Comments on: Turning a Hypothesis into History http://telicthoughts.com/turning-a-hypothesis-into-history/ An independent blog about intelligent design Fri, 09 Jan 2009 06:39:13 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: MikeGene http://telicthoughts.com/turning-a-hypothesis-into-history/#comment-1168 MikeGene Mon, 18 Jul 2005 06:02:52 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=164#comment-1168 <blockquote>Here, try this definition: "Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested.</blockquote> In other words - an educated guess.

Here, try this definition: "Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested.

In other words - an educated guess.

]]> By: edarrell http://telicthoughts.com/turning-a-hypothesis-into-history/#comment-1167 edarrell Mon, 18 Jul 2005 04:50:49 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=164#comment-1167 Oh, good grief. Find the definition <a href="http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/introduction.html">here</a> Oh, good grief. Find the definition here

]]> By: edarrell http://telicthoughts.com/turning-a-hypothesis-into-history/#comment-1166 edarrell Mon, 18 Jul 2005 04:50:22 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=164#comment-1166 "Hypothesis" does not mean "educated guess" beyond the fifth grade. Here, try this definition: "Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations. " You can find it here: <a href="http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/introduction.html" rel="nofollow"></a> "Hypothesis" does not mean "educated guess" beyond the fifth grade.

Here, try this definition: "Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations. "

You can find it here:

]]> By: MikeGene http://telicthoughts.com/turning-a-hypothesis-into-history/#comment-1061 MikeGene Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:20:37 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=164#comment-1061 <em>Yet we still don't know when the hypothesis becomes history.</em> You write, "conclusions should be based on the inferences that are consistent with the greatest number of facts that are observable." Say we have three hypotheses about history "“ A, B, and C. Hypothesis A is consistent with 4 facts, Hypothesis B is consistent with 6 facts, and Hypothesis C is consistent with 8 facts. Is Hypothesis C history? Or is it merely the best, currently supported hypothesis? Furthermore, how do we know that competition between A, B, and C is not influenced by factors other than the filter of reality? Also, competition between A, B, and C is a competition between what out limited mentalities can envision, where neither A, B, or C may reflect history as it was. And yes, the Lesson of Microsproridia shows that science is responsive to feedback from reality (we both agree science is not solipsism). Our view of microsporidian history in 1987 was quite different than the view in 2005. But the lesson teaches us that it could again be quite different in 2025. Yet we still don't know when the hypothesis becomes history. You write, "conclusions should be based on the inferences that are consistent with the greatest number of facts that are observable." Say we have three hypotheses about history "“ A, B, and C. Hypothesis A is consistent with 4 facts, Hypothesis B is consistent with 6 facts, and Hypothesis C is consistent with 8 facts. Is Hypothesis C history? Or is it merely the best, currently supported hypothesis?

Furthermore, how do we know that competition between A, B, and C is not influenced by factors other than the filter of reality?

Also, competition between A, B, and C is a competition between what out limited mentalities can envision, where neither A, B, or C may reflect history as it was.

And yes, the Lesson of Microsproridia shows that science is responsive to feedback from reality (we both agree science is not solipsism). Our view of microsporidian history in 1987 was quite different than the view in 2005. But the lesson teaches us that it could again be quite different in 2025.

]]> By: Mark Nutter http://telicthoughts.com/turning-a-hypothesis-into-history/#comment-1044 Mark Nutter Mon, 11 Jul 2005 16:28:49 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=164#comment-1044 Scientific theories compete with one another. The "filtering" effect of reality manifests itself in that theories that are consistent with reality are going to be more successful in predicting observations that are consistent with what we actually observe, directly or indirectly. At the level of the individual researcher, I agree, the "filter" is more dependent on our individual ability to recognize it at work. But in the larger domain of science, the peer review process works to reduce the dependence on individual recognition. Your Microsporidia example is a good illustration of the self-correcting nature of the scientific process--even when it goes astray, feedback from critical observation helps filter out false perceptions and conclusions (eventually :). But science is rooted in real-world fact and observation, not in "free will" or personal preference. Where direct observation is impossible, conclusions should be based on the inferences that are consistent with the greatest number of facts that <i>are</i> observable. To do otherwise would be less than scientific. Scientific theories compete with one another. The "filtering" effect of reality manifests itself in that theories that are consistent with reality are going to be more successful in predicting observations that are consistent with what we actually observe, directly or indirectly. At the level of the individual researcher, I agree, the "filter" is more dependent on our individual ability to recognize it at work. But in the larger domain of science, the peer review process works to reduce the dependence on individual recognition. Your Microsporidia example is a good illustration of the self-correcting nature of the scientific process–even when it goes astray, feedback from critical observation helps filter out false perceptions and conclusions (eventually :).

