[Fester Chugabrew]

Then go find the scientific definition of a hypothesis . . .

This is a fine idea, but I honestly would like your help, and please do not think I am asking this just to be lazy. Please tell me THE scientific definition of a hypothesis and how you arrived at the conclusion that this definition alone is the standard to be applied to all intelligent observers of the universe. If I try to find it "out there," I will find more than one definition.

Tell you what. I will make up a hypothesis of my own, and then you can tell me if it fits within the scientific definition of a hypothesis. Here goes:

The scientific definition of a hypothesis is subject to variable expression because humans differ in their comprehension of reality and how it applies to criticial thinking.

Doubtless you will insist that the CONCEPT or DEFINITION of hypothesis does not exist in such a manner as to be verifiable by science. Well, doesn't that leave us in a fine mess. If it cannot be quantified, and thus not verified, by science, what business do we have in believing a hypothesis has any basis whatsoever in reality?

[Amelia]

If it cannot be quantified, and thus not verified, by science, what business do we have in believing a hypothesis has any basis whatsoever in reality?

You are on the right track with this idea. You must be able to test a hypothesis, or it is worthless.

Here's the first definition I found at www.dictionary.com. There are others, but this looked like a good one:

hy·poth·e·sis    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (h-pth-ss)
n. pl. hy·poth·e·ses (-sz)

1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.

Definition #1 is the one I'd consider closest to the "scientific" definition. Note that you must be able to test the hypothesis.