Relativity theory fits well into this description. It (the special relativity) was derived from a formal attempt to unify classical mechanics and Maxwell electrodynamics, which was only possible if you ditch the Galilean relativity. Both classical mechanics and electrodynamics, in turn, came from a huge body of experimental data.<p>General relativity is a different thing, it was a pure hypothesis, an extrapolation of the <i>simplest possible</i> generalisation of the special relativity [1]. And it held this hypothesis status up until it was sufficiently confirmed by the incoming experimental data. Before that, a multitude of alternative hypotheses existed which had the same <i>numerical</i> predictions covering the available experimental data (e.g., <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Anatoly_Logunov#Relativistic_theory_of_gravitation" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Anatoly_Logunov#Relativistic_t...</a>).<p>So, yes, it&#x27;s important to distinguish <i>theory</i> from a <i>hypothesis</i>.<p>[1] this &quot;simplest possible generalisation&quot; method works <i>most of the time</i>, but not always, so it&#x27;s mostly valid to do so in the hard sciences, and should never be used as a justification for hand waving in the social sciences.