Working Hypothesis -- what is the value?

If we only allowed those doing 'pure' ie true Scotsman science, to comment on matters and only in their area of specialism and only after full peer review, the world's fora would be silent. (And all cross discipline ideas would be lost.)Damn silly idea all round. It's the content stupid.

The principles used to design and build bridges have a proven track record of success.This has little or nothing to do with unsubstantiated myths about the existence of the Abominable Snowman.To label them both as "working hypotheses" and insist that they are in some way methodologically the same is just conflation by virtue of linguistic contortion.

So you would agree that such a working hypothesis would be unfalsifiable. And it would also be subject to confirmation of denial bias ...The question is whether it would lead to avenues of exploration that have not yet been pursued, such as looking at migratory and winter hibernation patterns in bears to see if that explains the anecdotal evidence.Enjoy

But 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 -- the bridge. This is done by using that knowledge and assumed loading as a working hypothesis AND then throwing on a factor of safety to help ensure that those principles are NOT tested. The reason for the factor of safety is because the calculation results are hypothetical, the loading patterns used for the calculations are hypothetical ...Enjoy

Like the joke about the braggart at a party talking about how, as a mechanical engineer, he designed weapons systems to blow up buildings and bridges, then asking what the other person does, who replies that as a civil engineer he designs targets? Curiously I have designed many structures ... my first degree is a BSc in Civil Engineering ... so I do know what I am talking about eh?Enjoy

The term "hypothetical" here simply means calculated or estimated. It does not mean that the forces are a "working hypothesis" which appears to mean simply an explanation that RAZD neither falsifies or lets go of for any reason.

Not quite right. Currently I am a designer, but In the past I have been a structural engineer and I have run some biological experiments (in a lab, with a lab coat ... ), complete with forming hypothesis and validating them ...Enjoy.

Apparently not. The fact that your process cannot cast any doubt on the hypothesis is exactly the problem. That would not "explain" the evidence. Instead, your hypothesis would be used to confirm or explain anything that matched. Since you are not concerned with forming a null hypothesis, you are apparently going to simply keep looking until you find something about bears that does match. 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.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Agreed. That's why civil engineers are not scientists.

Agreed, and I would similarly characterize the term engineer to describe an occupation - a person who engages in a systematic activity in order to use\apply knowledge for practical purposes. Sound similar (albeit more extensive) to work I did on streams in N. Carolina to identify bacteria and measure dissolved oxygen levels and also to identify sources of pollution ... Exactly. And just as a scientist in one field will accept the information developed in another field without testing it in order to apply it in their field, an engineer accepts the information developed in science to apply it to designs. The purpose is to design practical applications, and so a factor of safety is used to help ensure that failure is not tested ... Agreed. Nor is someone who engages in a systematic activity to apply knowledge a scientist, imho. Which was the 'appeal to authority' fallacy by mram ... Curiously, I would say that it depends on the occupation a person engages in regardless of degree -- a high school student can be a scientist by engaging in a "systematic activity in order to acquire knowledge" using the scientific method (some amazing stuff done for science fairs eh?).This is why I differentiate between engineers (in general, based on degrees and occupation) and scientists. If one or two engineers engage in science it does not make the field and all the other engineers science.EnjoyEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Did [/qs] for 1 quote box.

An hypothesis that can be a guide to further investigation, develop an approach to a problem,Working hypothesis - Wikipedia

quote:

---

A working hypothesis is a hypothesis that is provisionally accepted as a basis for further research[1] in the hope that a tenable theory will be produced, even if the hypothesis ultimately fails.[2] Like all hypotheses, a working hypothesis is constructed as a statement of expectations, which can be linked to the exploratory research [3] purpose in empirical investigation and is often used as a conceptual framework in qualitative research.[4][5]

​

Charles Sanders Peirce came to hold that an explanatory hypothesis is not only justifiable as a tentative conclusion by its plausibility (by which he meant its naturalness and economy of explanation),[7] but also justifiable as a starting point by the broader promise that the hypothesis holds for research. This idea of justifying a hypothesis as potentially fruitful (at the level of research method), not merely as plausible (at the level of logical conclusions), is essential for the idea of a working hypothesis, as later elaborated by Peirce's fellow pragmatist John Dewey.

​

John Dewey used the concept of the working hypothesis as a pivotal feature in his theory of inquiry.[14] Contrary to the principles of verification and falsifiability, used in formal hypothesis testing found within dominant paradigms of 'normal' science,[15] working hypotheses were conceived by Dewey as neither true nor false but "provisional, working means of advancing investigation," which lead to the discovery of other unforeseen but "relevant" facts.[16] Dewey's development of the concept of the working hypothesis emerged from his contextualist epistemology in which absolute truth is unobtainable and replaced by "warranted assertability".[17]

---

As such it is less formal than a scientific hypothesis that has falsifiability as a criteria. More like an educated guess ...If a working hypothesis is fruitful it can lead to a scientific hypothesis and further investigation.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : /quote

You don't KNOW what the actual loading will be or how the bridge will be used in the future, so you develop several hypothetical scenarios of loading to use as a basis for the calculations. It is the application of the hypothesis as a basis for actual design that makes it a working hypothesis.You can't test that the loading is what will really happen (you can't test the future events), so it isn't falsifiable, so it isn't a scientific hypothesis as that term is normally used.Enjoy

And yet here you are, confirming your bias of denial ...Enjoy

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" ...Enjoy

Well I always thought so ...