On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 3:39:24 PM UTC-4, Dale wrote:
> the problem is that this makes it a hypothesis and not a theory, it is
> not testable
Mistaken view of hypothesis and theory.
You seem to hold a common view seems to be that hypotheses somehow "grow up" to be theories as they gain "proof" to theories and then to laws. Thus, demoting BB from theory to hypothesis.
BUT, that isn't how hypotheses and theories work.
Both hypotheses and theories are statements about the physical universe. There is no clear or sharp dividing line between them. Hypotheses tend to be more specific statements. An example would be: Fibroblast growth factor (FGF) is a growth factor for human skin fibroblasts. FGF is a protein that stimulates the division of human skin fibroblasts. Now you test the hypothesis in an attempt to show it to be wrong or false. If you fail, then the hypothesis is a supported hypothesis. If you succeed, the hypothesis is a falsified hypothesis. In this case, the hypothesis is supported; FGF got its name because it did stimulate the division of human skin fibroblasts.
Theories tend to be more general statements. This is where the gray area comes in. How general does a statement have to be before it moves from hypothesis to theory? There is no clear cut answer.
An example of a theory would be: Fibroblast growth factor is a growth factor for all mammalian mesodermal cells. Fibroblasts are a mesodermal cell but other mesodermal cells are bone cells, cartilage cells, and the cells that make up blood vessels. Now, the supported hypothesis of FGF for human skin fibroblasts becomes part of the theory. Laws involving cell replication also are part of the theory.
As we saw above, the HYPOTHESIS that FGF is a growth factor for fibroblasts is a very CERTAIN hypothesis. I can name a lot more VERY CERTAIN hypotheses.
So, saying something is a hypothesis says nothing about how certain it is. Same way, calling a statement a theory says NOTHING about how certain it is.
Both hypotheses/theories can have 3 states:
1. Untested
2. Tested and falsified
3. Tested and supported.
Because BB deals with the whole universe, it is general enough to qualify as a theory. It is a VERY well supported theory. So well supported that we regard it as "fact" until some falsifying data comes in.
> most of my religious beliefs are hypothesis, so the only complaint is
> that science isn't sticking to the scientific process
Most of your religious beliefs are BELIEFS. They are not scientific. Now, saying that, I am NOT saying ANYTHING about their truth value. They could be true. They could be false. Science can't tell about many of them.
I would point out that in Biblical studies (religion) there is what is called the Documentary Hypothesis. This concerns the authorship of the Pentateuch. It is a VERY well supported hypothesis. So supported that Biblical scholars consider it "fact", just like we consider "FGF is a growth factor for fibroblasts" a "fact".