"A fact is a simple statement that everyone believes. It is innocent, unless found guilty. A hypothesis is a novel suggestion that no one wants to believe. It is guilty, until found effective"

Edward Teller draws a contrast between the status of facts and hypotheses in the collective mindset of society and the scientific community. Facts, once established, generally enjoy widespread acceptance and are rarely questioned by most people. They are perceived as self-evident and trustworthy, not requiring further justification unless contradictory evidence or interpretation surfaces. Teller characterizes facts as "innocent, unless found guilty", suggesting that their default condition is acceptance until there is a compelling reason to doubt or reassess them.

In contrast, hypotheses start their existence on a much shakier footing. A hypothesis is a new and unproven idea, frequently met with skepticism or even resistance. People are naturally inclined to distrust novel suggestions, often because they challenge entrenched viewpoints or accepted realities. Teller describes the hypothesis as "guilty, until found effective", turning the legal presumption of innocence on its head. Instead of being provisionally accepted, hypotheses are expected to face rigorous tests and skepticism. Only when they are demonstrably effective, when they produce results or withstand scrutiny, do they begin to earn legitimacy and a place among facts.

This dichotomy reflects not only the rational skepticism necessary in science but also a certain human tendency to prefer the comfort of shared beliefs over the uncertainty of new ideas. It underlines the essential role of critical assessment in scientific progress: facts must remain open to reevaluation, and hypotheses must survive trials before acceptance. Teller’s observation emphasizes the importance of maintaining a balance between open-mindedness and healthy skepticism. It reminds us that truth is not static; facts were once hypotheses themselves, and their journey from contentious idea to accepted knowledge underscores the value of questioning, testing, and gradually building consensus within the scientific process and society at large.