How Is Science Done? Assuming The Hypothesis!

BeesKnees · October 11, 2013

I am starting this as a splinter from this thread:
http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5485

A major bone of contention between gilbo12345 and myself is how science is done, anmd more specifically whether it is reasonable to assume a hypothesis as part of that process.

What exactly is a hypothesis? Conveniently, gilbo12345 gives us a definition in this post. The relevant one is the second given in that post, which I will quote here:

Hypothesis: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

And that is it really. My position is that a hypothesis is assumed to be true to make predictions. As the definitions clearly states, it is an assumption, and it is used to draw out logical consequences or predictions.

I made a post on the other thread about the scientific method here, but gilbo feels I am derailing that thread, so here we are.

gilbo appears to take the position that assuming the hypothesis is true is circular reasoning. As he says:

So assuming the hypothesis is correct is assuming an assumption is correct... Not very logical...

Evolution is a somewhat heated subject, so let us forget that for this thread, and discuss how science is done in other areas. Instead, consider another theory: relativity. How was relativity confirmed?

My position is the hypothesis of relativity was assumed to be true. If we assume relativity is true, then we can make calculations about the world using relativity, abnd then do experiments to confirm those result. For example, if you assume relativity is true, you can then calculate a predicted orbit for Mercury. You can then compare the predicted orbit for the actual orbit.

gilbo disagrees:

So if a hypothesis is a tentative assumption by definition, (and you agreed to this) then how in the world can you logically claim to be able to assume it is true?

Makes me wonder what gilbo thinks an assumption is. When Einstein first thought of it, relativity was a hypothesis; that is, a tentative assumption that he made, according to gilbo's defintion. gilbo seems to take the position that Einstein can make a tentative assumption about relativity, but cannot assume it is true. So what did Einstein assume? Exactly what weas that tentative assumption?

This Wiki page has some tests of relativity. Here is an example:

"Irwin I. Shapiro proposed another test, beyond the classical tests, which could be performed within the solar system. It is sometimes called the fourth "classical" test of general relativity. He predicted a relativistic time delay (Shapiro delay) in the round-trip travel time for radar signals reflecting off other planets.[30] The mere curvature of the path of a photon passing near the Sun is too small to have an observable delaying effect (when the round-trip time is compared to the time taken if the photon had followed a straight path), but general relativity predicts a time delay which becomes progressively larger when the photon passes nearer to the Sun due to the time dilation in the gravitational potential of the sun. Observing radar reflections from Mercury and Venus just before and after it will be eclipsed by the Sun gives agreement with general relativity theory at the 5% level.[31] More recently, the Cassini probe has undertaken a similar experiment which gave agreement with general relativity at the 0.002% level.[32] Very Long Baseline Interferometry has measured velocity-dependent (gravitomagnetic) corrections to the Shapiro time delay in the field of moving Jupiter [33][34] and Saturn."

What Shapiro has done is assume relativity is true to make predictions. If we assume relativity is true, then the time delay will be a certain value. We can then measure that value experimentally and compare the results. Just as was done here.

Now, gilbo insists science can be done without assuming the hypothesis - despite the definition clearly stating that a hypothesis is a type of assumption. So my challenge to gilbo12345 is to show how relativity can be confirmed without assuming it is true.

Just to be clear here, we all agree that verifying experiments are done, The question is, what experiments (how are the experiments devised), and in what way do they verify the hypothesis. More specifically, how are predictions made without assuming the hypothesis?

A couple more quotes by gilbo12345 that make his position clear:

No you don't, you do an experiment and make a prediction of the results of the experiment... To make a prediction you do not need to assume that the hypothesis is true, since if it was true you wouldn't be making a prediction you'd simply state what will happen (because you "know" it is true...). When you make a prediction you do not know whether it is true or not that is the entire point of the scientific method, as I have already demonstrated to you via quotes from scientific sources which you either ignore or delete from your quotes in your reply, (evidence of intellectual dishonesty?)

So gilbo is saying you can make a prediction without assuming the hypothesis is true! Remember the definition?

Hypothesis: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

Something you assume to make predictions!

Now this is rich... If the hypothesis is true then so is the prediction... So when you assume the hypothesis is true then you are also claiming the prediction is true meaning you are being biased in your experiment by automatically claiming what outcome you are expecting (and thus will interpret the results in that light)... Did you not read your own link which claimed that you need to be unbiased? I guess you didn't read that part... Additionally the prediction needs to be relative to the hypothesis being asked meaning if I am asking you the hypothesis
...

