. As Lamarck worked through the museum's large collection of invertebrates, he was impressed by the number and variety of organisms . He became convinced that organisms could, in fact, change through time, stating that

... time and favorable conditions are the two principal means which nature has employed in giving existence to all her productions. We know that for her time has no limit, and that consequently she always has it at her disposal.

This was a radical departure from both the fixity concept and Cuvier's ideas, and it built on the long timescale that geologists had recently established. Lamarck proposed that changes that occurred during an organism 's lifetime could be passed on to their offspring, suggesting, for example, that a body builder's muscles would be inherited by their children.

As it turned out, the mechanism by which Lamarck proposed that organisms change over time was wrong, and he is now often referred to disparagingly for his "inheritance of acquired characteristics" idea. Yet despite the fact that some of his ideas were discredited, Lamarck established a support for evolutionary theory that others would build on and improve.

• Rock layers as evidence for evolution: Smith

In the early 1800s, a British geologist and canal surveyor named William Smith added another component to the accumulating evidence for evolution . Smith observed that rock layers exposed in different parts of England bore similarities to one another: These layers (or strata) were arranged in a predictable order, and each layer contained distinct groups of fossils . From this series of observations , he developed a hypothesis that specific groups of animals followed one another in a definite sequence through Earth's history, and this sequence could be seen in the rock layers. Smith's hypothesis was based on his knowledge of geological principles , including the Law of Superposition.

The Law of Superposition states that sediments are deposited in a time sequence, with the oldest sediments deposited first, or at the bottom, and newer layers deposited on top. The concept was first expressed by the Persian scientist Avicenna in the 11th century, but was popularized by the Danish scientist Nicolas Steno in the 17th century. Note that the law does not state how sediments are deposited; it simply describes the relationship between the ages of deposited sediments.

Figure 3: Engraving from William Smith's 1815 monograph on identifying strata by fossils.

Smith backed up his hypothesis with extensive drawings of fossils uncovered during his research (Figure 3), thus allowing other scientists to confirm or dispute his findings. His hypothesis has, in fact, been confirmed by many other scientists and has come to be referred to as the Law of Faunal Succession. His work was critical to the formation of evolutionary theory as it not only confirmed Cuvier's work that organisms have gone extinct , but it also showed that the appearance of life does not date to the birth of the planet. Instead, the fossil record preserves a timeline of the appearance and disappearance of different organisms in the past, and in doing so offers evidence for change in organisms over time.

• The theory of evolution by natural selection: Darwin and Wallace

It was into this world that Charles Darwin entered: Linnaeus had developed a taxonomy of organisms based on their physical relationships, Leclerc and Hutton demonstrated that there was sufficient time in Earth's history for organisms to change, Cuvier showed that species of organisms have gone extinct , Lamarck proposed that organisms change over time, and Smith established a timeline of the appearance and disappearance of different organisms in the geological record .

Figure 4: Title page of the 1859 Murray edition of the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin.

Charles Darwin collected data during his work as a naturalist on the HMS Beagle starting in 1831. He took extensive notes on the geology of the places he visited; he made a major find of fossils of extinct animals in Patagonia and identified an extinct giant ground sloth named Megatherium . He experienced an earthquake in Chile that stranded beds of living mussels above water, where they would be preserved for years to come.

Perhaps most famously, he conducted extensive studies of animals on the Galápagos Islands, noting subtle differences in species of mockingbird, tortoise, and finch that were isolated on different islands with different environmental conditions. These subtle differences made the animals highly adapted to their environments .

This broad spectrum of data led Darwin to propose an idea about how organisms change "by means of natural selection" (Figure 4). But this idea was not based only on his work, it was also based on the accumulation of evidence and ideas of many others before him. Because his proposal encompassed and explained many different lines of evidence and previous work, they formed the basis of a new and robust scientific theory regarding change in organisms – the theory of evolution by natural selection .

Darwin's ideas were grounded in evidence and data so compelling that if he had not conceived them, someone else would have. In fact, someone else did. Between 1858 and 1859, Alfred Russel Wallace , a British naturalist, wrote a series of letters to Darwin that independently proposed natural selection as the means for evolutionary change. The letters were presented to the Linnean Society of London, a prominent scientific society at the time (see our module on Scientific Institutions and Societies ). This long chain of research highlights that theories are not just the work of one individual. At the same time, however, it often takes the insight and creativity of individuals to put together all of the pieces and propose a new theory . Both Darwin and Wallace were experienced naturalists who were familiar with the work of others. While all of the work leading up to 1830 contributed to the theory of evolution , Darwin's and Wallace's theory changed the way that future research was focused by presenting a comprehensive, well-substantiated set of ideas, thus becoming a fundamental theory of biological research.

• Expanding, testing, and refining scientific theories
• Genetics and evolution: Mendel and Dobzhansky

Since Darwin and Wallace first published their ideas, extensive research has tested and expanded the theory of evolution by natural selection . Darwin had no concept of genes or DNA or the mechanism by which characteristics were inherited within a species . A contemporary of Darwin's, the Austrian monk Gregor Mendel , first presented his own landmark study, Experiments in Plant Hybridization, in 1865 in which he provided the basic patterns of genetic inheritance , describing which characteristics (and evolutionary changes) can be passed on in organisms (see our Genetics I module for more information). Still, it wasn't until much later that a "gene" was defined as the heritable unit.

