From where are scientific hypothesis made?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-09-2013, 03:36 PM (This post was last modified: 15-09-2013 03:48 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(11-09-2013 12:44 AM)I and I Wrote:  How does one come to a conclusion as to what hypothesis to make or not make? Is it influenced by previous ideologies, notions, beliefs, cultural upbringing?

Hypothesis is generated by the casual observation of a pattern of phenomenon. A scientific theory is generated by the formal observation testing of the hypothesis and publication of a concise description of a pattern. A fact is generated by peer review of the theory, and community acceptance, sometimes resulting in a paradigm.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TrainWreck's post
15-09-2013, 07:30 PM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(15-09-2013 03:36 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(11-09-2013 12:44 AM)I and I Wrote:  How does one come to a conclusion as to what hypothesis to make or not make? Is it influenced by previous ideologies, notions, beliefs, cultural upbringing?

Hypothesis is generated by the casual observation of a pattern of phenomenon. A scientific theory is generated by the formal observation testing of the hypothesis and publication of a concise description of a pattern. A fact is generated by peer review of the theory, and community acceptance, sometimes resulting in a paradigm.

Why would it need to be peer reviewed? I thought a fact was a fact without a consensus (according to some posters on this forum).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2013, 05:26 AM
Re: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
How do you evaluate fact? Just generate some nebulous idea and shout it from the top of a mountain and see what happens?


Truth, as far as is it matters to humans, is nothing more than a consensus opinion supported by evidence. There is no other practical way of defining it of any real use.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
16-09-2013, 07:05 AM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(15-09-2013 07:30 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(15-09-2013 03:36 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Hypothesis is generated by the casual observation of a pattern of phenomenon. A scientific theory is generated by the formal observation testing of the hypothesis and publication of a concise description of a pattern. A fact is generated by peer review of the theory, and community acceptance, sometimes resulting in a paradigm.

Why would it need to be peer reviewed? I thought a fact was a fact without a consensus (according to some posters on this forum).

More dishonest word games. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2013, 08:47 AM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(16-09-2013 05:26 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  How do you evaluate fact? Just generate some nebulous idea and shout it from the top of a mountain and see what happens?


Truth, as far as is it matters to humans, is nothing more than a consensus opinion supported by evidence. There is no other practical way of defining it of any real use.

I agree. But others here do not agree. (buckyball) for example
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2013, 09:39 AM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(16-09-2013 08:47 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(16-09-2013 05:26 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  How do you evaluate fact? Just generate some nebulous idea and shout it from the top of a mountain and see what happens?


Truth, as far as is it matters to humans, is nothing more than a consensus opinion supported by evidence. There is no other practical way of defining it of any real use.

I agree. But others here do not agree. (buckyball) for example

You may be putting words in someone's mouth. You would never do a thing like that, would you?

Ideal definition of truth =/= practical definition

Same for a fact

"In science, fact can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."[Stephen J. Gould]

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
17-09-2013, 02:10 AM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(16-09-2013 09:39 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(16-09-2013 08:47 AM)I and I Wrote:  I agree. But others here do not agree. (buckyball) for example

You may be putting words in someone's mouth. You would never do a thing like that, would you?

Ideal definition of truth =/= practical definition

Same for a fact

"In science, fact can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."[Stephen J. Gould]

I am surprised Stephen Jay Gould is mentioned on this forum.

If there is no consensus then is it not a fact? I say no.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2013, 04:40 AM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(17-09-2013 02:10 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(16-09-2013 09:39 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You may be putting words in someone's mouth. You would never do a thing like that, would you?

Ideal definition of truth =/= practical definition

Same for a fact

"In science, fact can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."[Stephen J. Gould]

I am surprised Stephen Jay Gould is mentioned on this forum.

If there is no consensus then is it not a fact? I say no.
Quote:fact
[fakt]
noun
1.
something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.
something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3.
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4.
something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

I'm pretty sure we can establish that a fact is something that has been observed a party and verified by other (preferably independent) parties.

A single action is worth more than the words it takes to describe it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2013, 04:40 AM
Re: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
Consensus doesn't require a unanimous agreement.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2013, 11:13 AM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2013 02:07 PM by Raptor Jesus.)
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
So I did say I was done with you and your inane need to prove hypotheses wrong (even as I write that out it makes even less sense). But I will make a few last points.

The following are some examples of hypotheses about matter in the world “and space” (odd that you feel the need to include “and space”) based on equations.

Neptune’s existence was predicted by equations, prior to having ever directly observing it by telescope. At the time the Newtonian physics of gravity accounted perfectly for the orbits of the planets (save mercury, but we will return to that). However astronomers did discovered small irregularities in the path of Uranus’s orbit that they could not yet explain entirely by Newton’s law of gravitation. However they realized that these irregularities could be accounted for if there was another planet farther out than Uranus that made small gravitation tugs on Uranus. Using Newton’s gravitational equations, astronomers were able to predict the exact location of the undiscovered planet if it in fact existed. Because of this hypothesis, based on mathematical equations, astronomers knew where to look for the unknown planet and found exactly what they were looking for exactly where these equations predicted it to exist and it had exactly the properties that their equations implied it would have. Instead of the Newtonian law of gravitation being unable to make predictions of Uranus’s orbit, it turns out it is so accurate at predicting its orbit that they were able to discover a new unseen planet. That’s impressive.

Scientist did not want there to be another planet. They did not not want there to be another planet either. They simply made observations of reality, and calculated the implications of those observations, compared them to reality through experiment to discover something new. No cultural bias, no wishful thinking, simply observations of reality.

It was noted that there were small irregularities in the path of mercury’s orbit that couldn’t be described at the time by Newtonian physics. Due to the success of the discovery of Neptune they hypothesized that something similar was going on with Mercury. They hypothesized that there must be another small planet orbiting near the sun, close to Mercury’s orbit, that was responsible for the unusual orbit. However, no calculations could make sense of where another planet must be. Astronomers were reluctant to give up the hypothesis that there was another planet because they had no good alternatives and it had worked so well in explaining Uranus’s orbit, and because Newtonian’s laws proved so accurate. They figured they simply need to keep reworking the calculations until they discover it’s location.

Einstein, unconcerned with Mercury’s orbit, focused on the implications of two other observations, two other hypotheses. That there is no absolute motion, and that the speed of light is fixed. The details of what this implied is more explanation that is needed here, but one byproduct of it is a more accurate depictions of gravitational theory and in addition to accurately explain mercury’s orbit. In fact Einstein equations accurately predict all of Newton’s physics, also expand upon them. The hypothesis that there was another small planet orbiting the sun near mercury was abandoned as Einstein’s equation accurately accounted for its orbits.

Hypotheses are not belief systems, or ideology. One can certainly make a hypothesis based on their ideology and belief system. Creationist and Intelligent design proponents do it all the time. But in the end they have to be supported by observations of reality, facts and evidence. Scientist didn’t “want” there to be another planet near Uranus, it’s just that the evidence showed it to be true. Scientist didn’t “want” there to be a planet near mercury, it’s just that the evidence suggested it, could not be shown to be true and was later over turned by another theory they had not “wanted” to be true, but simply turned out to be the case regardless of any “wants” or not.

To be clear when I say scientist didn’t “want” these things, that’s not to say they were against them. It means they did not simply make up the existence of things just because they wanted more planets, or wanted it be that way for some reason. They followed the line of evidence and the universe reveled itself through the means of carful observations and calculations.

Just as scientist did not “want” there to have been a “big bang”. Some mocked this idea as reeking of creationism. The name “big bang” was coined by a scientist to deride it. In the end 99.99% of all astronomers accept it as true because the evidence does not simply support it, but leaves no other realistic alternative. Scientist do not believe these things because they want to, but because it’s what the overwhelming evidence suggest and shows to be true.

Copernicus did not want the sun to be the center of the solar system. He was a very religious man and desperately wanted to account for the earth being the center of it. That was his cultural, religious bias, but in the end it didn’t matter what his bias was, he could not change the implications of the evidence and had to accept them regardless of his desires to find a way to affix the earth at the center of the universe.

Hypotheses come and go. It does not matter so much what they are or how they are derived, it’s the evidence and observations of reality that matter, and yes predictive mathematical equations too.

In the end, reality wins the argument, not personal theology.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Raptor Jesus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: