|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,765 Year: 4,022/9,624 Month: 893/974 Week: 220/286 Day: 27/109 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Working Hypothesis -- what is the value? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Indeed. In fact, engineers as a whole are the brightest and most gifted individuals on a college campus. Well I always thought so ... by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
So you would agree that such a working hypothesis would be unfalsifiable. Good question. I am taking you at your word that you want to use an unfalsifiable hypothesis. In any event, you are describing using it in a way where you won't notice or allow falsification. I suggested forming a null hypothesis and you indicated that you would not be doing that and that you would not be doing a scientific investigation. Would you agree that such an hypothesis could lead to the discovery of further evidence (possibly which would not otherwise be found), and that this could lead to a formal scientific hypothesis? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... . If I were trying to find a novel to synthesize a particular organic molecule that is already known to produce a particular affect, would I be an engineer simply because I was working for a company that was looking to exploit the compound? Surely that cannot be correct. No that would not be correct. You would be a lab technician. You are confusing all A are in the set B with all B are in the set A ... the logical fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Here you are saying that all engineers produce things of practical use Person A produces something of practical use, therefore they are an engineer ... Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Well yes, but as you are not a practicing scientist, surely you have to rule yourself out? Or is having once held a test tube and owned a white coat enough? (if so, I qualify as a chemist, a biologist, a physicist a couple of other ists two ologies and a chef.) The point is that when I talk about what an engineer does versus what a scientist does I speak from a basis of experience in those areas. Failure of their design is the last thing an engineer wants to see, while falsification of their hypothesis is near, if not at, the top of what a scientist wants to see. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I would like RAZD to indicate what lines of inquiry he believes would not be followed if this hypothesis were used. RAZD seems to believe that there is evidence of yetis that only non-skeptics have a chance of finding. Consider the hypothesis as a guide to discovery of new information, for instance:
Message 47: B) Leading to verifiable predictions (e.g. proclaimed sightings of the creature conform to observable migration patterns of bears in the region, physical evidence of the creature is analysed and found to be bear fur/droppings/whatever)) Another would be comparing the times of the year when sightings occur and whether that would fit a pattern of (similar to polar) bear behavior in traveling to and from hibernation sites from lower elevations. To my mind it is much more compelling to consider that an unknown member of the bear family is behind the legends than some unknown member of the ape\hominid family. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
dbl post
Edited by RAZD, : dble postby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... but the person designing the novel process for synthesis ... That was not part of your original statement, which I took to be just replicating work already done by others. And the point is still that you made a logical fallacy ...
As far as the logical fallacy you named, no I did not make that error either. What you said was: engineer produces a product of practical usea person produces a product of practical use therefore the person is an engineer False logic is false logic, do you want to add equivocation to your list?
Chemist - Wikipedia And regarding chemical engineers: Curiously you make my point ... Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The above is not an example of something that requires deviating from the scientific method. The experiment might be done as part of a verification of h1 or in an attempt to reject h0. Curiously I have no trouble with this being "part of a verification" of the working hypothesis ... which has been my point from the first post ... nor have other elements of the scientific method ... what I have trouble with is the concept of a valid falsification test ...
Yes, I've noticed the compelling of your mind. But surely there are some alternatives far more likely than the ape\hominid possibility. How about the possibility that no single species is involved and that while some sightings may have been bears, others may have been other animals, while others may have been humans or hoaxes. It's entirely possible that there really is no yeti. Other animals would include snow leopards or other felines, even though felines rarely walk on two legs, and it is the bipedal gait of the legendary yeti that has led to the hypothesis of an ape\hominid. Bears are known to occasionally be bipedal, but more compelling in my mind is that they tend to live solitary lives rather than living in family groups as most ape\hominids are known to live ... and I am not away of a sighting of more than one yeti at a time. And I would not be surprised by some embellishment in the telling of any sightings, or that some hoaxes have been involved, what I see as impossible to prove\demonstrate is the premise that it is all imaginary, that no yeti ever existed, and that pretending that this is a falsification test is nothing more than denial biased thinking. So, generalizing from the yeti question as one specific example, I see a working hypothesis involving all the elements of the scientific method except falsification, and that it can lead to predictions and possible avenues of investigation for the purpose of developing more information that may lead to a formal scientific (falsifiable) hypothesis. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I'm sorry, your experiences are worthless unless you're a 'true scientist' - I find myself unable to take any notice of what you say. This is rather unfortunate as before I knew that you were not a 'true scientist' I thought you had a lot of useful information and ideas. Unfortunately I am not part Scotchman ... even though I have drunk a fair share of scotch in my time ... by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
That's not at all what I said. ... Curiously I note that you tend to get into these little nit-picky arguments with a bunch of people ... people that I do not see getting into little nit-picky arguments with others. Perhaps your problem is lack of clarity.