In 1937, the Ukrainian born geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky published Genetics and the Origin of Species , a seminal work in which he described genes themselves and demonstrated that it is through mutations in genes that change occurs. The work defined evolution as "a change in the frequency of an allele within a gene pool" ( Dobzhansky, 1982 ). These studies and others in the field of genetics have added to Darwin's work, expanding the scope of the theory .

• Evolution under a microscope: Lenski

More recently, Dr. Richard Lenski, a scientist at Michigan State University, isolated a single Escherichia coli bacterium in 1989 as the first step of the longest running experimental test of evolutionary theory to date – a true test meant to replicate evolution and natural selection in the lab.

After the single microbe had multiplied, Lenski isolated the offspring into 12 different strains , each in their own glucose-supplied culture, predicting that the genetic make-up of each strain would change over time to become more adapted to their specific culture as predicted by evolutionary theory . These 12 lines have been nurtured for over 40,000 bacterial generations (luckily bacterial generations are much shorter than human generations) and exposed to different selective pressures such as heat , cold, antibiotics, and infection with other microorganisms. Lenski and colleagues have studied dozens of aspects of evolutionary theory with these genetically isolated populations . In 1999, they published a paper that demonstrated that random genetic mutations were common within the populations and highly diverse across different individual bacteria . However, "pivotal" mutations that are associated with beneficial changes in the group are shared by all descendants in a population and are much rarer than random mutations, as predicted by the theory of evolution by natural selection (Papadopoulos et al., 1999).

• Punctuated equilibrium: Gould and Eldredge

While established scientific theories like evolution have a wealth of research and evidence supporting them, this does not mean that they cannot be refined as new information or new perspectives on existing data become available. For example, in 1972, biologist Stephen Jay Gould and paleontologist Niles Eldredge took a fresh look at the existing data regarding the timing by which evolutionary change takes place. Gould and Eldredge did not set out to challenge the theory of evolution; rather they used it as a guiding principle and asked more specific questions to add detail and nuance to the theory. This is true of all theories in science: they provide a framework for additional research. At the time, many biologists viewed evolution as occurring gradually, causing small incremental changes in organisms at a relatively steady rate. The idea is referred to as phyletic gradualism , and is rooted in the geological concept of uniformitarianism . After reexamining the available data, Gould and Eldredge came to a different explanation, suggesting that evolution consists of long periods of stability that are punctuated by occasional instances of dramatic change – a process they called punctuated equilibrium .

Like Darwin before them, their proposal is rooted in evidence and research on evolutionary change, and has been supported by multiple lines of evidence. In fact, punctuated equilibrium is now considered its own theory in evolutionary biology. Punctuated equilibrium is not as broad of a theory as natural selection . In science, some theories are broad and overarching of many concepts, such as the theory of evolution by natural selection; others focus on concepts at a smaller, or more targeted, scale such as punctuated equilibrium. And punctuated equilibrium does not challenge or weaken the concept of natural selection; rather, it represents a change in our understanding of the timing by which change occurs in organisms , and a theory within a theory. The theory of evolution by natural selection now includes both gradualism and punctuated equilibrium to describe the rate at which change proceeds.

• Hypotheses and laws: Other scientific concepts

One of the challenges in understanding scientific terms like theory is that there is not a precise definition even within the scientific community. Some scientists debate over whether certain proposals merit designation as a hypothesis or theory , and others mistakenly use the terms interchangeably. But there are differences in these terms. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. Hypotheses , just like theories , are based on observations from research . For example, LeClerc did not hypothesize that Earth had cooled from a molten ball of iron as a random guess; rather, he developed this hypothesis based on his observations of information from meteorites.

A scientist often proposes a hypothesis before research confirms it as a way of predicting the outcome of study to help better define the parameters of the research. LeClerc's hypothesis allowed him to use known parameters (the cooling rate of iron) to do additional work. A key component of a formal scientific hypothesis is that it is testable and falsifiable. For example, when Richard Lenski first isolated his 12 strains of bacteria , he likely hypothesized that random mutations would cause differences to appear within a period of time in the different strains of bacteria. But when a hypothesis is generated in science, a scientist will also make an alternative hypothesis , an explanation that explains a study if the data do not support the original hypothesis. If the different strains of bacteria in Lenski's work did not diverge over the indicated period of time, perhaps the rate of mutation was slower than first thought.

