Solve et Coagula
There is no such thing as a "true" HYPOTHESIS.
HYPOTHESIS is just a synonym for "a guess".
A HYPOTHESIS is not a REAL-TRUE-FACT, it is an OPINION.
We often conflate "accurate/inaccurate-predictions" with "true/false-predictions" but this is a CATEGORY ERROR.
Because there is no way to verify the "truth" (and it can't properly be considered "true" without scientific verification and or logical necessity) of a prediction BEFORE "the actual fact of the event predicted", it is inaccurate to call it a "true-prediction" UNTIL AFTER "THE FACT".
At which point it is no longer an OPINION. At that point, it is a simple statement of FACT.
We often like to say the prediction was "true" the whole time, but this is not the case.
The prediction only became (crossed the line from "prediction" to) a statement of fact, when the actual, scientifically verifiable fact actually happened.
At which point it is no longer an OPINION.
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
Scientific findings have a certain probability and in their nature they are testable and repeatable. What comes out is an average result (fact). If they weren't, they weren't probable and testable under the same conditions. A scientific finding therefor can never depict the single individual very personal case or an "exception" because exceptions are never part of a scientific experiment or study, they cannot be by nature.
Yes, Hypothesis is a guess, though I would not say it is an opinion. The one who wants to know if what he guesses might become some sort of reality, is truly a scientist when he or she leaves the answer open until he gets one.
What I'm trying to point out here is that a hypothesis, a guess, and an opinion hold exactly the same null-truth-value.
Hm .. I see it differently. I think guesses are just guesses. They do not insist on "it must be so" or "will be so". They leave room for surprise while an opinion does not do that. So I would not rank them in the same spot.
Though, you are correct in the value of "truth" (I actually use "truth" an expression very seldom).
But there is more to this, no?
It really boils down to just two things.
(1) QUANTA - REAL-TRUE-FACTS, scientifically verifiable (2+ SIGMA) and or logically necessary (NOUMENON) - QUANTA is necessarily emotionally meaningless.
(2) QUALIA - personal, private, experiential, OPINION, GNOSIS, unverifiable, unfalsifiable, dreams, delusions and hallucinations - QUALIA is necessarily emotionally meaningFUL.
The distinction is illustrated by the following,
Plato's Parable of the MMORPG,
Once upon a time there were a number of people who lived in complete darkness and the only thing they could see was their computer screens.
What they saw on their screens was their reality.
The only other people they knew were people in-game with magnificent costumes and weapons.
Sure they had to fumble in the darkness in order to microwave a quick meal, or find their bed when they were exhausted, but those were merely incidental inconveniences.
Only the game was real. Only the game was shared experience. Only in-game places and people and items were quantifiable, able to be observed and verified and shared with other players (quanta).
Sometimes an individual would try to explain what kind of food they ate or describe their room (private/personal/unshared knowledge, gnosis) but since none of this information was directly relevant in-game and was fundamentally unverifiable, it was dismissed out-of-hand as unintelligible nonsense. In fact, even the language they had developed had evolved exclusively for in-game interactions, so there really weren't any proper words for "food" or "room" that were not specifically in-game references, and even more than that, since there was no taste, touch, or smell in-game, there were also no words to properly describe those sensations as well.