. What I actually said was that a person who designed a novel process for producing a useful chemical might well be a chemist or a chemical engineer and I invited you to make a distinction. No that is NOT what you actually said -- you have since added "chemical engineer" and changed the wording (equivocation) -- your original statement was
Message 52: (RAZD): And, curiously, that is why engineers in general are not scientists, because "the point is that the design is not being done for the purpose of verification of the principles, the purpose is to provide a practical use of those principals" I'm not sure that distinction works in practice. If I were trying to find a novel to synthesize a particular organic molecule that is already known to produce a particular affect, would I be an engineer simply because I was working for a company that was looking to exploit the compound? Surely that cannot be correct. I provide my previous comment for context ... (Premise 1) from my comment: an engineer is someone who produces a product of practical use (Premise 2) from your reply: Person in question produces a product of practical use ... (Conclusion) from your comment you imply that the conclusion would be: Person would be an engineer ... Which is the logical fallacy already documented. If that was not your intended meaning then I suggest your lack of clarity is the problem.
You decided instead to add another person to my hypothetical which allowed you to duck the question. A lab tech might still be practicing science or engineering, so in truth you did not manage to do much that was not silly. And you skipped over the part where I said that your hypothetical situation would not make them an engineer because that would be a logical fallacy. Focusing on the lab technician is you avoiding the fact that what you implied in your argument involved a logical fallacy: I apologize for confusing you with extraneous information, and I will attempt to be more concise in the future.
And of course stripping out the details and worse, the context does leave you with a possible fallacy. But that's your work, not mine. Actually going back to the original context and quoting you in full detail is what shows that your post did involved the fallacy. What's your next equivocation? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I don't apologize for picking a nit. The distinction you are trying to make is pretty nitty. Curiously I don't see it that way. I believe you agree that just having a degree doesn't make you a scientist ... Thus having a PhD in Mechanical Engineering doesn't make you a scientist. And I believe you would agree that anyone, even middle and high school students can do science (as noted earlier, see science fairs) -- but are they scientists? So is doing a little science sufficient to be called a scientist? From your posts it would appear that you seem to think so. It is also possible that a person with a little math and access to reference material could do a little engineering -- is that sufficient to make them an engineer? Certainly the various engineering associations don't think so. From your posts it would appear that you seem to think so, do you? Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
With regard to the abominable snowman and bears as per the OP — One could hypothesise that the abominable snowman is a myth borne of human invention combined with the embellishment of some genuine, but highly misinterpreted, bear sightings. This hypothesis has the benefit of: A) Being falsifiable (by the discovery of a creature that is consistent with the legend rather than just a bear)B) Leading to verifiable predictions (e.g. proclaimed sightings of the creature conform to observable migration patterns of bears in the region, physical evidence of the creature is analysed and found to be bear fur/droppings/whatever)) C) Being based on the wealth of evidence that human beings have a tendency to create such myths and make such embellishments This is actually two hypothesis combined ... the original OP hypothesis and the "human imagination" hypothesis that keeps resurfacing ...
B) Leading to verifiable predictions (e.g. proclaimed sightings of the creature conform to observable migration patterns of bears in the region, physical evidence of the creature is analysed and found to be bear fur/droppings/whatever)) Which is the benefit of the original hypothesis as previously noted and discussed, and is not due to nor benefiting from the tacking on of the "human imagination hypothesis" and the question becomes then what does the "human imagination hypothesis" add to the discussion\investigation ...