So you might ask, if theories are so well supported, do they eventually become laws? The answer is no – not because they aren't well-supported, but because theories and laws are two very different things. Laws describe phenomena, often mathematically. Theories, however, explain phenomena. For example, in 1687 Isaac Newton proposed a Theory of Gravitation, describing gravity as a force of attraction between two objects. As part of this theory, Newton developed a Law of Universal Gravitation that explains how this force operates. This law states that the force of gravity between two objects is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between those objects. Newton 's Law does not explain why this is true, but it describes how gravity functions (see our Gravity: Newtonian Relationships module for more detail). In 1916, Albert Einstein developed his theory of general relativity to explain the mechanism by which gravity has its effect. Einstein's work challenges Newton's theory, and has been found after extensive testing and research to more accurately describe the phenomenon of gravity. While Einstein's work has replaced Newton's as the dominant explanation of gravity in modern science, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is still used as it reasonably (and more simply) describes the force of gravity under many conditions. Similarly, the Law of Faunal Succession developed by William Smith does not explain why organisms follow each other in distinct, predictable ways in the rock layers, but it accurately describes the phenomenon.

Theories, hypotheses , and laws drive scientific progress

Theories, hypotheses , and laws are not simply important components of science, they drive scientific progress. For example, evolutionary biology now stands as a distinct field of science that focuses on the origins and descent of species . Geologists now rely on plate tectonics as a conceptual model and guiding theory when they are studying processes at work in Earth's crust . And physicists refer to atomic theory when they are predicting the existence of subatomic particles yet to be discovered. This does not mean that science is "finished," or that all of the important theories have been discovered already. Like evolution , progress in science happens both gradually and in short, dramatic bursts. Both types of progress are critical for creating a robust knowledge base with data as the foundation and scientific theories giving structure to that knowledge.

Table of Contents

• Theories, hypotheses, and laws drive scientific progress

Activate glossary term highlighting to easily identify key terms within the module. Once highlighted, you can click on these terms to view their definitions.

Activate NGSS annotations to easily identify NGSS standards within the module. Once highlighted, you can click on them to view these standards.

Watch: Theory vs Hypothesis vs Law Explained

Most of us at some point have ended up getting into a fight with someone who doesn't think that climate change is happening, or doesn't agree with evolution. And when that happens, one of their most common criticisms is always: "Yeah, but [insert rigorously tested idea here] is only a theory ." Well, that's true. But in the science world, that word doesn't mean what you think it means. Joe from It's Okay to be Smart is here to explain why, and we think the video should be mandatory viewing for pretty much everyone at school.

The reason there's all this confusion is that words like "fact" and "theory" mean very different things in science than they do in everyday use. So let's set this straight once and for all so that we can clear up some of the misconceptions, o r as Joe says in the video above : " If we're going to trust science together, the least we can do is speak the same language."   

To begin with, let's talk about fact. In science, facts are observations like, "Oh hey, it's bright outside." Once you start trying to explain that fact, for example by assuming the Sun must be out, you've created a hypothesis that can be tested. And then you just need to set up an experiment that can do that in a repeatable and controlled way. Well done guys, we just did a science!

Most facts have multiple possible explanations and multiple hypotheses to test. And gradually you can rule them out one by one until, sometimes, there's only one left. That doesn't mean that a hypothesis is right though, it's just a possible explanation. 

When enough hypotheses get the scientific tick of approval, they can be piled on top of each other to get a theory, and that's  not  a dirty word. In fact, it means that an idea has passed the toughest tests that science can throw at it, and has lived to tell the tale. "Theory" represents the highest amount of certainty we can have.

But then what's a law? And what happens to a theory when we get new evidence? Watch the video above to have it all ELI5. And never worry again about not knowing what to say back to all those climate deniers next time they start waving the "just a theory" argument in your face. 

This is the Difference Between a Hypothesis and a Theory

What to Know A hypothesis is an assumption made before any research has been done. It is formed so that it can be tested to see if it might be true. A theory is a principle formed to explain the things already shown in data. Because of the rigors of experiment and control, it is much more likely that a theory will be true than a hypothesis.

As anyone who has worked in a laboratory or out in the field can tell you, science is about process: that of observing, making inferences about those observations, and then performing tests to see if the truth value of those inferences holds up. The scientific method is designed to be a rigorous procedure for acquiring knowledge about the world around us.

In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done. A theory, on the other hand, is supported by evidence: it's a principle formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data.

Toward that end, science employs a particular vocabulary for describing how ideas are proposed, tested, and supported or disproven. And that's where we see the difference between a hypothesis and a theory .

A hypothesis is an assumption, something proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true.

In the scientific method, the hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done, apart from a basic background review. You ask a question, read up on what has been studied before, and then form a hypothesis.

What is a Hypothesis?

A hypothesis is usually tentative, an assumption or suggestion made strictly for the objective of being tested.

When a character which has been lost in a breed, reappears after a great number of generations, the most probable hypothesis is, not that the offspring suddenly takes after an ancestor some hundred generations distant, but that in each successive generation there has been a tendency to reproduce the character in question, which at last, under unknown favourable conditions, gains an ascendancy. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species , 1859 According to one widely reported hypothesis , cell-phone transmissions were disrupting the bees' navigational abilities. (Few experts took the cell-phone conjecture seriously; as one scientist said to me, "If that were the case, Dave Hackenberg's hives would have been dead a long time ago.") Elizabeth Kolbert, The New Yorker , 6 Aug. 2007

What is a Theory?

