From where are scientific hypothesis made?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-09-2013, 06:27 PM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
"In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right; then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong." ~Feynman

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2013, 06:37 PM
Re: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
How can anything a human does, be unrelated to what humans have already done? If a hypothesis has already been made and refuted of confirmed, does it make sense to ignore that?

Your strawman is bad and you should feel bad.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
14-09-2013, 06:41 PM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(12-09-2013 05:05 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Hypotheses are ideas that spring from the human imagination. One of the possible limits of science is our own failure to be creative in coming up with ideas that could accurate describe reality, and struturing those ideas such that they make specific testable predictions that can be compared with each other.
(14-09-2013 05:50 PM)I and I Wrote:  So A Hypothesis starts from a biased perspective that is influenced by ones cultural upbringing, ideological and social beliefs. And you guys are claiming there is a process to get a result from this origin that is free of bias, ideological, cultural and social influence.

So you're obviously not bothering to read the responses to this thread, but instead are following a standard apologetics line of just trying to find a hook to move onto the next flawed step of your false proof of some premise you're not willing to reveal until you consider it proven. I&I as much as you rail against theists, your mind is that of a theist. You are trapped circling around a few points of faith that you cannot let go of despite the evidence against them. You dislike theists not because they are unsceptical or don't care about what's true. You dislike theists because like them you are unsceptical and don't care what's true, and you're frustrated that for all you have in common with them they believe the "wrong" things.

Yes, the set of hypotheses that can be fed into science are limited to the imagination of scientists. Yes, each scientist has a biased perspective that even collectively across all scientists could have certain cultural biases etc that prevent the "true" hypothesis being presented for analysis. God, you only have to look back at the study of animals in the 1950s or of anthropology in the 1800s to see that shit going on. Science can get stuck, as I have said many many many times to you before, because the hypotheses that form the raw material of science are a precious resource and what is available can fail to drive science forward for many decades. In principle, we could reach an absolute maximum level of scientific knowledge when we run out of hypotheses, when we run out of ideas about how to explain the universe but run out before we have actually explained the universe. There are limits to science, and I have told you this. That said, those limits seem a fair way off for the moment. Thousands of hypotheses are confirmed every year by the subsequent processes of science: testing hypotheses to see which ones make accurate predictions, and discarding those that do not make accurate predictions.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Hafnof's post
14-09-2013, 06:47 PM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(14-09-2013 06:37 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  How can anything a human does, be unrelated to what humans have already done? If a hypothesis has already been made and refuted of confirmed, does it make sense to ignore that?

Your strawman is bad and you should feel bad.

I do feel bad, I ate a hamburger and it is heavy on my stomach. Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2013, 07:12 PM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(14-09-2013 06:41 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  
(12-09-2013 05:05 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Hypotheses are ideas that spring from the human imagination. One of the possible limits of science is our own failure to be creative in coming up with ideas that could accurate describe reality, and struturing those ideas such that they make specific testable predictions that can be compared with each other.
(14-09-2013 05:50 PM)I and I Wrote:  So A Hypothesis starts from a biased perspective that is influenced by ones cultural upbringing, ideological and social beliefs. And you guys are claiming there is a process to get a result from this origin that is free of bias, ideological, cultural and social influence.

So you're obviously not bothering to read the responses to this thread, but instead are following a standard apologetics line of just trying to find a hook to move onto the next flawed step of your false proof of some premise you're not willing to reveal until you consider it proven. I&I as much as you rail against theists, your mind is that of a theist. You are trapped circling around a few points of faith that you cannot let go of despite the evidence against them. You dislike theists not because they are unsceptical or don't care about what's true. You dislike theists because like them you are unsceptical and don't care what's true, and you're frustrated that for all you have in common with them they believe the "wrong" things.

Yes, the set of hypotheses that can be fed into science are limited to the imagination of scientists. Yes, each scientist has a biased perspective that even collectively across all scientists could have certain cultural biases etc that prevent the "true" hypothesis being presented for analysis. God, you only have to look back at the study of animals in the 1950s or of anthropology in the 1800s to see that shit going on. Science can get stuck, as I have said many many many times to you before, because the hypotheses that form the raw material of science are a precious resource and what is available can fail to drive science forward for many decades. In principle, we could reach an absolute maximum level of scientific knowledge when we run out of hypotheses, when we run out of ideas about how to explain the universe but run out before we have actually explained the universe. There are limits to science, and I have told you this. That said, those limits seem a fair way off for the moment. Thousands of hypotheses are confirmed every year by the subsequent processes of science: testing hypotheses to see which ones make accurate predictions, and discarding those that do not make accurate predictions.

So after a hypothesis is made, can't the methods that one uses to confirm or not confirm be also biased?

like say if testing on rats of a new medicine has standard of amount of days of exposure to the mice for testing but then another test has a different set of standards as to how many days a mouse has to be exposed to a drug? Can't the methods be also biased to get different results?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2013, 07:24 PM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
Or say what if different companies or nations have different standards of testing for HIV or what if different companies hire their own scientists to test for something and it yields different results from another group.

