Inference and its role in NS (General)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, January 14, 2011, 03:40 (5061 days ago) @ romansh

I can't remember who said/intimated, that a scientific Law and Theory are synonymous it's just that a Law can said in pithy statement. These have lots of evidence to support statements, have stood the test of time and even remain Laws and theories when evidence has been found to show them as inacurate - eg Newton's Laws.
> 
> Hypothesis(es) are testable propositions, that have some evidence to support them but require a lot more corroborating evidence. 
> -Not quite... a hypothesis is a prediction of correlation. It is based upon the evidence, but the hypothesis must be tested in order to become something more. -A rigorously tested hypothesis becomes theory. -> Models (for me) could be a description of some reality that are composed of theories and hypotheses that could be used for predictions or used to test the hypotheses.
> -See my recent post to dhw in "Epistemological framework." All theories are models. All hypotheses are predictions based on experiment. All theories require well tested hypotheses. -> Speculations have little or no evidence. But can be fun.
> 
> There is no need for belief in a scientist's world. Replicates and the concepts of precision and accuracy would be unnecessary otherwise.-No need only if you assert that scientists aren't human. Scientists must believe in their methods; if they're going to create new paradigms, they must also believe in themselves more than what conventional wisdom dictates... no...-as long as humans are involved, "beliefs" are central-as paradoxical as this may sound.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"