Quote Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking View Post
1. Gather observations, facts, about a phenomena
2. Make a hypothesis to explain that phenomena. The hypothesis must be falsifiable (meaning, if it's false, it must be possible to prove that it is), and you must be able to make predictions based on it.
3. Try extensively to prove the hypothesis wrong. If you can, go back to step 1 or 2. If you can't, continue with step 4.
4. Send the hypothesis into a scientific journal for peer review. Other scientists will then try to disprove it, and improve on it if they can. If anyone manage to disprove it, you go back to step 1 or 2. If no one manage to disprove it, and the hypothesis is still unproven after a long while, and all new evidence that has been found is coherent with it, it will finally get to step 5.
5. Finally, after a very long time, it becomes a theory. Once a hypothesis has reached this stage, it's so firmly supported by evidence that the burden of proof has practically shifted to the one saying it's not true.

By that point, it's not about belief: it's about whether you accept it or not. Prove one wrong, and you've got yourself a Nobel Prize.
So at what point does this not mean that a theory is the hypothesis that is yet to be disproven? I think you said the same thing in a lot more words. If a scientific theory is never questioned beyond the initial review, the earth would still be flat.