The definition for Hypothesis is:
A tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences.
The definition for Theory is:
A plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.
My definition for Hypotheory is:
An assumption formulated from the presence of facts that, despite not being tested, becomes an accepted fact of its own accord.
Let me explain. I might create a hypothesis to test an idea. If you do not test the idea, it is not a hypothesis. A theory on the other hand, is generally accepted as fact because we cannot test it and experts use the theory to draw conclusions. I am of course simplifying the terms. ”Big Bang” is a theory because we can’t really test that, for now at least. So a hypotheory is an idea or hypothesis that can be tested, but its creator is either negligent or ignorant to this knowledge and therefore accepts the idea as fact. You want an example? I figured as much.
Suppose the New-York Times reports on the price of oil, citing figures like “25,000 new cars on the road every day” as evidence demand is outpacing supply. This of course validates the claim that crude is more expensive because of increased demand. I consider the claim a hypotheory because the claim is testable. First of all, 25,000 new cars (I made this figure up) on the road every day is the presented fact. But there should also be a figure for the number of cars taken off the road every day, let’s say 20,000. The difference would be the net growth in vehicles on the road, 5,000. In order for the original statement to be validated as a cause for higher oil prices one must present a correlation between the oil usage of the net 5,000 new cars every day and a lack of increased oil production to meet the new demand.
There are too many factors here that are assumed instead of tested. However we spend our lives drawing conclusions from simple facts. Remember the standardized testing questions from school:
If all thingies are widgets, and all doo-dads are thingiess, then are all widgets doo-dads?
Your options were: Yes, No, and Not enough information. The answer is of course “Not enough information” because we never identify what all widgets are. The media has been drawing the conclusion that all widgets are doo-dads for us. This is the difference between a reporter and a journalist. A reporter can interview a commodities trader and get the bogus car fact because the trader uses the figure to justify high prices. A journalist would go to government agencies, PhDs, commodities traders, and dig through all the research to let us know if there is such a correlation. A journalist might tell us that global oil output has increased by 2% annually while the net new vehicle oil consumption has increased by 3%. Now that’s an argument for increased oil prices. Where the hell are all the journalists??
Instead of quality investigation, we get hypotheories. Instead of citing a scholarly journal from a group of economists that study and publish findings, we trust a quote from a Lehman Brothers economist. Lehman is heavily leveraged in oil, they have a vested interest the price of oil increasing. Of course he’s going to tell you its simply supply and demand. Its his hypotheory. Tell him to prove it media!
Thankfully America is smart enough to know a hypotheory when they see one. Oh wait, nevermind…
 By The Weakonomist |
The Weakonomist is the founder of Weakonomics. Clicking the picture of the puppy will tell you more about him. If you like what you're reading consider subscribing to the blog, following him on Twitter, and checking out the related posts below. Please consider a donation if you really enjoy Weakonomics. |
| Related Websites |
Be First To Comment!