Just because past theories have been proven wrong, doesn't make them equivalent to hypotheses. Theories are hypotheses that have undergone repeated empirical testing via a statistically significant methodology. As our scientific knowledge grows, the more certain we can be in our current theories. But that's the great thing about science. If a theory is wrong, we replace it.
I am more referring to the words theory and hypothesis and used this as a way to frame it. If anything what you just said reinforced what I was talking about buddy.
Appreciate your time and attention
I think one of the problems with the words is that "theory" gets used where "hypothesis" should be being used. I'm thinking mainly of things in cosmology like String "Theory" and M-Theory. Sure, string theory is mathematically possible, but mathematics isn't empirical evidence. These things really don't warrant the classification of "theory", and basically serve to cheapen the value of the term. And this opens the door for people who say things like "Evolution is only a theory". Like that is pejorative. A theory is as close to truth as you will get outside of logic and mathematics.
Literally Exactly the point of the article my friend. Staying tuned to your article about it. We got this :)