Can the methods like the hypothesis be also influenced/corrupted by political, economic and ideological motives?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2013, 07:37 PM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
This concept that anti-science types have annoys me. They act like the scientific method is some foreign thing that people uses to push their agendas. Usually that agenda the anti-science minded people believe is this insanely elaborate complex method is to convince people “God” does not exist. That’s so insane.

Science is simple. Everyone does it. You don’t have to be a scientist or student of science to do it. You can be a layman and do it whether you realize you are doing it or not. Hell, my dog does science. It’s just a matter of how good or not you are at it is the only difference.

Let’s use my dog as an example. He does not yet know the “sit” command. I tell him, “sit”, he does nothing. He sees I have a tasty treat in my hand…he wants it, but I won’t give it to him. I put him in a sit position and give him the treat. He makes no connection and continues to try for the treat even when not sitting. I repeat the process many times. At some point his mind makes a connection between sitting and being given the treat, but he doesn’t know that that is what it is. At some point he makes a hypothesis that sitting gives him treats and attempts to sit to see if that gives him the treat. It works and he gets the treat. But he still doesn’t have it completely worked out so he stands too. That does not work, he does not get the treat. He just tested his hypothesis in two ways with two different test he conducted. One, that he gets the treat for sitting. That seemed to work, so now he attempts to disprove his hypothesis, to see if it’s really true that he has to sit for the treat. He does not receive the treat while standing. He retest and retest the hypothesis over and over again. This is his data set. My dog’s hypothesis stands, sitting gives him treats. He just did science!

Science does not prove anything by the way. It actually attempts to disproves hypothesis, not prove them. Sitting for the treat was the first test. If he did not get a treat he will have disproved his hypothesis that sitting gives him treats, and he would have had to discard they hypothesis as wrong right there. A couple more test just to be sure, but he’d have proved it wrong. He hasn’t proved it correct yet though. He test standing for treats, it never works. If he received treats for standing then he would have disproved that it was the sitting that gave him treats. Both test were an attempt to disprove that receiving treats and sitting were connected. Both test failed to disprove this, and the massive amount of testing strengthens the evidence for the validity of his hypothesis.

He believes he has proved his hypothesis. Later he sits when he want a treat. He gets no treat. His hypothesis seems to be in error. However he cannot ignore the mountain of data evidence he’s already collected. There is some connection to sitting but he is not sure what. He retest standing…doesn’t work. Sitting…doesn’t work. Something’s going on, but he is not sure what. He gives up. Awhile later I tell him to “sit”. He remembers hearing that word when getting the treat. He test a different hypothesis that may or may not disprove his sitting hypothesis. New hypothesis is that he gets treats when he hears the word “sit” and it may or may not have anything to do with him sitting. I tell him “sit”…he does not get the treat. He is told again. Again he does not get it. He is told again, this time he realizes he is standing, and he is pretty sure he doesn’t get treats for standing as per his pervious tests under his original hypothesis. He keeps standing. He gets no treats. He hears “sit” again, and he tries sitting. He gets the treat. After a few more test he augments his hypothesis. He does not throw out his pervious hypothesis, but adjust it in light of new evidence. The hypothesis is now, not that sitting gives him treats, but that sitting when hearing the word “sit” gives him treats. He hypothesizes that he needs to do both things, hear the word and sit. He test this hypothesis many hundreds of thousands of times over the course of then next few years. It continues to hold true, or fails to be disproved, over thousands of test. Evidence strongly holds that his theory is correct.

He never proves his hypothesis, in the same why that he never proved the original hypothesis of only needing to sit. But he fails to ever successfully disprove his hypothesis. My dog doesn’t accept this theory to be true because it’s the way he’d prefer it. He’d prefer to simply be given treats because he wants them, or to at least be able to inform me he wants treats and get them rather than wait for me to decide to tell him. He accepts it as true because it’s what works, and is best supported by rigorous testing and evidence, and fails to be disproved no matter how many test to disprove it he conducts, like when he begs for food…fails.

That is the scientific method in a nut shell. We all do it, some of us are simply better at it because we acknowledge the strength of it.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Raptor Jesus's post
14-09-2013, 07:51 PM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
I feel the same way. The idea that different groups manipulating the methods to which they get their results is not science.

The Denial that different groups can and do have different methods for getting results is also anti-science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2013, 07:58 PM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(14-09-2013 07:51 PM)I and I Wrote:  I feel the same way. The idea that different groups manipulating the methods to which they get their results is not science.

The Denial that different groups can and do have different methods for getting results is also anti-science.

What in the fuck are you taking about? You are an idiot. And seemingly an idiot by choice, which is sad. You don't even know enough to make an effective trolling argument. Done with you. Read some books.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2013, 04:33 AM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(14-09-2013 07:51 PM)I and I Wrote:  I feel the same way. The idea that different groups manipulating the methods to which they get their results is not science.

The Denial that different groups can and do have different methods for getting results is also anti-science.

So, what I am getting here is that: heretofore unnamed cabals of people are defying all logic by testing hypotheses in ways other than what the initial test called for, thus getting false results and manipulating science.

The fuck?

Scientists changing the test parameters (by altering variables and such) in order to have a wide range of tests to ensure thoroughness and accuracy and this being done typically by multiple groups independently to ensure confirmation bias is minimally present, is unscientific?

Sounds legit.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: