It was pointed out to you why you are wrong about requiring a theory before having an hypothesis. That's pretty fundamental, yet you have give no substantive defense.
No, you are simply denying logic. It is not possible to hypothesize about a theory unless that theory being hypothesized about already exists. You need the theory BEFORE the hypothesis.
Ha ha Why are you still arguing about semantics used in scientific research. All you have to do is google a major institute of science and do some research. It’s laughable. You don’t have to wrong with every post you make about this. Just look it up.
Why don’t you read this. Unless, you’re claiming you know “all of science” and wrote the book. https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html What part of “Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis.” don’t you understand ?
You don't hypothesize a scientific theory. You can create a hypothesis (or numerous hypothesis) about some phenomenon, and if you can further test the hypothesis finding patterns in data that support the hypothesis, and it can stand the rigorous and disciplined peer reviews, you can then elevate it to a scientific theory. However, the theory remains subject to modification and even rejection, if overwhelming contradictory evidence appears...
Argument of the Stone Fallacy. [A->B, !A] That is not valid argumentation, as you have not presented any counterargument. [A->B, C->!A]
False Authority Fallacy. livescience.com is not science. Logically impossible. You cannot hypothesize about a theory unless a theory already exists TO hypothesize about. There is no such thing as a "scientific theory", just a theory, which can eventually become a "theory of science" if it survives internal and external testing.
So please share which great contributions or discoveries have resulted in your redefinition of the scientific process, along with your new model of the scientific process.
There is no such thing as a "scientific" theory; there is just a theory. A theory is simply an explanatory argument, whether that theory happens to be falsifiable or not. This is where hypothesizing comes in. Then, after passing internal and external testing, a theory will become a theory of science. While a hypothesis comes before a theory of science, a hypothesis does not come before the theory itself, as a theory of science is simply a falsifiable theory that continues to survive internal and external testing. You need a theory to exist before you can test it... Fine so far. Not necessary. Peer review is not science, nor does it "make holy" any theory. It is just a way of having multiple eyes look over something. There is no "elevating". Any theory that survives internal and external testing automatically becomes a theory of science. No "elevation" necessary. No "holy decree" necessary. If a theory of science fails even a single null hypothesis test, it is completely and utterly destroyed. It is no longer a theory of science.
I haven't redefined anything. My philosophy is much in line with the philosophy of Karl Popper regarding what science is and how it works.
Science dosn't "hypothesize about a theory". An hypothsis is an explanation of how somethig works that can be proven false through testing. It doesn't have to include any reference to a theory.
Ah... so you were exposed to Popper and liked his philosophical epistemological arguments and have adopted his extension of Hume’s skepticism as Gospel a piece of the puzzle which makes provides insight to the position you have assumed. If you have adopted Popper’s Critical Rationalism philosophy as the authority for advancing scientific understanding, then Popper’s philosophy is probably better discussed in the Religion and Philosophy forum where the merits of his philosophical arguments can be debated, and there would be a lot to debate, since I and perhaps others might suggest his agreements, his Theory, is contradictory and thereby under his own criteria, falsifiable. However, relevant here, is a hypothesis is not dependent upon having a theory, or some conjecture, it can be formulated to ask a question of an observed pattern in nature. I is something we do often less formerly than a hypothesis all the time, but a casual question can be stated, and tested with a formal hypothesis which can yield predictive results even without the follow-on of generalized explanation. For instance an observation that A seems to work better than B can be formulated into a hypothesis, A works better than B which can be tested by collecting data measured against criteria of what ‘works better’ means. No theory required. The result of the testing of the hypothesis might result in a general theory or it could simply result in a binary rule of thumb. I could easily provide several examples.
"A works better than B" is not a hypothesis. It is a theory. All theories such as this begin as circular arguments. A hypothesis, rather, would be "B works better than A", as that result would yield conflicting evidence to the theory, which would subsequently falsify the theory.
No, it is not a theory. It is a question, ‘Does A work better than B?’ Stated in a hypothesis that is falsifiable. A generalized theory might be developed to explain why? Or, give rise to a reciprocal hypothesis, but it is not a theory. If, before testing the hypothesis, a conclusion was predicted, that would be a deductive conjecture... not a theory as is so often the casual use of the word. I will give a simple example, one of the retirement activities I do was an outgrowth of a hobby, I build custom bamboo fly rods using the tweaked tapers (measurements) of the old masters. For my customers each sale is accompanied with casting lessons and a day of a guide service on a nearby tailwater, that is annually stocked with Rainbows (usually 12-15”) and browns (usually 8-10”); the rainbows rarely holdover, but the browns do, often spawn, and can reach 25-30”+. A couple years ago, in guiding a customer, I had grabbed a small bag of corn to explain the concept of drift, particularly how it can change through the water column. Corn proved a useful visual tool because it can be observed from the surface to the stream bottom. Normally fishing that tailwater can produce decent tallies using traditional flies to purpose, nymphs, drys, streamers, etc. the conventional tools. But, while demonstrating ‘the drift’, we were catching both rainbows and browns with nearly every cast on the corn; that day catching close to 75 between us. The few others fishing the stream with the traditional fare, were not catching but a fraction of our combined catch. On my return a few days later, I repeated my success. Then again, and again. It almost seemed like I was cheating, using corn than traditional flies. So, I switched to an egg pattern, similar in size to corn and the result, virtually no success. Then back to traditional flies, and had the same level of success of my normal experience. Then, back to corn, and craziness return. That summer was the best, in terms of numbers I ever had S of the AK. Same success with corn the next season, so I made up some egg patterns with a color matching the corn and, if I weighted to match the sink rate of the corn, I didn’t match the catch rate, but had increased success over traditional flies. So, I had an observation. A repeated pattern. But why? So, no theory, just observation. So tell me how do I go about figuring a., if corn is better than traditional fles, b. What properties of corn make it as successful as it appears in casual observation, c. What is the reason it works so well considering corn isn’t what trout normally encounter as fauna for food in a small stream? Have a theory? Tell me I can’t develop knowledge by formulating hypotheses and testing them? Ok, I will bite (pun) intended.
