----- Original Message ----- From: "Chad Cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 2:15 PM Subject: RE: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
> > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jan Coffey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 11:34 AM > > To: Killer Bs Discussion > > Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy? > > > > > > > > --- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 09:56:38AM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: > > > > > > > > Of course you can use anecdotal evidence in formulating a > > > > > theory. The point is, you CANNOT use the SAME data to > > validate the > > > > > theory. > > > > > > > > > > > > You are wrong Erik. You can not formulat _theories_ in > > this manner. > > > > > > I think we are arguing semantics. The point was about the concept of > > > EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS vs. EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTED THE > > > HYPOTHESIS. Semantic differences between "I have a theory" > > and "I have > > > a hypothesis" are not worth arguing about. If you change "theory" in > > > my quote above to "hypothesis", then I don't believe it changes the > > > meaning. So feel free to substitute hypothesis if it makes > > you happy. > > > > > > > Yes Erik, I agree, and I did know what you meant, but since > > to a SCIENTIST > > these words are used in such a narrow way, and since the > > distinction between > > the two is so important (especialy in this case) I thought it was more > > important to strive for correct knowledge and > > _accurate_transmission_thereof_. (There I go paraphrasing again.) > > > > Anyway it's not a game or a competition, I just wanted to > > make sure that the > > transmission of this information was accurate. > > > > Hypothesis: A tentative assumption made in order to draw out > > and test its > > logical or empirical consequences. > > > > Theory: A scientifically acceptable general principle or body > > of principles > > offered to explain phenomena. > > > > Of course "Theory "is used by _layman_ in place of > > "Hypothesis". But we are > > not _laymen_ we are scientificaly trained and should use the words > > appropriatly. > > Thanks, Jan! > Once again, you trumped me. I was drafting a message about what the > difference (as I was taught) between an idea, theory and hypothesis, and you > beat me to it (This was in response to Erik cutting me some slack on my use > of "theory"). > > I would only add that hypothesis should only be used in the context of > fulfilling the initial requirement for the scientific method process, and > theory is used in place of proof, if a proof is not complete or not > possible. > At least this is what I was taught in High school science, for what that's > worth. I was taught the same thing in high school science. But, after a few years in graduate school I formed a different opinion. The scientific method is not as cut and dried as it appears in textbooks. First of all, things are not nearly as clear as they are in a textbook. The data show some inconsistencies, there are always 2-sd anomalies that lead you to investigate blind alleys. Further, experimentalists rarely have formulated a hypothesis to test before taking data. Rather, the hypothesis is much more loose: such as "I bet this would be an interesting place to look." A good theorist may come up with 5 different ideas in a day. About one every day or two is worth trying on colleagues. About one a month is worth publishing...at least according to Shelly Glashow, who shares the Nobel Prize for the Standard Model. So, the scientific method is a lot more about good experimental technique (workmanlike effort in the words of a professor I've always respected) and thinking about the data and throwing models at it until one sticks. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
