Hypothesis vs. Prediction

The authors define prediction and hypothesis in a manner that helps us differentiate between the two. While the two terms have been used interchangeably, they have distinctly different mean... See More

The authors define prediction and hypothesis in a manner that helps us differentiate between the two. While the two terms have been used interchangeably, they have distinctly different meanings. Also discussed are theory and law. Examples are solid and help to cement that understanding. “A prediction is an educated guess about the outcome of a specific test, while a hypothesis is an educated guess about why the results occur.”

Hypothesis versus Prediction

Baxter and Kurtz have successfully clarified and completed the definitions of the terms prediction and hypothesis within their article. They successfully explained that a prediction is an e... See More

Baxter and Kurtz have successfully clarified and completed the definitions of the terms prediction and hypothesis within their article. They successfully explained that a prediction is an expected outcome for a specific test, while a hypothesis is why that outcome will happen. Baxter and Kurtz were able to connect the terms hypothesis and theory; the former for fewer investigations, while the latter encompasses many hypotheses and are strongly supported by evidence. The authors briefly introduced the term, law, however, I feel as though a more in-depth discussion in which laws and theories are compared and contrasted would have assisted readers in furthering their understanding. In all, this is a must-read article for elementary teachers, if not all science teachers K-12 to open the discussion of how to incorporate these terms into the science classroom and decide on age-appropriate definitions.

Partly right

This article does a decent job identifying the relationship between hypothesis and prediction, but it muddies the water in some respects. For example, it is just not true that "For a hypoth... See More

This article does a decent job identifying the relationship between hypothesis and prediction, but it muddies the water in some respects. For example, it is just not true that "For a hypothesis to be proven, it must be true in all instances." For example, in their example of the hypothesis that crickets hide to avoid predators, one might observe that they do this only 80% of the time when a predator is present. This begs the question of why crickets don't hide 20% of the time. Thi might be the result of confounding variables like hunger, but point is that the failure of 100% of the crickets to hide doesn't mean the hypothesis hasn't been "proven." Also, showing that the crickets are "really" avoiding light and not avoiding actual predators doesn't mean that the hypothesis has been proven wrong: it is probably easier for a cricket to see the light than to see a (camouflaged, stealthy) predator, so it may be that avoiding light is a good way to avoid predators. I also agree with the previous point about the "law" vs "theory." Laws are DESCRIPTIONS of nature, not causal explanations. Theories, on the other hand, are (as the authors point out) collections of well validated causal hypotheses.

Adding to Misconceptions

This article explains the difference between predictions and hypothses fairly well, but the bit about theories and laws is all wrong. Please don't use that explanation with your students. La... See More

This article explains the difference between predictions and hypothses fairly well, but the bit about theories and laws is all wrong. Please don't use that explanation with your students. Laws are things that are observed constants (like gravity), theories seek to explain the "why" of gravity (or other observations)..