Hopefully the person doing the research is a skeptic, about everything.
“Conventional wisdom” and “settled science” are killers.
The double talk on falsifying an hypothesis.
Sounded like proving an opinion to me.
Ye,s you attempt to falsify the hypothese, it fails, lending further upport of the hypothesis. It does not “prove” the hypothesis (can’t), it’s merely one more piece of evidence that offers support.
No one mentioned consensus but you. Im talking the scientific method.
Well, camp, I guess a hypothesis is a form of opinion.
I agree “prove” is easily misunderstood, but it’s less awkward than “supports this one more than all others.”
1 Like
Depends on the material elements of the discussion.
Physics isn’t opinion.
Sociology is all opinion.
really
I see it as just the opposite.
LOL. It’s not double talk, it’s literally the scientific method.
Dropping the scientific terminology, it’s fair to say “it’s an opinion”. Hypothesis are born from observations… “an educated guess”. But the opinion is tested, it’s not just some opinion you hold…
Yeah really. Those are not the same. Consensus means a group of people are generally in agreement. Repeated testing of a hypothesis results in outcomes that either support it, or don’t. You don’t just test once and call it good. You repeat the testing over and over… again, those results either continue to support, or they falsify.
The snippet above, “gaining more and more support” is in reference to test results, not individuals.
there you go again.
no, it in no way supports the hypothesis or lends it support. It only supports the fact that what was done did not prove it false. it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not some other experiment or method might prove it false. It proves only, that that specific method or experiment did not.
Agreed. It’s hard to having these conversations at times in two different arenas because words literally have two different meanings.
1 Like
they support nothing other than that that attempt failed.
I tried to prove water was not wet, so I boiled it, the water disappeared and failed to show water is not wet, therefore, water is most likely not wet. Tomorrow, I’ll test it by baking cake.
It is vision and understanding that makes a valid scientific hypothesis.
One that stands peer review and replication.
Replication and scrutiny are the hard facts and make for true science.
We can’t even discuss the issue in a constructive manner.
really. if so, why would you need to gain support until you reach the “point it is generally accepted as true”. Sure sounds to me like your gaining the support of other peoples opinions.
and I reiterate, failing once or 1000 times does not support the hypothesis. it only proves those attempts failed to prove it false. you can fail 1000 times and the hypothesis can be just as false as if you had succeeded the first time.
Let’s just demonstrate to ensure this isn’t something being lost in language.
Let’s form a hypothesis. Two different objects dropped from the same height on earth will hit the ground at the same time if air resistance is excluded.
We attempt to falsify the hypothesis by placing a bowling ball and a paper towel in a vacuum and set each at a height of 6 feet from the ground, predicting that the bowling ball will hit first. It doesn’t, so the attempt to falsify has failed, and lends support to the original hypothesis.
See how that works?
Well that would be silly… water is a liquid. It can’t be wet. Wet is the effect of coming into contact with a liquid.
Because that’s how one speaks in the scientific arena… in testing a hypothesis, you cannot arrive at a conclusion that it’s supported or not without repeated testing. One the repetitive testing has occurred and continues to support the hypothesis, you accept it as true and document your findings.
Get the first three sentences and agree… not even sure why you added the last, but fine by me.
you know what… I’m a bit tired of the condescension.
Your experiment is flawed. If your hypothesis is
then your prediction
is designed to fail.
the prediction with this hypothesis can only be that they will hit at the same time. If they don’t, its proven false. If they do, nothing is proven other than that this experiment did not prove it false.