But science is rooted in real-world fact and observation, not in "free will" or personal preference. Where direct observation is impossible, conclusions should be based on the inferences that are consistent with the greatest number of facts that are observable. To do otherwise would be less than scientific.

]]> By: MikeGene http://telicthoughts.com/turning-a-hypothesis-into-history/#comment-1037 MikeGene Mon, 11 Jul 2005 12:24:37 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=164#comment-1037 Hi Mark, The filter of reality is only as effective as our ability to recognize it at work. The filter works fairly well in the present (as it interfaces with the near future), for here our recognition can ideally consist of observations. But with history, we move beyond the observation into the realm of perception. You say that historical theories have practical implications. Yes, but a practical implication is not the same as experiencing reality. Science is not solipsism, but not all science is the same. The physicist views biology as soft science, the biologist views psychology as soft science, and the psychologist views history as part of the humanities department. And we already know that science is limited by its methods and instruments. For example, science, working with the filter of reality, cannot tell us whether or not God exists. Hi Mark,

The filter of reality is only as effective as our ability to recognize it at work. The filter works fairly well in the present (as it interfaces with the near future), for here our recognition can ideally consist of observations. But with history, we move beyond the observation into the realm of perception. You say that historical theories have practical implications. Yes, but a practical implication is not the same as experiencing reality.

Science is not solipsism, but not all science is the same. The physicist views biology as soft science, the biologist views psychology as soft science, and the psychologist views history as part of the humanities department. And we already know that science is limited by its methods and instruments. For example, science, working with the filter of reality, cannot tell us whether or not God exists.

]]> By: Exile From Groggs http://telicthoughts.com/turning-a-hypothesis-into-history/#comment-1030 Exile From Groggs Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:31:03 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=164#comment-1030 Hmm. This hypothesis thing is all very well. However, suppose for a minute that the ball was on the other foot - and that humans were much hairier than other primates. I suspect it would be just as possible to construct a plausible-sounding "hypothesis" to explain this state of affairs. As is pointed out, the "fewer ecto-parasites" part of the hypothesis could just as easily mitigate against evolution towards social creatures. As I think is hinted at in the original post, part of the problem with darwinism is that as a whole theory it is so plastic. The "hypotheses" (like this one) often can't be demonstrated in a lab, and often propose one mechanism when a case could just as easily be made for an alternative one that would have led in a completely different direction. I also wonder: in a world in which there are many and varied complex challenges to survival, is it really plausible that subtle differences would have such a significant effect on populations? Has anybody done proper modelling of this to show whether it could be the case? Hmm. This hypothesis thing is all very well. However, suppose for a minute that the ball was on the other foot - and that humans were much hairier than other primates. I suspect it would be just as possible to construct a plausible-sounding "hypothesis" to explain this state of affairs. As is pointed out, the "fewer ecto-parasites" part of the hypothesis could just as easily mitigate against evolution towards social creatures.

As I think is hinted at in the original post, part of the problem with darwinism is that as a whole theory it is so plastic. The "hypotheses" (like this one) often can't be demonstrated in a lab, and often propose one mechanism when a case could just as easily be made for an alternative one that would have led in a completely different direction.

I also wonder: in a world in which there are many and varied complex challenges to survival, is it really plausible that subtle differences would have such a significant effect on populations? Has anybody done proper modelling of this to show whether it could be the case?

]]> By: Mark Nutter http://telicthoughts.com/turning-a-hypothesis-into-history/#comment-1025 Mark Nutter Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:15:10 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=164#comment-1025 The circle continues as long as the theory remains abstract and isolated from the real world. It is interaction with reality which has a filtering effect, separating out realistic hypotheses from more fanciful ones. Even historical theories have practical implications one way or another. Science is not solipsism. The circle continues as long as the theory remains abstract and isolated from the real world. It is interaction with reality which has a filtering effect, separating out realistic hypotheses from more fanciful ones. Even historical theories have practical implications one way or another. Science is not solipsism.

]]>