Doug: Zach, are you saying this to a logical link existing between data and a particular hypothesis?

The Scientific Method

Yes, there is a deductive link. If Hypothesis then Prediction. That's why the scientific method is often called hypothetico-deductive. Try looking at the example again.

Doug: Do those predictions/consequences prove the hypothesis to be correct?

No. Science does not deal in proof, but in evidence. However, if Newton can predict the retardation of a pendulum thousands of miles away, then we gain a measure of confidence in Newton's Theory. From Halley's measurements, Newton calculated the Earth's equatorial bulge. Then others measured that bulge with other methodologies to verify and refine that initial calculation. We gain confidence with each verified prediction, especially when from varied methods and areas of study. So we have detailed calculations of planetary orbits, detailed studies of mechanics on Earth, the retardation of the pendulum, and careful surveying techniques to verify the equatorial bulge. At some point, to deny the Earth's rotation would be without scientific merit.

A scientific hypothesis is a specific assertion that has empirical consequences

Do those predictions/consequences prove the hypothesis to be correct?

Of course there is.

Zach, are you saying this to a logical link existing between data and a particular hypothesis?

Zachriel: A good scientific hypothesis is capable of making specific and distinguishing predictions of empirical phenomena.

Doug: A hypothesis does none of this - predictions/explanations/accuring supporting data is performed by the human.

A scientific hypothesis is a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its empirical consequences. That's the definition. Most hypotheses derive from well-established theories. If the tentative assumption does not entail empirical consequences, then it is not a valid scientific hypothesis.

Doug: Data underdetermines any hypothesis.

Data may underdetermine a *theory*. A scientific hypothesis is a specific assertion that has empirical consequences.

Doug: There is no logical link that exists between a set of data and a particular hypothesis, nor between a static hypothesis and a prediction of a future outcome.

Of course there is. I even provided an example derived from theory. Every scientific paper of note begins with a hypothesis followed by an observational attempt to verify or contradict the prediction.

A good scientific hypothesis is capable of making specific and distinguishing predictions of empirical phenomena.

A hypothesis does none of this - predictions/explanations/accuring supporting data is performed by the human. You're trying to remove the human role from the scientific method and you're going to fail. Data underdetermines any hypothesis. There is no logical link that exists between a set of data and a particular hypothesis, nor between a static hypothesis and a prediction of a future outcome.

Doug: How does a hypothesis entail a specific and distinguished empirical prediction?

A scientific hypothesis is a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its empirical consequences. Most hypotheses derive from well-established theories.

For example, let's hypothesize that the Earth is rotating. If the Earth is rotating, it should bulge at the equator. If it bulges at the equator, then pendulums should swing slower there (Newton). In order to test this prediction, we simply take measurements at different latitudes (Halley). As a bonus, if confirmed, this would give us an approximate measure of the bulge (Newton).

Doug: Data can be conformed to any various competing hypotheses.

A good scientific hypothesis is capable of making specific and distinguishing predictions of empirical phenomena. The more specific the predictions, the more varied the predictions, the stronger our confidence is in our conclusions. Then as we build our confidence, we develop new hypotheses to extend our knowledge.

The Scientific Method

Just make specific and distinguishing empirical predictions that are entailed in the hypothesis. We call it "data".

How does a hypothesis entail a specific and distinguished empirical prediction? Data can be conformed to any various competing hypotheses. The subjective, human decision has to be made regarding which hypothesis fits better with the data. People (scientists) ascribe meaning to these results (or events) - but I hope this doesn't get conflated with science. Wait a minute…..
Zach, it appears your reasoning runs into a snare.
When is it appropriate to ascribe meaning to events/results in order for those ascriptions to be considered scientific?

nullasalus: Denial of any intelligence(s) behind geological phenomena get us nowhere. Alluding to their lack is scientifically vacuous, and not necessary to explain the data.

If someone proposes a hypothesis, such as intelligent causation, then we use the hypothesis to form empirical predictions (assuming the claim of intelligent causation can be formed in such a way as to entail empirical predictions). We test these predictions to determine the validity of the original claim.

We're not actually that far apart. We can't falsify some nebulous claim of intelligent causation, only sufficiently well-defined claims.

What are my religious beliefs? And why would they be relevant to a scientific discussion?

They aren't relevant to a scientific discussion. In fact, they offer nothing to such a discussion. We've been over this:

Yes, of course.

You did agree with me, after all.

Vulcan has no scientific merit as an explanation of geological phenomena.

Denial of any intelligence(s) behind geological phenomena get us nowhere. Alluding to their lack is scientifically vacuous, and not necessary to explain the data.

My views have not changed during the course of this thread.

Then you've been in agreement with me all this time? Interesting miscommunication, but it does happen. Telic forces can be misunderstood after all.

Doug: The process of determining what evidence is scientific and/or relevant to the hypothesis one is hoping to support"¦"¦. is that a logical/objective process?

Just make specific and distinguishing empirical predictions that are entailed in the hypothesis. We call it "data".

nullasalus: According to your religious belief, yes. I'm glad you agree with me.

What are my religious beliefs? And why would they be relevant to a scientific discussion?

nullasalus: And the idea that environments and reality as a whole unfolds without intelligent causation behind them is scientifically vacuous - there is no way to test for it, no falsifiability, and the postulation is an anchor to scientific inquiry.

Vulcan has no scientific merit as an explanation of geological phenomena.

nullasalus: You've come a long way, Zachriel. I'm proud of you.

My views have not changed during the course of this thread.