Philosophy on life - do things really happen for a reason?

[grumbler]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]

A Law is a direct relationship between real phenomena, before Einstein and Planck people thought that laws were always true.

A Theory is a well supported set of laws, axioms and explanations which explain all facts and are contradicted by none.

A Hypothesis is a proposed addition to or replacement for a theory which is not well supported and either doesn't explain all the facts or is contradicted by some. 

A Postulate is a prediction based on a Hypothesis or fact. The correctness of that prediction goes to support the Hypothesis, or given a well supported theory confirm the fact.

You will sound a lot less ignorant if you had made your assertion above while knowing what a hypothesis or theory were and what the differences between them are.

You'd sound a lot less ignorant if you weren't reading Wikipedia to get your knowledge of the scientific method! 

A hypothesis is an explanation for observed phenomena.  Developing the hypothesis is a required step in the scientific method (see Professor Yo's explanation on the Drexel pages http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~pyo22/students/hypothesis.html  It cannot contradict current observations.  It also need not be "a proposed addition to or replacement for a theory" - in fact, the scientific method says it should be based on observations, not on preconceptions about other hypotheses (or theories).  If you think about it, you will see that your definition is, by definition, wrong - you cannot have a generalized hypothesis (or "theory," if you prefer) without the more specialized hypotheses that it generalizes from.  If all hypotheses required a pre-exisitng theory, and all theories required pre-existing hypotheses, it would not be logically possible for either to exist!

Note that the Scientific Method doesn't actually use the term "theory."  The term "theory" is used for a hypothesis that is more broadly applicable (a hypothesis that combines hypotheses, usually).  It cannot include disproven hypotheses.  It is, however, a hypothesis and must be tested.

A "law" is also not technically part of the scientific method.  It is a generalization about data and is a compact way of describing what we'd expect to happen in a particular situation (in other words, a hypothesis of what we would expect), but is generally so well-established that further attempts to disprove it only occur when data from elsewhere indicates a flaw in the current "law."

A postulate is not at all a prediction.  It is an assumption, or axiom - every hypothesis contains postulates.  They cannot be derived by deduction nor subjected to formal proofs - that's why they are postulates and not hypotheses.

Note that economics contains all of these things, contrary to your initial assertion.  Even if your made-up definitions for these terms were correct, economics would still contain all of them, contrary to your assertion.

[crazy canuck]

My answer to the question in the OP which is stolen from PDH's signature quote:

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

Umberto Eco