A theory , in contrast, is a principle that has been formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data. It is used in the names of a number of principles accepted in the scientific community, such as the Big Bang Theory . Because of the rigors of experimentation and control, its likelihood as truth is much higher than that of a hypothesis.

It is evident, on our theory , that coasts merely fringed by reefs cannot have subsided to any perceptible amount; and therefore they must, since the growth of their corals, either have remained stationary or have been upheaved. Now, it is remarkable how generally it can be shown, by the presence of upraised organic remains, that the fringed islands have been elevated: and so far, this is indirect evidence in favour of our theory . Charles Darwin, The Voyage of the Beagle , 1839 An example of a fundamental principle in physics, first proposed by Galileo in 1632 and extended by Einstein in 1905, is the following: All observers traveling at constant velocity relative to one another, should witness identical laws of nature. From this principle, Einstein derived his theory of special relativity. Alan Lightman, Harper's , December 2011

Non-Scientific Use

In non-scientific use, however, hypothesis and theory are often used interchangeably to mean simply an idea, speculation, or hunch (though theory is more common in this regard):

The theory of the teacher with all these immigrant kids was that if you spoke English loudly enough they would eventually understand. E. L. Doctorow, Loon Lake , 1979 Chicago is famous for asking questions for which there can be no boilerplate answers. Example: given the probability that the federal tax code, nondairy creamer, Dennis Rodman and the art of mime all came from outer space, name something else that has extraterrestrial origins and defend your hypothesis . John McCormick, Newsweek , 5 Apr. 1999 In his mind's eye, Miller saw his case suddenly taking form: Richard Bailey had Helen Brach killed because she was threatening to sue him over the horses she had purchased. It was, he realized, only a theory , but it was one he felt certain he could, in time, prove. Full of urgency, a man with a mission now that he had a hypothesis to guide him, he issued new orders to his troops: Find out everything you can about Richard Bailey and his crowd. Howard Blum, Vanity Fair , January 1995

And sometimes one term is used as a genus, or a means for defining the other:

Laplace's popular version of his astronomy, the Système du monde , was famous for introducing what came to be known as the nebular hypothesis , the theory that the solar system was formed by the condensation, through gradual cooling, of the gaseous atmosphere (the nebulae) surrounding the sun. Louis Menand, The Metaphysical Club , 2001 Researchers use this information to support the gateway drug theory — the hypothesis that using one intoxicating substance leads to future use of another. Jordy Byrd, The Pacific Northwest Inlander , 6 May 2015 Fox, the business and economics columnist for Time magazine, tells the story of the professors who enabled those abuses under the banner of the financial theory known as the efficient market hypothesis . Paul Krugman, The New York Times Book Review , 9 Aug. 2009

Incorrect Interpretations of "Theory"

Since this casual use does away with the distinctions upheld by the scientific community, hypothesis and theory are prone to being wrongly interpreted even when they are encountered in scientific contexts—or at least, contexts that allude to scientific study without making the critical distinction that scientists employ when weighing hypotheses and theories.

The most common occurrence is when theory is interpreted—and sometimes even gleefully seized upon—to mean something having less truth value than other scientific principles. (The word law applies to principles so firmly established that they are almost never questioned, such as the law of gravity.)

This mistake is one of projection: since we use theory in general use to mean something lightly speculated, then it's implied that scientists must be talking about the same level of uncertainty when they use theory to refer to their well-tested and reasoned principles.

The distinction has come to the forefront particularly on occasions when the content of science curricula in schools has been challenged—notably, when a school board in Georgia put stickers on textbooks stating that evolution was "a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." As Kenneth R. Miller, a cell biologist at Brown University, has said , a theory "doesn’t mean a hunch or a guess. A theory is a system of explanations that ties together a whole bunch of facts. It not only explains those facts, but predicts what you ought to find from other observations and experiments.”

While theories are never completely infallible, they form the basis of scientific reasoning because, as Miller said "to the best of our ability, we’ve tested them, and they’ve held up."

More Differences Explained

• Epidemic vs. Pandemic
• Diagnosis vs. Prognosis
• Treatment vs. Cure

Word of the Day

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Games & Quizzes

Commonly Confused

'canceled' or 'cancelled', 'virus' vs. 'bacteria', your vs. you're: how to use them correctly, is it 'jail' or 'prison', 'deduction' vs. 'induction' vs. 'abduction', grammar & usage, more words you always have to look up, the difference between 'i.e.' and 'e.g.', more commonly misspelled words, plural and possessive names: a guide, every letter is silent, sometimes: a-z list of examples, pilfer: how to play and win, 8 words with fascinating histories, great big list of beautiful and useless words, vol. 3, it's a scorcher words for the summer heat, flower etymologies for your spring garden.

Fact vs. Theory Vs. Hypothesis Vs. Law

Understanding the Differences: Fact vs Hypothesis vs Law vs Theory

They are highly technical words so scientists and engineers should be cautious when using them.

