explicitClick to confirm you are 18+

The Definition of Words in Science

GatoVillanoApr 12, 2020, 2:10:07 AM

The Definition of Words in Science

Today, I had an argument online with a bunch of pseudo scientists and/or people who have a Phd in an unrelated field; that argument went nowhere because we couldn’t even agree on the terminology.

There are too many terms in everyday discussions that are not used properly, such as ‘’literally’’ and ‘’figuratively’’ that leads to statements not making any sense and far too often, these individuals will point out the definition produced by the leftist academics; the very same academics who believe in post-modernism, an ideology that advocates for words to lose all meaning. An analogy would be to call an arsonist to put out a fire.

The terms I want to talk about today are: Thesis, hypothesis, law and theory.

A thesis

‘’a dissertation embodying results of original research and especially substantiating a specific view’’


‘’ A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.’’

‘’Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.’’

A thesis begins with a question to be answered. In science, This question leads to an affirmation that needs to be proven right or wrong based on empirical observations of the natural world.

Very often, an hypothesis is based on an educated guest. However, it cannot be accepted as a statement of fact because, by its very definition, it is not proven yet.

Too often, the term ‘’Hypothesis’’ is mixed up with the term ‘’Theory’’. As you will see very soon, these two terms do not mean the same thing.

Laws of Science

‘’statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena’’

Once you have conducted a series of experiments to support your hypothesis, it is very likely that you will find observable patterns in the way each element of your research reacts. By analyzing these observations, you might discover ways to predict these interactions.

For example: You might make observations when reactive A interacts with reactive B in the presence of reactive C (most likely a catalyst).

These observations might lead to equations that will predict certain aspect of the reaction, such as the speed of the reaction, the temperature required to obtain that reaction.

If you are able to identify reactive A as part of a category of reactive and reactive B as a category of reactive and that every reactive of category A and B react the same way in the presence of reactive C, you might be able to produce a set of rules and equations that will enable you to predict the reaction between any reactive of category A with the relatives of category B.

This is called a law of science. It allows us to predict how an acid will react in the presence of a base; how a reactive of a certain pKa will react with a reactive of a certain pKa; which path an electrical current will take within a system…

Something very important to note about a Law of Science is that it doesn’t explain the reaction, it only produces accurate predictions based on empirical observations.


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

A theory goes a bit further than a law of science. It proposes a model based on numerous experiments. The theory will attempt to explain what is observed experimentally.

Just like anything in science, a theory is not set in stone. Once a theory is demonstrated through empirical observations and by the accurate prediction it produces, the scientific community must accept the model as factual until a better model is produced that explains everything the previous model explained and more and/or if the model is proven to be false based on empirical observations.

So let’s sum up what we have learned with an example:

Some ancient Greek, who enjoys the company of young boys, wants to understand gravity. He makes the assertion that ‘’what goes up must come down’’.

Many years later, a Brit that puts on more make up than your mother, produces Newton’s Law of Universal Gravity. His work does not explain what gravity is, but it provides a set of rules based on empirical observations and an equation that allows to make accurate predictions relating to the dynamic of objects influenced by gravity.

Later, a man who has never used a comb in his life, A. Einstein, produces a model that explains the phenomenon of gravity in the form of space and time being bend by the center of mass and that this distortion in space and time pushes objects towards the center of mass. He also produces equations that predict, with more accuracy, the dynamic of an object influenced by gravity. Einstein’s model was proven correct by the observation of light being bent by gravity. This observation could only be made during an eclipse because Einstein needed an object that had sufficient mass to bend light in a significant way (the Sun) and to be able to observe the light emitted by a certain star without being blinded by the light emitted by the Sun.

He calls the body of his work: The Theory of General Relativity.

So now you know that a theory is not the same thing as an hypothesis and that a law of science produces less information than a theory.

Just by knowing this, you know more than the majority of pompous pretentious ‘’know nothing’’ on the internet who pretends to be authorities on a topic and who only contributes to the dumbing down of our society.

You will also be able to know, within seconds, if the information provided to you is truthful or not.

Gato Villano