They don't get the accolade of "theory" until they have been proven correct.
Actually this is not accurate. In science, a hypothesis only becomes a theory when it is well-supported by an abundance of evidence and there is a consensus among scientists in that field. We must always allow for the possibility the our theories are inaccurate, perhaps only in the details, or possibly even completely wrong.
Consider this from Merriam-Webster:
“In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done. A theory, on the other hand, is supported by evidence: it's a principle formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data.“
When scientists use the word “theory” we have a very specific and precise meaning that is usually lacking in general discourse among non-scientists. A hypothesis, as a tentative explanation of a particular phenomenon, does not become a theory overnight. It often takes considerable time, rigorous research, careful experimentation and/or data collections as well as peer-review.
Check out this short essay from the National Science Teachers Association on the subject:
In particular, I really appreciated this comment from that essay: “All of our current understanding of scientific phenomena is theoretical and could be revised in a heartbeat if commendable and repeatable evidence falsifies it and supports a new theory.”
The truth and beauty of science is that all of “our explanations are tentative and open to challenge,” but you better have some damn good evidence supported by sound logical reasoning and a solid methodological approach!
Conspiracy “theorists” in tin-foil hats need not apply.