Well, yes. If the hypothesis is true, then so is the prediction. It is not a scientific prediction otherwise! So, yes, you assume the hypothesis is true, and then test the prediction. If the prediction is true, it supports the hypothesis. If the prediction is false, then it logically follows that tyour hypothesis is false. That is just simple logic.

Whether there is bias is besides the point - but it will be fascinating to see how gilbo12345 avoids bias in his own methodology.

Time to step up to the plate, gilbo! Show us how it is done. Explain clear how relativity was confirmed, including how predictions were made without assuming it is true.

Create your own thread I will happily debunk you there.

Looking forward to it.

Bond007 · October 11, 2013

You forgot the step before hypothesis in the scientific method-OBSERVATION, if something can not be observed (all life common descent) then it fails right there. Relativity is testable, repeatable, experimental science, evolutionism fails all 3 of those.

Ron · October 11, 2013

You forgot the step before hypothesis in the scientific method-OBSERVATION, if something can not be observed (all life common descent) then it fails right there. Relativity is testable, repeatable, experimental science, evolutionism fails all 3 of those.

Indeed... How can you even have a hypothesis, without first having an observation? Something must ‘first’ give you the idea for the hypothesis!

Ron · October 11, 2013

By the way, I posted this oversimplified version of the empirical scientific method. It should basically answer your question.

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5621

gilbo12345 · October 12, 2013

By the way, I posted this oversimplified version of the empirical scientific method. It should basically answer your question.

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5621

Don't get your hopes up Ron, I already posted up quotes from many different sites explaining science which stated that a hypothesis is verified via the experiments done, or that a hypothesis is unknown to be true until the experiment is done.

As well as examples of science where its absurd to assume the hypothesis is correct, (endophytes).

As well as the quote Bees is using which states a hypothesis is a Tentative assumption. With tentative meaning unsure, so if it is unsure how can one assume it is correct, since to assume it is correct is to be sure it is correct.

I also explained to him that you can only make predictions with things thatvyou do not know, if you assume evolution is correct / a fact then anything one claims about the future from such a thing is merely a statement because it's known to be correct and thus there is nothing to predict.

I urge all thinking readers to go read my "evolution did it " thread since Bees has left it by ignoring my replies to him on this topic.

Also it was not my request that he start this thread, since assuming "evolution did it " was the point of my evolution did it thread. I in fact had asked Bees to create a new thread for his tangents he has created on my thread in order to dodge my main point. Instead he has continued his tangents on my thread and created this thread whilst ignoring my replies to him on his assuming the conclusion is true.

I guess he wanted to evade the clear cases of cognitive dissonance I demonstrated from his own posts.

Even his OP here is an example, since to agree that a hypothesis is a tentative assumption is to totally contradict that assuming the hypothesis is true is the way to do science.

Ron · October 12, 2013

By the way, I posted this oversimplified version of the empirical scientific method. It should basically answer your question.

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5621

Don't get your hopes up Ron, I already posted up quotes from many different sites explaining science which stated that a hypothesis is verified via the experiments done, or that a hypothesis is unknown to be true until the experiment is done.

I'm not Gilbo, I'm just waiting for the circus to roll out the clown car again. Que the music, and let the dithering begin!

BeesKnees · October 12, 2013

You forgot the step before hypothesis in the scientific method-OBSERVATION, if something can not be observed (all life common descent) then it fails right there. Relativity is testable, repeatable, experimental science, evolutionism fails all 3 of those.

If you look at the original thread, I did include this. I think we all agree on that part so I took it as read.

BeesKnees · October 12, 2013

gilbo12345

Don't get your hopes up Ron, I already posted up quotes from many different sites explaining science which stated that a hypothesis is verified via the experiments done, or that a hypothesis is unknown to be true until the experiment is done.

We all agree that a hypothesis is verified via the experiments done, and that a hypothesis is unknown to be true until the experiment is done. Can we drop the straw men please?

As well as examples of science where its absurd to assume the hypothesis is correct, (endophytes).

Yes, let us look at that:

The hypothesis is an assumption. For example

Hypothesis: Adding the endophyte to the plant will assist in plant growth

Until I do the experiment nobody can tell whether this is true or not, it is merely a statement. Just because the hypothesis is an assumption doesn't therefore mean that you can assume that it is correct?

