There persists a complete misconception as to what a scientific hypothesis is in my experience. It is not and "educated guess" or a "suggestion" or an "idea" . . . Those things have there own labels because that is precisely what they are. To take the last part of the definition posted earlier . . .
A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.
I've had some tertiary and commercial involvement with it, and this is how it was always accepted . . .
To use an illustrative example . . .
Scientists extracting deep-ice core samples for climate change analysis will be simply collecting and recording all and any data from examination of the sample. At a particular depth they find a thin layer of radioactive material. Historical data may, for arguments sake, indicate the presence of the same material in both comets and large volcanic eruptions. These two alternatives are the "educated guesses", the "suggestion" or "idea" They are not put forward as a working hypothesis. These ideas are seldom published as a scientific suggestion, unless it is stated as such, and both alternatives are presented. Normally it would appear as "Scientists suggest that . . . " So it's a suggestion . . . and purely for interest sake. It's not a hypothesis.
In an effort to identify the true source, the team will now look for additional material that may be exclusive to either option but not both. When the presence of other material exclusive to comet material (these can be identified through imagery) is found, next to the absence of material common in the alternative . . . the scientists can reasonably draw the conclusion, from the evidence, that a comet impact is the source.
This finding, with supporting data and evidence, may now be published in a comprehensive paper and constitutes a working hypothesis.
It remains a hypothesis until it is subjected to an accepted falsification process by peer review. It is at the end of that rigorous process that it becomes a theory.
Further experimentation based on this theory can now take place. Further samples from different sites around the globe will provide new information. Variations in concentrations for example, can give a clearer indication as to the approximate area of impact, even if only to the nearest half hemisphere. As more harmonius findings are added, based on the existing theory, the theory gradually achieves the status of accepted scientific fact. This is not some eureka moment but happens naturally over time. Evolution has all but achieved this status through the relatively recent addition of broad based DNA analysis. The addition of libraries full of supporting science over time, has produced no contradictory evidence, but rather continued to fill the gaps.
Some book definitions may well over-simplify and say different, and others experiences may be different . . . but this is what I was taught, and was always the understanding under which scienctific hypotheses were viewed.
They were never even close to an "idea" or "suggestion" or "educated guess" . . . those are what they say they are.