Several times in our engineering study, we encounter words which seem to be defined the same.  Worlds like fact, law, theory, and hypothesis, they have been introduced in our high school science subjects and encounter them in engineering school. Because they are commonly used terms in engineering, they are printed in textbooks and used by professors in class.

And yet we confuse them with each other, so we use such words interchangeably. Their true, scientific definitions have been neglected through time because they are used colloquially. While that is not considered a sin for science and engineering students, it pays to know the differences of the words’ meanings.

So what is a fact? What is a law? What is a theory? What is a hypothesis?

In the context of everyday language, the use of such words is regardless of their scientific meanings.

People use the word ‘fact’ to refer to something that is true, which denotes a strong stand. “That’s a fact! You cannot deny that,” some would say. Using the word ‘law’ informally or outside of politics means almost the same with fact. There is also a common use with the word ‘theory’ to refer to a supposition or an assumption. “I have a theory that Rick will die in the next season.” Something like that. It may or may not be true, but it is often based on observation or a gut feeling. Meanwhile, the word ‘hypothesis’ is a lot like theory, but only used by people who want to sound smart.

While the misuse of those four words in casual conversations is forgivable, such words are never to be mixed up in the fields of science and engineering. They are highly technical words so scientists and engineers should be cautious when using them.

The word fact is generally what it is when used in the technical language, except that it is very specific. I could say, “I have dropped a ball, so it is a fact that it will fall to the ground.” In this sense, fact is not really the word. The term used in science for fact is “observation”.

A hypothesis, on the other hand, is an untested statement about nature or an educated guess. This is an idea that is formulated to explain observations in a logical way. But one cannot easily make a good hypothesis without it being testable – it should be predictive about what would happen in similar situations. It can never be verified nor refuted, else it becomes a theory.

When a hypothesis has withstood all attempts to falsify it, it becomes a theory. The word ‘theory’ refers to a well-tested, usually mathematical, model of some part of science. When used in physics, it usually takes the form of an equation or a group of equations, complete with guides on how to utilize such. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. It has never shown to be false despite the many attempts to break it. Examples of this are the electromagnetic field theories and the structural theories.

Meanwhile, a law is a statement, usually mathematical, that describes the relation between variables in some particular physical phenomena. It is a descriptive generalization about how aspects of the natural world behave under stated circumstances. A law is a proof that something happens and how it happens, but not why it happens. Say the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Law of Universal Gravitation.

Never have to make the mistake of using them outside of their scientific meanings, engineer. Unless of course you’re just taking to someone about The Walking Dead, then you can safely say the quote I already mentioned: “I have a theory that Rick will die in the next season.”

Sources: Life Hacker | Futurism | Exposing PseudoAstronomy

Posted by GN Feature Story

You may also like

Engineering the Theory of Rock Paper Scissors, So You Win Every Time

Rock paper scissors is not just a game of chance!

Ultimate Guide to Buying Overhead Crane from China

Buying an overhead crane from China can be a strategic investment that enhances your operational efficiency and productivity

reset password

Fact-checking Biden and Trump's claims at the first debate

Forget alternative facts and political spin: Thursday's presidential debate was more like a tsunami of falsity.

Former President Donald Trump unleashed a torrent of misinformation on topics from terrorism to taxes during the first debate of the 2024 general election, while President Joe Biden flubbed figures and facts about military deaths and insulin prices.

More than a dozen NBC News reporters, editors and correspondents fact-checked the key claims the presidential candidates made Thursday night. Here they are by topic:

Economy, trade and health care

Fact check: did biden inherit 9% inflation.

“He also said he inherited 9% inflation. Now, he inherited almost no inflation, and it stayed that way for 14 months, and then it blew up under his leadership,” Trump said about Biden.

This is false.

The inflation rate when Biden took office in January 2021 wasn’t 9%. It was 1.4%. It has risen on his watch, peaking at about 9.1% in June 2022, but by last month it had come down to 3.3%. Pandemic-related stimulus policies put in place by both Trump and Biden were blamed, in part, for the rise in the inflation rate.

Fact check: Did Biden lower the cost of insulin to $15 a shot?

“We brought down the price of prescription drugs, which is a major issue for many people, to $15 for an insulin shot — as opposed to $400,” Biden said.

Biden capped the cost of insulin at $35 a month under Medicare, not $15 a shot, and some drug companies have matched that cap. The price cap doesn’t apply to everyone , however. 

What’s more, Biden’s also significantly overstating how much insulin cost before the change. A 2022 report by the Department of Health and Human Services found that patients using insulin spent an average of $434 annually on insulin in 2019 — not $400 a shot.

Fact check: Did Trump lower the cost of insulin?

Trump claimed credit for lowering the cost of insulin for seniors, saying, “I am the one who got the insulin down for the seniors.”

That is mostly false.

In 2020, Trump created a voluntary program under Medicare Part D. The program allowed Medicare Part D plans to offer some insulin products for no more than $35 per month. It was active from 2021 to 2023, with fewer than half of the plans participating each year. 

In 2022, Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, which included a provision that lowered the out-of-pocket cost for people on Medicare to $35 a month and covered all insulin products. The cap didn’t apply to those with private insurance. However, after the law was implemented, insulin manufacturers voluntarily lowered the out-of-pocket cost to $35 a month for people with private insurance.