A) Being falsifiable (by the discovery of a creature that is consistent with the legend rather than just a bear) C) Being based on the wealth of evidence that human beings have a tendency to create such myths and make such embellishments Typical claims of this purported "hypothesis" ... and not much of practical use in any investigation -- let's see why: The "human imagination hypothesis" typically goes something like this:
Anything that is believed to exist without empirical objective evidence is actually due to human imagination, rather than any objective reality or observation. Curiously, there are several failings of this hypothesis that adherents seem loath to accept, admit or confront: (1) it seems to explain almost everything not covered by science ... Solid verificaion is difficult^1, and assumed or apparent confirmations are not validation, as Popper noted^2:
quote: If an hypothesis can explain everything, then it actually explains nothing of use for investigations^2:
quote: So it leads to confirmation bias in adherents. What is touted as a strength is actually a (fatal) weakness. (2) it doesn't predict anything risky to the hypothesis ... It can't be falsified in any honest\real sense, as any observation of objective evidence for a believed phenomena makes it no longer subject to the hypothesis, it just bounces along to the next belief. There is no risk for the hypothesis, and the degree of risk is an important element, as Popper also noted, comparing the difference of risk for Einstein's theory^2:
quote: This is the basis for his principle of falsification, the predictions should be high risk tests of the hypothesis. Nothing ventured nothing gained. There is no risk to the "human imagination hypothesis" from any contrary evidence. (3) and finally, it doesn't predict anything useful, doesn't open up new avenues of investigation ... which is the prime purpose of having an hypothesis ... even a "working hypothesis" ... the practical prediction for investigation touted above actually comes from the original working hypothesis, not the "human imagination hypothesis. It is the "god-did-it" hypothesis for skeptics, equally impractical for leading to any investigation of any phenomena. Rather - like "god-did-it" - it becomes an excuse to NOT investigate things further ... the phenomena is explained, so why look further ... As such it doesn't even qualify as a working hypothesis, imho, and should be considered on a par with astrology, pseudoscience:
quote: Certainly it doesn't produce any better predictions than astrology does.
Isn’t that a better hypothesis? Still think so? Or do you remain an adherent to the "human imagination" pseudoscience? Don't you agree that an honest skeptic would be skeptical of any benefit of this "hypothesis" for practical investigation of the natural world? Enjoy Notes: ^1 - it requires admission by the author, otherwise it can only be assumed. ^2 - here are excerpts from Popper falsification article to show context of above quotes, which have been bolded below:
quote: Edited by RAZD, : subtby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
That seems a bit unfair, RAZD. Perhaps this formulation more closely tracks what Straggler is saying: Phenomena believed to exist despite the lack of empirical evidence may be due to the human imagination. Which is even less risky and less demonstrable, thus harder to falsify\refute\invalidate, and that makes it weaker, imho, not stronger. It seems to me that is more like the Adlerian psychological "theory of inferiority feelings" discussed and dismissed by Popper, which can be applied to any case or situation.
At any rate, Straggler's argument deserves to be opposed in its strongest form, not in its most vulnerable. Taking the position that it is human imagination in its strongest form is still just an excuse to not investigate, nor does provide any practical avenue of investigation into any specific phenomena. It is the 'god-did-it' answer for, to revisit an old theme, pseudoskeptics ... Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : subtby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It is easier to falsify the hypothesis that Yeti are imaginary than the hypothesis that they exist. Accordingly, surely the hypothesis that they are imaginary is "riskier". What is falsified and what is not falsified if a 'yeti' bear is actually found? The working hypothesis (Message 1) is that the 'yeti' is a bear -- not falsified The 'human imagination' hypothesis (Message 79) is that anything that is believed to exist without empirical objective evidence is actually due to human imagination, rather than any objective reality or observation. -- also not falsified ... for two reasons:
The only thing shown to be false is the assumption that the hypothesis applied to the yeti, but the hypothesis itself remains unchanged and unaffected by such a discovery. Note that the 'human imagination' hypothesis does not make a prediction that puts the hypothesis at risk of being invalidated or forced to change. Further note that the 'human imagination' hypothesis does not provide any useful or practical prediction of something not previously known or considered -- a good (strong?) scientific hypothesis has two aspects:
And a good 'working hypothesis' may not be falsifiable but it provides something new, it predicts something of value, something that can be investigated further. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In other words the working hypothesis is that there are no yeti. Just bears mistaken for yeti. Correct, although it may be more correct to say some may be bears ... and this provides predictions for analysis of past information and to look for new information. This can lead to either a discovery or to sufficient information to form a more rigid scientific hypothesis. Sighting stories can be compared to known bear behavior. Dates of sightings could be analyzed to see if there is a migration or hibernation pattern. Lower elevations can be investigated for bears to see if there is a link. etc Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024