Any one else as bothered by the vernacular use of “hypothesis” as much as by the vernacular use of “theory.” Both seem to replace “any wacky idea” and the implication is “I will dismiss it,” or “you must take it seriously.”
My son tells stories about a company he associates with whose leaders respond to failures with, “yeah, we own that one,” but they never fixes the problems. I now listen for it. I conclude this is a common response of those who have no capacity to fix problems.
“Tell me what I can do to help” always sounds dismissive when coming from colleagues and leaders. I interpret it as “I’m not going to understand this well enough to see my role.” If it fails, the leader can claim, "I would have helped but you did not ask" or "I did everythng they asked."
When leaders have no idea what potential is in their organization, those who can make the greatest contribution withdraw from the work... some leave, some “do their job” but nothing more, some contribute but their ideas are dismissed by those leaders.
You know the problem with math is you have to get the same answer as everyone else... and in some applications (think designing bridges), you have to get the same answer that nature would if it did math.
I recall really enjoying the Man A Course of Study lessons as a student. I’ve been a fan of Bruner and his ideas about teaching and learning for decades. It wasn’t until about 10 years ago that I realized who led MACOS.
Mastery learning... when you stay on it until you get it... is based on the assumption that the path in the curriculum is *the* path and that the measures of mastery are valid and reliable. I’m not so sure those assumptions are correct.