Your theory is that corn is better than traditional flies. That's the initial circular argument that you have formed and wish to attempt falsifying. From there, you form hypotheses to test that theory against. If that theory survives such a test, it becomes a theory of science. If at any point it fails a single test against it, then the theory is completely destroyed and is no longer a theory of science.
Ah...no. Try again or. There is no circular argument, An that wasn’t my operating theory, nor the basis for any hypothesis I was interested in testing. I want to understand the pattern I observed and why corn worked at all considering it resembled nothing of the aquatic fare conventional wisdom suggested flies needed to resemble to attract and catch trout which have notoriously finicky reputations and a multitude of experts opining on fly design, fly presentation, and a host of other ‘secrets’ sold to trout fishermen. So, what did I stumble on? What was it about corn that seemed to work so well? I didn’t have a theory, my observations seem at odds with conventional wisdom. So how to proceed?? BTW, I will be hitting the stream tomorrow, my first time out since late September...I will report how it goes.
Ah...no. Try again. There is no circular argument, but a pattern of observation I wanted to explain. Why does the corn seem to work as well as it does? I wasn’t interested in comparing corn to traditional flies , just why it kept putting fish on the line when it resembled nothing No theory, no Clue, just that the observation that it works. Why? How to proceed?
19 Browns, ranging from 11-23” in approx. 2 1/2 hrs, medium Turbidity (visibility full depth, hazy last 1’) , 2.95 avg depth (gauge measured). Friend fishing same stream segment with traditional flies in tandem rig, 2 browns).
You may have two different things mixed here. A scientists can hypothesize anything he or she wants, as long as it is possible to test the hypothesis. (That is, it isn't about god, or about strings in string theory, or whatever else isn't testable.) There does not have to be some theory involved. If there IS a related theory the hypothesis doesn't have to directly address that theory. A theory is one or a group of related hypotheses that have withstood significant testing, undergone peer review has been published in a reputable journal, etc. I think what you may be referring to is what happens when going about proving a theory to be false. If the experiment does prove the theory is false, it does NOT mean that there is a theory to replace that which is false. It just means that the theory is wrong. And, that process doesn't necessarily include an hypothesis - a simple test can invalidate a theory.
That is an hypothesis - NOT a theory. And, there is certainly nothing circular about it. That hypothesis is never going to get recognized as a theory, as it is clearly limited in numerous ways. And, no reputable journal is going to bother reviewing or publishing it. However, fishermen who fish for a certain species in a certain body of water probably should listen up!
If an observation or some test result appears to be inconsistent with a well established theory, say The Theory of Relativity, or the Standard Model, it wouldn’t necessarily mean the Theory is in wrong, but could require further investigation into the validity of such a test or could simply mean, the Theory is incomplete. An explanation would be needed. In 2011, if you recall, news flashed around the world that the speed of light had been observed to have been broken. There was huge excitement over the announcement. However.... https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/once-again-physicists-debunk-faster-light-neutrinos# Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity proved more Accurate than Newton’s., however, Newton’s formulas for gravity are still used, even for precision space travel. Finding error in a theory, has often led to deeper understanding and better models of representing the understanding. Making such a discovery would be any scientist’s dream and make a career. But, many theories undergo continual testing long after they have been formulated. Some like the that of the speed of live, are so integral to so many other Theories, that finding robust evidence the speed of light had been exceeded could possibly have implications few could fathom. Still, many, including myself, would find that prospect interesting. I have long struggled to understand the seemingly paradox associated with particle entanglement, though I am beginning to see experimentation that is beginning to shape my thinking how entanglement doesn’t violate C.
Definitional deflections denotes desperation.. Whenever i see mental contortions and definition nazi deflections, it usually means the central point is being muddied, to distract with pages of diversions. The point being overlooked, is the anti-science mindset of Progressivism. Mandates, decrees, and hysteria substitute for facts and reason in Progresso World. Science is hijacked as a club, to bully those who don't fall in line with the Approved Talking Points. Outliers or contrarians are censored, mocked, and demeaned, not refuted with reason or facts. Even now, this rational observation is in danger of censorship, in a forum where Political Correctness is more important than open inquiry or the quest for Truth.
you keep repeating this moronic assertion as if that somehow makes it true. You've been asked for concrete examples and have failed to provide them for 22 pages now. Using the correct definitions is part of the problem with people like you, and gfm, who know nothing at all about science.