Fact check: Does Biden want to raise ‘everybody’s taxes’ by four times?

“Nobody ever cut taxes like us. He wants to raise your taxes by four times. He wants to raise everybody’s taxes by four times,” Trump claimed. “He wants the Trump tax cuts to expire.”

Biden’s tax plan “holds harmless for 98% of households,” said Kyle Pomerleau, senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. And Biden wants to extend the majority of the Trump tax cuts, too, though he has advocated for hiking taxes on very high earners.

Fact check: Biden said the U.S. trade deficit with China is at its lowest since 2010

“We are at the lowest trade deficit with China since 2010,” Biden said.

This is true.

The U.S. had $279 billion more in imports than exports to China last year, the lowest trade deficit with the world’s second-largest economy since 2010. The highest deficit in recent years was $418 billion, in 2018, when Trump began a trade war with China. 

The decline has been driven largely by tariffs that Trump imposed in office and that Biden has maintained and in some cases expanded.

Fact check: Are immigrants taking ‘Black jobs’?

Asked about Black voters who are disappointed with their economic progress, Trump claimed Black Americans are losing their jobs because of illegal border crossings under Biden’s administration.

“The fact is that his big kill on the Black people is the millions of people that he’s allowed to come through the border. They’re taking Black jobs now,” Trump said.

There’s no evidence that undocumented immigrants are taking jobs away from Black Americans. In fact, according  to the Bureau of Labor Statistics , the Black unemployment rate fell to 4.8% in April 2023 — an all-time low. Before that, the Black unemployment rate was as high as 10.2% in April 2021.

Immigration

Fact check: did trump end catch and release.

“We ended ‘catch and release,’” Trump said.

Trump did not end “catch and release,” a term used to describe the practice of releasing migrants into the country with court dates while they await court hearings. The U.S. doesn’t have enough facilities to detain every migrant who crosses the border until they can see judges, no matter who is president, so Trump — like Barack Obama before him and Biden after him — released many migrants back into the U.S.

Fact check: Did the Border Patrol union endorse Biden?

“By the way, the Border Patrol endorsed me, endorsed my position,” Biden said.

The National Border Patrol Council, the labor union for U.S. Border Patrol agents and staff members, has endorsed Trump. 

“The National Border Patrol Council has proudly endorsed Donald J. Trump for President of the United States,” the group’s vice president, Hector Garza, said in a statement shared exclusively with NBC News. 

The union posted on X , “to be clear, we never have and never will endorse Biden.”

Biden may have been referring to a Senate immigration bill that he backed, which earned the union’s endorsement .

Fact check: Did Trump have ‘the safest border in the history of our country’?

“We had the safest border in the history of our country,” Trump said.

It’s a clear exaggeration. In 2019, the last year before the Covid-19 pandemic brought down border crossings, there were roughly 860,000 illegal border crossings, far more than in any year during the Obama administration.

Fact check: Trump says Biden is allowing ‘millions’ of criminals to enter U.S.

“I’d love to ask him … why he’s allowed millions of people to come in from prisons, jails and mental institutions to come into our country and destroy our country,” Trump said.

There is no evidence of this.

Venezuela doesn’t share law enforcement information with U.S. authorities, making it very hard to verify criminal histories of immigrants coming to the U.S. But there’s no evidence that Venezuela is purposefully sending “millions” of people from mental institutions and prisons to the U.S.

Fact check: Did Virginia’s former governor support infanticide?

“They will take the life of a child in the eighth month, the ninth month and even after birth. After birth. If you look at the former governor of Virginia, he was willing to do so, and we’ll determine what we do with the baby. Meaning we’ll kill the baby. ... So that means he can take the life of the baby in the ninth month and even after birth. Because some states, Democrat-run, take it after birth. Again, the governor, the former Virginia governor, put the baby down so that we decide what to do with it. He’s willing to, as we say, rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month and kill the baby. Nobody wants that to happen, Democrat or Republican; nobody wants it to happen,” Trump said.

While some Democrats support broad access to abortion regardless of gestation age, infanticide is illegal, and no Democrats advocate for it. Just 1% of abortions are performed after 21 weeks’ gestation, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .

Trump first made the claim in 2019, after Virginia’s governor at the time, Ralph Northam, made controversial remarks in discussing an abortion bill. NBC News debunked the claim then, reporting that Northam’s remarks were about resuscitating infants with severe deformities or nonviable pregnancies. 

Asked on a radio program what happens when a woman who is going into labor desires a third-trimester abortion, Northam noted that such procedures occur only in cases of severe deformities or nonviable pregnancies. He said that in those scenarios, “the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

Terrorism, foreign policy and the military

Fact check: trump said there was ‘no terror’ during his tenure.

“That’s why you had no terror, at all, during my administration. This place, the whole world, is blowing up under him,” Trump said.

