A scientific hypothesis is an idea that has not yet been tested against reality. A theory, by contrast, is a set of hypotheses that have survived repeated attempts to prove it wrong. General relativity was only a bold hypothesis until the 1919 solar eclipse showed starlight bending around the Sun exactly as predicted. Neither one deserves absolute trust. A hypothesis deserves trust only as something worth testing, while a theory deserves trust only to the extent that its predictions keep working. Our confidence in a theory is therefore never a certificate of truth, but a record of how many times it could have failed—and didn't.

I think scientific hypothesis is an idea that has not yet been tested through mathematical derivation and experimental observation, or for which there is not enough evidence. In other words, it could completely be overturned in our next experiment. If something can be called a “scientific theory,” then either it is obtained through rigorous mathematical calculation but cannot yet be tested, or it has gone through repeated experiments. As far as our current testing ability is concerned, its errors are not obvious, and it is very helpful for solving practical problems. But it must be admitted that it could still be completely overturned. It is important to note that this difference is actually unrelated to the number of tests. For example, Goldbach’s conjecture has not yet found a counterexample, but it has not been proven in mathematics, so we do not consider it a theory. Wormhole theory, on the other hand, not only has mathematical derivation but has also been confirmed by facts.

A scientific hypothesis is a preliminary explanation for a specific phenomenon. It is usually narrow in scope and has not been strictly tested. A scientific theory, on the other hand, is a broad framework that has been tested again and again, has survived attempts to prove it wrong, and can make precise predictions—which is why it is accepted by experts and even by the general public.

A hypothesis is not necessarily correct, while a theory is a fact—so a theory should be trusted. A hypothesis is just a prediction waiting to be tested, and it may well be wrong. A scientific theory has been verified through a great deal of repeated experimentation, so it is highly reliable and we can believe it. But a theory is still not an absolute fact, and we should keep an open mind. Any hypothesis must go through practical experiments to see whether it holds up.

There is no essential difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory. We cannot call anything a theory, because humans are not omniscient or omnipotent. As for whether to believe, that is entirely up to you.

A scientific guess is an idea to test, while an established theory is an explanation supported by substantial evidence. We should trust either according to the strength of its evidence, not just its label.

For me, scientific hypotheses are usually based on previous scientific theories that have received universal agreement, and a scientific theory is developed through thousands of scientific hypotheses. This is the process of validation and experimentation. Scientists devise experiments accordingly to find the relationship or principle they intend to explore. Personally, I think we can choose not to trust either scientific hypotheses or theories in some scenarios. For theories that might contradict another one, the most famous cases are the wave theory and the particle theory of light. But for those that are the sole explanation within the current system, like Newton’s laws, there is no reason not to trust them, and there is also no point in judging them.