Inference and its role in NS (General)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, January 16, 2011, 16:41 (5058 days ago) @ dhw

dhw, allow me to try and clean this up. Scrap what I said before and we'll try a revision. -A theory is an explanation of one or more hypotheses. -A hypothesis is some claim made within a theory that can be tested and falsified. A "verified" theory is one where there is little room to doubt the conclusions of its various hypotheses. -Maybe a good rule of thumb is that a theory organizes and explains a broad range of disparate hypotheses into a more coherent explanation. A good theory has hypotheses that have been rigorously tested.-I'll try to use your examples next... -The best theory is the one that explains the most data, and has vigorously applied Occam to eliminate extraneous assumptions. The other two "alternatives" to the Big Bang are theories in that they too, explain scientific data, only they both do not describe what we've seen in the evidence. The WMAP background eliminates an infinite universe, only because an infinite universe (at this time) is an assumption--there's currently no known way to test this statement against reality. So it is a theory, it simply isn't a better one. -The more interesting one which combines all three, really, is the expanding/contracting universe model. The Big Bang really explains a much smaller piece of the puzzle; it gets us from the beginning of our observable universe to the present. But it doesn't help us much for describing what happened before (some physicists claim nothing at all) or what will happen in the future. So the collapsing/expanding model tries to fill this void by saying the universe is a cycle of expansion and crunches. This model allows you to infer an infinite universe (but not Einstein's vision for one) and picks up the Big Bang as the mechanical means for the birth and distribution of matter in our current observable universe. However, we've only seen evidence for one Big Bang, and it may or may not be possible to detect older ones. Thus, it is not the "best" theory. -The rules for deciding which theory is best is clearly laid out for anyone who knows the scientific method. This doesn't stop passionate people from debating and defending their pet theories. And scientists are nothing if not passionate! But passion doesn't change the rules of the game. Philosophers of science are there to remind everyone of this. -
> ...Your response to Romansh suggests to me that a hypothesis is the early stages of a theory, and I would simply add that the distinction between the two is blurred.-The philosophy of science is a very clearly laid out framework that explains the differences between hypothesis, theory, law, etc. Not every scientist gets this training--when I was a biochem major this class was NOT even suggested, and this feeds the problem with scientists also muddying the water; it's not through malicious intent, only a lack of knowledge about the theoretical underpinnings of their endeavor. Even Dawkins occasionally seems to forget the underpinnings of his own method. -But to stay on point, there is a clear distinction between hypothesis and theory--they mean very precise and technical things--and only education can try to demystify the common usage of the word "theory" as some arbitrary and untested explanation.-[EDITED] (Removed the extra "clearly" two paragraphs prior.)

--
\"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.\"