There were two ISIS-inspired terrorist attacks while Trump was president. The first occurred in October 2017, when Sayfullo Saipov killed eight people and injured a dozen more in a vehicle ramming attack on the West Side Highway bike path in New York City. The second occurred in December 2017, when Akayed Ullah injured four people when he set off a bomb strapped to himself.

Fact check: Biden suggests no troops died under his watch

“The truth is I’m the only president this century that doesn’t have any this decade and any troops dying anywhere in the world like he did,” Biden said.

The Defense Department confirmed that 13 U.S. service members were killed in a suicide bombing attack at Abbey Gate at the Kabul airport by a member of ISIS-K as the U.S. was leaving Afghanistan. 

Environment

Fact check: did trump have the ‘best environmental numbers ever’.

“During my four years, I had the best environmental numbers ever, and my top environmental people gave me that statistic just before I walked on the stage, actually,” Trump said.

The figure Trump is referring to is the fact that carbon emissions fell during his administration. He posted the talking points his former Environmental Protection Agency chief emailed him on social media before the debate.

And it’s true that carbon emissions are falling — they have been dropping for years. Emissions particularly plunged in 2020, dropping to levels around those in 1983 and 1984. That drop was in large part thanks to Covid lockdowns, and emissions rose again when air travel and in-person working resumed. 

Still, climate activists and experts are quick to note that those drops are nowhere near enough to head off predicted catastrophic effects of global warming. Other major countries cut their emissions at a much faster rate during the Trump administration.

Fact check: The Jan. 6 crowd was not ‘ushered in’ by the police

“If you would see my statements that I made on Twitter at the time and also my statement that I made in the Rose Garden, you would say it’s one of the strongest statements you’ve ever seen. In addition to the speech I made in front of, I believe, the largest crowd I’ve ever spoken to, and I will tell you, nobody ever talks about that. They talk about a relatively small number of people that went to the Capitol and, in many cases, were ushered in by the police. And as Nancy Pelosi said, it was her responsibility, not mine. She said that loud and clear,” Trump said.

During a lengthy answer to a question about whether he would accept the result of the 2024 election and say all political violence is unacceptable, Trump made several false statements, including the claim that police “ushered” rioters into the U.S. Capitol and that then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said it was her responsibility to keep the chamber safe. 

Video and news reports of the Jan. 6 riots clearly captured the U.S. Capitol under attack by pro-Trump crowds who overran the law enforcement presence around and inside the complex. 

On Pelosi, Trump was most likely referring to video shot by Pelosi’s daughter Alexandra for an HBO documentary that showed her during the events of Jan. 6, 2021, tensely wondering how the Capitol was allowed to be stormed.

“We have responsibility, Terri,” Pelosi tells her chief of staff, Terri McCullough, as they leave the Capitol in a vehicle. “We did not have any accountability for what was going on there, and we should have. This is ridiculous.”

“You’re going to ask me in the middle of the thing, when they’ve already breached the inaugural stuff, ‘Should we call the Capitol Police?’ I mean the National Guard. Why weren’t the National Guard there to begin with?” Pelosi says in the video. 

“They clearly didn’t know, and I take responsibility for not having them just prepare for more,” she says. 

Many allies of Trump have tried for the more than three years since the riots to paint Pelosi as somehow being responsible for the violence. Some Trump-backing Republicans have, for example, falsely claimed that she blocked the National Guard from going to the Capitol during the riots.

And everything else ...

Fact check: trump skipped world war i cemetery visit because the soldiers who died were ‘losers’.

Biden said that Trump “refused to go to” a World War I cemetery and that “he was standing with his four-star general” who said Trump said, “I don’t want to go in there, because they’re a bunch of losers and suckers.”

In 2018, during a trip to France, Trump canceled a visit to an American cemetery near Paris, blaming weather for the decision. 

But in September 2020, The Atlantic reported that Trump had axed the visit because he felt that those who’d lost their lives and been buried there were “losers.” The magazine cited “four people with firsthand knowledge of those discussions.”

According to The Atlantic, Trump said: “Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.” In another conversation, The Atlantic reported, Trump said the 1,800 American Marines who died were “suckers.” 

Several media outlets confirmed the remarks, and Trump’s former White House chief of staff John Kelly also said those specific comments were true.

Fact check: Trump says Biden didn’t run for president due to 2017 Charlottesville rally

“He made up the Charlottesville story, and you’ll see it’s debunked all over the place. Every anchor has — every reasonable anchor has debunked it, and just the other day it came out where it was fully debunked. It’s a nonsense story. He knows that, and he didn’t run because of Charlottesville. He used that as an excuse to run,” Trump said about Biden.

The “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 featured torch-bearing white supremacists marching to protest the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue and chanting racist slogans like “You will not replace us.” It turned deadly when a car plowed into a crowd .

In recent months, Trump has downplayed the violence, saying it was “nothing” compared to recent pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses.

Meanwhile, Biden has always pointed to Trump’s 2017 comments as the primary reason he decided to seek the presidency in 2020, including in his campaign announcement video back in April 2019 .

Jane C. Timm is a senior reporter for NBC News.

Julia Ainsley is the homeland security correspondent for NBC News and covers the Department of Homeland Security for the NBC News Investigative Unit.

