Quote:
Originally Posted by bianca  The author of the book uses the terms "hypothesis" and "theory" as though they were synonyms. I don't condone this, because I believe one should stick to either, or. I only examplified to you Wikipedia's definition of theory, where it is referred to as a hypothesis, because there is no absolute truth in them, like it is in Science. |
Agreed, and you bring up an interesting point--one I've also wondered about from time to time:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bianca ... the controversies around theories / hypotheses in general - because I have seen disputes among linguists about this, just like it has been between us. |
Turns out we share the same concern.
However that may be, there is a distinction between hypothesis and theory, especially when those terms are used in technical contexts, such as when referring to the combined notions of Safir and Whorf:
Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.
Source cited here: theory - Definitions from Dictionary.com
In other words, if an author, say a linguist, when making reference to the
Safir-Whorf hypothesis uses the term "theory" in a non-technical context, the assumption, supposedly, is that s/he means an idea, right?,
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Semantics. Can that really be the explanation for the synonymity? Well, hold on here. English is housed with many synonyms, so why not use the terms
conjecture or
idea or
concept? Why do they choose this word,
theory?
Ah, semantics, yes, but in this way: in using the term "theory" to refer to the workings of a hypothesis, the author, whoever s/he might be and no matter the discipline or the context, technical or otherwise, is in essense saying the hypothesis holds truths that can be used in support of and eventually towards a coherent group of general propositions, a theory. If that's not the case, then the author (a) isn't talking about a hypothesis, and (b) would have chosen a non-ambiguous synonym, like the ones mentioned above.
The next step, as I see it, would be to analyse the semantic function and distribution of the two terms in question. Would you, since it's your topic, have a sample of text we could look at?