Hello everybody,

It's your old Uncle D once again, here to splain to ya the interwoven fibers that make up the threads of some words in our vocabulary. Today we will deal with two of these words in particular. The first will be "hypothesis" (since that is the actual working order in which it is technically suppose to appear) And second is the word "theory".

It seems that in todays world many things can be attached to these words and there are certain aspects of ones social standing that can affect either of them. Is everybody's thinking cap on? Good because here we go :-)

First "hypothesis": since you must derive a hypothesis in order to move on to the theoretical portion of the equation it is important to understand what the word means. I'm going to put it in extremely simple terms so that we can all stay on the same page during this course which will be called "Concepts in Education 1425" on your class schedule :-)

To understand the word "hypothesis" one need only look at the word "hypothetical." As in "Hypothetically speaking, what if we were to tie a rocket to the tail of a cat and instead of launching it straight up into the air we launched it horizontally? Would the cat be able to travel farther due to less gravitational resistance than it would as it increased altitude thus increasing the effects of gravity on the projectile?"

A) Only really sick people would tie a rocket to a cats tail and launch it into orbit. So I've "hypothesized" that there are people that would do such a thing (but we do have proof that there are people that will do these things and in fact most of us grew up with some of these people :-)

B) I have "hypothesized" that the cat would sit still for such an adventure. Cats just don't like getting things tied to their tails nor do they like getting tape on their feet but that's another story :-)

C) I have "hypothetically" deduced that because a horizontal trajectory would be dealing more with wind resistance one could almost take gravity out of the equation except for the return to ground level. A vertical ascent would be working against both gravity and wind resistance (friction to those science types out there ;-) thus shortening the distance traveled.

With these as givens we could also "hypothetically" deduce that monkeys might fly out of my rear end too, but that would be most unlikely. Not impossible, just very unlikely. And not unlike the cat I wouldn't sit still for the implantation process (unless of course there was a lot of money involved :-)

Now on to the second word and the second step in the process "Theory." Theorys are more scientific and do require a little more thinking, but only to that end that will garner it the distinction of plausibility, viable plausibility.

A) We know through psychological and psychiatric studies that there are, in fact, sickies out there that will attempt and in some cases succeed in launching a cat into orbit via its tail. There are case studying on this behavior and information on what to read into it (which usually involves oral fixation of some kind and an Oedipithean connotation :-)

B) We know that with the right type of sedative and the proper means by which to administer said drugs, a cat will in fact sit still long enough to be tied to and launched from a rocket. When kitty is sleepy these thing are both possible and plausible ;-)

C) We know that wind resistance will slow down a sailboat being pushed by the same. We also know about kinetic energy and energy lost to gravitational effects. We understand weight and the effects of gravity on weight. We have scientific fact to support our hypothesis thereby making it a "theory"

Technically this is how it is supposed to work (refer back to Algebra and Geometry to Pythagoras(SP?) and his "hypothesis" and "theorem")

Now, in the real world..:-) Here's what we contend with in this day and time. A person with the prefix "Dr." or the suffix of "Ph.D." wakes up one morning and thinks to themselves "You know, I just don't think I have enough certificates of appreciation or accomplishment on my walls. I have some extra time lately so let's come up with a concept. I can write." They take an idea, as far fetched as some may be, and hypothesize. This is where the lines and protocol are skewed. They don't go past the "hypothesis." What makes their ideas into theory are the profession tags they wear on their name. They don't have to theorize because, after all, "They must know what they're talking about since they're doctors and all."

This is not to say that scientific study doesn't go into some of these theory's (emphasis on "some") but so many today are complete non-sense. I'll use a little example that I've used in the past without naming any names. Your mom told you for years that sitting too close to the TV screen for long periods of time would hurt your eyes. Nobody believed mom and shrugged it off as nonsense. Now we have Dr.s writing books on Computer Vision Syndrome and everyone is perking up and saying "Yeah you know he/she is right I've noticed that working at my computer makes my eyes watery and tired and I don't see as well." The doc is revered as a hero and an intellect when all they did was put a bunch of scientific sounding words in to explain what mom had been telling you for years.

So does over explanation then make it a fact? Some think so. What can be proven? Just about everything even Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny ;-) Common sense will tell you what is and what isn't a bunch of hooey, but unfortunately we've become so mind numbed that we have to conceptualize and research things (that we so often already have the answers to) to death and still never come up with the conclusions we set out for in the first place.

So remember, 40 years ago mom said prolonged exposure to a Television screen would hurt your eyes or cause you problems only not so eloquently. It usually came out more like "Turn that damn thing off and go outside and play! Your eyes are gonna go bad." Now 40 years later a well educated person comes up and says the same thing only in "scietificionado speak" and it's now true where it wasn't before. Mom just didn't know. She wasn't a scientist, Ph.D. or a doctor so there wasn't a reason in the world to heed her warning other than the threat of getting smacked, or grounded :-)

That's todays lesson folks. I hope you've enjoyed this cession and that I will see you all again. There will be a test on Friday and I lock the doors precisely at 10:00 AM so I don't recommend being late since it's 50% of your grade :-)

Dear Steve "Toodles" :-)

Prof. Darris Chambless

PS. What does this subject have to do with anything you ask? It's an extension of my earlier lesson :-)