Theory vs. “Scientific Theory”

​

   Many of us throw around the term “theory” as if it is just an idea, opinion, gut feel or a concept.  This use of the word “theory”, in the realm of hard science, falls into the realm of a hypothesis, an opinion or an intuition.   A hypothesis, opinion or intuition can be tested.  If it is not supported with evidence, it is rendered invalid.  If it cannot be invalidated, it remains a "scientific theory" until such time it can be refuted.

​

   A scientific theory, contrasted with a hypothesis, is not a wild guess.  It must be consistent with known experimental repeatable results and it must have predictive power. 

​

   Let us examine the above two requirements in bold type that are necessary to qualify as a scientific theory.

​

   “A scientific theory is a general principle or body of principles that has been developed to explain a wide variety of phenomena.”

​

   The theory that self-questioning is the process of thinking that explains a wide variety of phenomena.

​

   These include:

• being the only agent of innate curiosity

• our basic human need to understand

• the measurement of intelligence

• the accumulation of knowledge

• the basis of the process of human analysis of our internal and external environments

• the root of the Scientific Method

• the basis of the process of “Critical Thinking”

• the genesis of all words 

• our continued survival as a species

.

   (Please refer to the "THINK PIECE" for a broader view of these bullet points.)

 

   It must be consistent with known experimental repeatable results and it must have predictive power.

​

   The theory of thought (ToT) (self-questioning), as being the process of thinking, has a constant and known result.  It can predict and anticipate future outcomes and produce results - answers – solutions.  The process of questioning has been repeatedly tested and retested every second in the laboratory of human existence for over thousands of years with repeatable results.

​

   How many more ways are there we can use to substantiate the “theory of thought”?  On the other hand, the opposite, what evidence is there to invalidate and render it as only a stab-in-the-dark hypothesis?  If you do, please let us all know.  It would help us to focus elsewhere.