First of all, what I'm citing is an opinion piece, so I don't intend to pass it off as a "peer-reviewed" idea. Still, I think it needs to be addressed because I never realized that this significant difference is present between physics and chemistry/biology. The opinion piece was uploaded to Arxiv and can be found here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.00273 While it dealt with something that appears trivial, such as the wordings in the description of the academic goals of the Natural Sciences areas, I can't help feeling that the differences are more profound and fundamental than that. This is illustrated quite clearly by the author in the issue of either keeping or dropping the phrase "theoretical investigation" in the description of how knowledge is gathered and evaluated in these sciences. You may read the authors reply to this, but this is where I started to think of a possibly profound differences between physics and chem/bio, especially in Biology. This is contained in the rebuttal that the author received: Now, there is certainly an issue of terminology here. As stated by the author, in physics, we seldom use the phrase "hypothesis", because something that we consider to be a hypothesis is usually a "blind guess", or back-of-the-envelope calculations. This will never make it into publication and often seen only as a starting point for a more well-formed theory. But the more profound and fundamental issue here is the idea of the existence of a theory that is a "fact". While there are theories with a very high degree of validity and certainty, in physics, there is no such thing as a theory being a "fact". There are experimental facts, but no theoretical facts, at least not in the way it is described in biology as stated above. ALL theories in physics are still subject to being investigated, and they will continue to evolve as we know more and learn more. So I'm not sure if this is truly a real difference between Physics and Bio/Chem, or if it is simply the scientists in this particular school are the ones uniquely having this problem. We have people in all of those fields, and not knowing exactly how things are done in Biology and Chemistry, I defer to you to clarify this. I've always advised people to study science, even if they don't intend to be scientists, simply because of the benefits one get not only in the knowledge, but also in learning how we gather and acquire knowledge. Now, it seems that within the Natural Sciences, this process of acquiring knowledge may not be uniform throughout. I'd like to know if this is real. Zz. P.S. I wasn't sure where to post this. Even though this is an issue involving the academic education in Natural Sciences, it also is dealing with fundamental issues in each of the Natural Sciences field of studies. Since the manuscript was uploaded to the Education section of ArXiv, I followed the same topic line.