RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (605) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
N.Wells



Posts: 1766
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2017,08:47   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 14 2017,07:41)
         
Quote (N.Wells @ May 12 2017,12:25)
From your latest version (which is still problematic):
                             
Quote
A "hypothesis" is an idea you can test.

No, that’s close but it’s simplistic and is not technically accurate.  (& 'An', not 'A'.) ......

The core five word "an idea you can test" definition for a hypothesis works fine, the way it is. Those I see asking for more are confusing a proposed explanation (a theory) with a hypothesis. It's easy enough for all to this way keep the two well separated.

According to the definition's logic: a proposed explanation for how something works should NOT ever be called a "hypothesis", in that case it's actually a "theory".

It is possible to propose a "fabric of the universe" type hypothesis that leads to numerous "String Theories" that are to some degree mathematically testable. Not working as well as expected for modeling a universe helped cause the theories (then the hypothesis they started from) to fail, thus "String Theory" was being tested, just not to the fullest degree possible using technology that does not yet exist.

In regards to "intelligent cause" science requires a model based cognitive science operational definition, as in the theory I wrote. The problem is with those who expect an unexplainable "supernatural" type intervention, instead of scientific theory for how the intelligent cause of all living things actually works.

The PBS - Dinosaur Train definition has proven itself to be extremely useful. I have found that no additional detail is necessary. And with this being a culturally established science-changer that you are powerless to change you will just have to get used to it, anyway. Might as well learn to enjoy the time saver. You will never convince me that it is necessary to complicate things until it takes a science journal run organization to decide whether something is a theory, or not in which case it gets deceptively demoted by considering it something lesser such as "only a hypothesis". Best to beforehand know which (by most modern simple definition) the writing actually is, before sending to a publisher as one or the other. They would rather not waste time having to figure that out, for you.

         
Quote
The core five word "an idea you can test" definition for a hypothesis works fine, the way it is. Those I see asking for more are confusing a proposed explanation (a theory) with a hypothesis. It's easy enough for all to this way keep the two well separated.  According to the definition's logic: a proposed explanation for how something works should NOT ever be called a "hypothesis", in that case it's actually a "theory".

No, you are very wrong about that.  A theory is an explanation that has passed some level of confirmation.  Until then we are dealing with hypotheses.  
Theory = at least some acceptance and/or confirmation and/or justification (now or previously)
Hypothesis = proposals for the purpose of investigation.

Hypotheses are ideally testable and ideally mutually exclusive.  They can be stated in null and alternate pairs or larger sets of mutually exclusive possibilities, often phrased as "if... then" predictions ("if A is true, then B should be true", so you go and test for B).

In science outside of statistics, we usually propose hypotheses as potential explanations: you may suspect that the hypothesis is correct, or false - that doesn't matter.  What's more important is that your hypotheses cover as many options as possible, in order to heighten the probability that one of them is the correct answer, and then you work to disprove them or confirm them.  

You like to argue on the basis of definitions available on the internet, so let's check out some definitions to see whether or not hypotheses can be proposed explanations:
Google:          
Quote
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.



Dictionary.com          
Quote

1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
3. the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
4. a mere assumption or guess.



Vocabulary.com          
Quote

Hypothesis
In science, a hypothesis is an idea or explanation that you then test through study and experimentation. Outside science, a theory or guess can also be called a hypothesis.  A hypothesis is something more than a wild guess but less than a well-established theory. In science, a hypothesis needs to go through a lot of testing before it gets labeled a theory. In the non-scientific world, the word is used a lot more loosely. A detective might have a hypothesis about a crime, and a mother might have a hypothesis about who spilled juice on the rug. Anyone who uses the word hypothesis is making a guess.
1  n   a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena: “a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory”

n   a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations.


Cambridge
         
Quote
an idea or explanation for something that is based on known facts but has not yet been proven


Wikipedia
         
Quote
A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.


On the other hand, you have a TV show for preschoolers.  There's nothing wrong with using a kiddie formulation, as long as that formulation is correct, but when it is wrong or oversimplified (as here), then you are making a total idiot of yourself.  More fool you.


         
Quote
In regards to "intelligent cause" science requires a model based cognitive science operational definition, as in the theory I wrote.

First, "intelligent" requires a valid and clearly stated regular definition and a usable operational definition.  You have neither.  Second, a model-based definition (which you do not have) would work and would be fine, but it is NOT required.  Models are optional.  Third, what you wrote is not a theory, as it has neither confirmation, nor broad acceptance, nor internal consistency.  Fourth, nothing in your writing rises to the level of constituting a usable operational definition of "intelligent cause".

NCSE          
Quote
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

String theory is at the lower end of "theory": it is mathematically consistent and respectably developed enough to be worth considerable additional work (hence "theory"), in stark contrast to your mess of verbiage, but it remains mostly untestable (hence "at the lower end").

         
Quote
I have found that no additional detail is necessary.

Yet you are wrong.

         
Quote
And with this being a culturally established science-changer that you are powerless to change you will just have to get used to it, anyway.
As always, thanks for the giggles.  Here's a prediction: as long as you stick to your guns on this, you will not get one iota of either cultural establishment or changing science.


         
Quote
Might as well learn to enjoy the time saver. You will never convince me that it is necessary to complicate things until it takes a science journal run organization to decide whether something is a theory, or not in which case it gets deceptively demoted by considering it something lesser such as "only a hypothesis". Best to beforehand know which (by most modern simple definition) the writing actually is, before sending to a publisher as one or the other. They would rather not waste time having to figure that out, for you.

Other than never convincing you, I have no idea what your point is there.

 
Quote
The core five word "an idea you can test" definition for a hypothesis works fine, the way it is.

Again, how can anyone test “What is the mass of a nuclide?” (your example of an hypothesis)  

You really need to do better if you want anyone to take you seriously.  Or, better, abandon your attempts as hopeless and look after yourself and your family instead.

  
  18130 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (605) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]