Model, Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law

In science, what is the difference between a conjecture, a hypothesis, a theory, and a law?

The best answer I was able to find, through Google, I found here, written by Jeffrey Glassman (who was apparently paraphrasing Michael Riordan).  Here's the relevant section:

Science is all about models of the real world, whether natural (basic science) or manmade (applied science, or technology). These models are not discovered in nature, for nature has no numbers, no coordinate systems, no parameters, no equations, no logic, no predictions, neither linearity nor non-linearity, nor many of the other attributes of science. Models are man’s creations, written in the languages of science: natural language, logic, and mathematics. They are built upon the structure of a specified factual domain. The models are generally appreciated, if not actually graded, in four levels:

1. A conjecture is an incomplete model, or an analogy to another domain. Here are some examples of candidates for the designation:

“Ephedrine enhances fitness.”

“The cosmological red shift is cause by light losing energy as it travels through space.” (This is the “tired light conjecture.”)

“The laws of physics are constant in time and space throughout the universe.” (This one is known in geology as “uniformitarianism.”)

“Species evolve to superior states.”

“A carcinogen to one species will necessarily be carcinogenic to another.”

2. A hypothesis is a model based on all data in its specified domain, with no counterexample, and incorporating a novel prediction yet to be validated by facts. Candidates: 

“Mental aging can be delayed by applying the ‘use it or lose it’ dictum.”

“The red shift of light is a Doppler shift.”

3. A theory is a hypothesis with at least one nontrivial validating datum. Candidates:

Relativity.

Big Bang cosmology.

Evolution.

4. A law is a theory that has received validation in all possible ramifications, and to known levels of accuracy. Candidates:

Newtonian mechanics.

Gravity.

Henry’s Law.

The laws of thermodynamics.

Each of these candidates can stir arguments worthy of a paper, if not a book, and no model is secure in its position. Weak scientists will strengthen their beliefs and stances by promoting their models while demoting the competition. Some familiar models fail even to be ranked because they are beyond science, usually for want of facts. Candidates:

Creation science or notions of “intelligent design.”

Astrology.

Parapsychology.

UFO-ology.

One of the positive outcomes of the extremely public debate about anthropogenic global warming (and evolution/creation, for all that) is that it has compelled thoughtful scientists to re-acquaint themselves with the Scientific Method.  The Scientific Method is like democracy: the worst possible system, except for all of the others (paraphrasing Churchill).

I don't know whether Glassman (quoted above) is a credible scientist or not, but the whole point is that that's not the point: experimental results are the point, not the personality, pedigree, or popularity of the person who produced them (to be arrestingly alliterative).

JiMS proposes an alternative model for displaying, controlling, and understanding musical information. It is based on the Matrix's hypothesis that human cognition uses an isomorphic note-layout to classify and track tonal relationships over time.

The Matrix's hypothesis is, in turn, based on Sethares' theory that consonance arises from the alignment of tuning and timbre.

JiMS' hypothesis predicts that the cognitive map of tonal space observed by Janata, Krumhansl, etc. will prove to be tuning-independent across the syntonic tuning continuum—but to experiments have yet been performed to test/falsify/confirm this claim (which is why it's a hypothesis, not a theory).

I have every confidence that JiMS will prove to be the fastest path to deep musical understanding. But, what do I know? Until the courseware exists, no experiments using it can be conducted, so I have no supporting evidence...yet. Only time—and the application of the Scientific Method—will tell.