Adam Edelman is a political reporter for NBC News.

Tom Winter is a New York-based correspondent covering crime, courts, terrorism and financial fraud on the East Coast for the NBC News Investigative Unit.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Supreme Court allows White House to request removal of misinformation on social media

Nina Totenberg

Jordan Thomas

Supreme Court backs Biden administration in social media case

The Supreme Court Andrew Harnik/Getty Images hide caption

The U.S. Supreme Court handed a major victory for the Biden administration Wednesday, throwing out a lower court ruling that had placed major restrictions on the ability of government officials to communicate with social media companies about their content moderation policies.

While the court’s ruling was procedural, it was nonetheless a stark repudiation of two lower courts in the South, and their eagerness to embrace conspiracy theories about alleged government coercion of social media companies.

Untangling Disinformation

What it means for the election that the government can talk to tech companies.

Writing for a liberal-conservative coalition of six justices, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that neither the five individuals nor the two states who sued the government had legal standing to be in court at all. She said they presented no proof to back up their claims that the government had pressured social media companies like Twitter and Facebook into restricting their speech. “Unfortunately,” she said, the Fifth Circuit court of appeals “relied on factual findings that are “clearly erroneous.”

For instance, she said, the plaintiffs who brought the case maintained that the White House had bombarded Twitter with requests to set up a streamlined process for censorship requests. But in fact, she said, the record showed no such requests. Rather, on one occasion a White House official asked Twitter to remove a fake account pretending to be the account of Biden’s granddaughter. Twitter took down the fake account and told the official about a portal that could be used in the future to flag similar issues.

“Justice Barrett went out of her way to stress that facts matter and that lower courts in this case embraced a fact-free version of what transpired between officials in the Biden administration and Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies,” said law professor Paul Barrett, no relation to the justice, who is deputy director of the Stern Center for Business and Human Rights at NYU.

In her opinion for the court majority, Justice Barrett said that at every turn, the alleged facts turned to dust, and that the plaintiffs had failed to trace past or potential future harm to anything done by officials at the White House, the CDC, the FBI, or a key cyber security agency. Indeed, the court said, many of the actions taken by the social media platforms to modify content about COVID vaccines or other matters, were taken before any contacts with government officials took place.

The court’s decision will make it considerably more difficult for people to bring challenges like this in the future because the justices said that it’s not enough to rail against the government for criticizing an individual’s message online. Rather, there has to be a causal link between the government’s commentary and what happens on a social media platform. In short, there has to be a traceable link, a link that the court said was entirely missing in this case, as the social media companies had their own incentives for moderating content, and often exercised their own judgment.

Justice Samuel Alito dissented, along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

“For months, high-ranking Government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech,” wrote Altio. “Because the court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent.”

Jameel Jaffer, director of the Knight Center First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, agreed with the court majority that in this particular case, the plaintiffs had alleged a very generalized theory of coercion, but he added that the court needs to set out specific factors for evaluating when government officials go too far.

“It’s important for Democrats and liberals who are perhaps sympathetic to the Biden administration’s efforts” to prevent COVID misinformation or Russian election interference, to consider whether they would be comfortable with these same rules if the Trump administration “were to pressure social media companies to take down speech related to MeToo or Black Lives Matter or pro-Palestinian speech.”

“We need a set of rules that make sense in all of these contexts,” Jaffer said, adding, “And so far, the court hasn’t given us a lot to work with.”

• U.S. Supreme Court

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Advance Articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Why Submit?
• About Human Communication Research
• About International Communication Association
• Editorial Board
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Atoning vs. evading when caught transgressing: two multi-theory-based experiments investigating strategies for politicians responding to scandal

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

David E Clementson, Wenqing Zhao, Michael J Beatty, Atoning vs. evading when caught transgressing: two multi-theory-based experiments investigating strategies for politicians responding to scandal, Human Communication Research , 2024;, hqae015, https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqae015

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Politicians tend to try deflecting scandals. Based on an attribution theory-driven perspective on persuasion, however, politicians should proactively confess. In a preregistered, multiple-message design, we conduct controlled, random assignment experiments. A mediation model is tested. Inspired by crisis communication’s change-of-meaning concept, the first variable appraises the extent to which voters perceive that the messaging indicates the politician is engaging in a cover-up. The second linkage is the politician’s credibility. The outcome variable is voters’ behavioral intentions. In Experiment 1 ( N  =   905 U.S. voters), stealing thunder and apologizing outperform stonewalling, changing the subject, sequentially apologizing plus deflecting, or silence. Experiment 2 ( N  =   277) finds that, in a sex scandal, stealing thunder and apologizing continue to perform equally well. Our theoretical contribution resides in enhancing the explanatory power of theories designed to explain image repair, as well as empirically testing the independent and combined role of apology and stealing thunder.

International Communication Association members

Personal account.

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Short-term Access

To purchase short-term access, please sign in to your personal account above.

Don't already have a personal account? Register

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Advertising and Corporate Services

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1468-2958
• Copyright © 2024 International Communication Association
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.