Yes, the hypothesis is an assumption. We do not know it is true, but we assume it is.

Your position seems to be that you assume a hypothesis, but you do not assume it is true. I have no idea what that actually means. To me, assuming something means you assume it is true. This defintion is from google:

assume
verb
1. Suppose to be the case, without proof: "afraid of what people are going to assume".
2. Take or begin to have (power or responsibility): "he assumed full responsibility for all organizational work".

That first definition is the relevant one.

If I assume something, then I suppose it to be the case without proof. If I assume it is true, then that would seem to be exactly the same to me.

As well as the quote Bees is using which states a hypothesis is a Tentative assumption. With tentative meaning unsure, so if it is unsure how can one assume it is correct, since to assume it is correct is to be sure it is correct.

No, to assume it is correct is to suppose that that is the case without proof. To be sure something is correct is quite different to assuming it is correct.

I also explained to him that you can only make predictions with things thatvyou do not know, if you assume evolution is correct / a fact then anything one claims about the future from such a thing is merely a statement because it's known to be correct and thus there is nothing to predict.

This is just nonsense. Scientific laws can be used to make predictions, even if we are sure they are right. That is how they are used. The application of science is all about predicting what will happen usng established laws of science.

It also misses the point. A hypothesis is not known to be correct, it is assumed to be correct.

I urge all thinking readers to go read my "evolution did it " thread since Bees has left it by ignoring my replies to him on this topic.

You told me to start another thread on this issue. Pardon me if I did as you requested! I will get back to that thread once we have this issue thrashed out, but it is an issue that was dominating the discussion, and it seems a waste of time to continue discussing other points without resolving this first. Seriously, look though your last response to me, and count how often you mentuion this issue!

gilbo12345 · October 13, 2013

We all agree that a hypothesis is verified via the experiments done, and that a hypothesis is unknown to be true until the experiment is done. Can we drop the straw men please?

If that is so then how can you justify claiming your hypothesis is true when it is yet to be verified? This has been the trust of my points on the other thread. You cannot logically justify claiming the hypothesis is true when you have yet to test it, even your examples never went to verify the hypothesis after claiming its true... All you did was claim that we should assume evolution is true and then look for things that fit with the pattern of evolution, however finding such patterns doesn't verify the hypothesis because such patterns could well be caused by some other event (as I told you earlier)...

So essentially you are starting with the conclusion you want and then try and find things that fit with the conclusion... That is NOT science, go have a look at the scientific method (as I have asked you to before).

Yes, let us look at that:

The hypothesis is an assumption. For example

Hypothesis: Adding the endophyte to the plant will assist in plant growth

Until I do the experiment nobody can tell whether this is true or not, it is merely a statement. Just because the hypothesis is an assumption doesn't therefore mean that you can assume that it is correct?

Yes, the hypothesis is an assumption. We do not know it is true, but we assume it is.

Nowhere in my example is it assumed to be true. All you are doing is just saying that you can assume its true... Where is your evidence for such? Where are the supporting arguments? Merely claiming something doesn't make it true, assertum non est demonstratum fallacy.

Your position seems to be that you assume a hypothesis, but you do not assume it is true. I have no idea what that actually means.

Yes you assume a POSSIBLE cause for the observation and then you TEST it... That is how you do science, as I said go read up on the scientific method, or better yet go and actually read my replies on the evolution did it thread, since you ignored them at your own whim.

To me, assuming something means you assume it is true. This defintion is from google:

assume

verb

1. Suppose to be the case, without proof: "afraid of what people are going to assume".

2. Take or begin to have (power or responsibility): "he assumed full responsibility for all organizational work".

That first definition is the relevant one.

If I assume something, then I suppose it to be the case without proof. If I assume it is true, then that would seem to be exactly the same to me.

The thing you are "forgetting" is that a hypothesis is not just an assumption it is a TENTATIVE assumption, a definition you agreed with. Tentative meaning UNSURE.

Therefore it is by definition an unsure assumption, meaning you are not allowed to assume it is true because it is unsure.

No, to assume it is correct is to suppose that that is the case without proof. To be sure something is correct is quite different to assuming it is correct.

And what EXPERIMENTS verify the "evolution did it" assumption? Observing something ad hoc and claiming it fits evolution is not an EXPERIMENT.

This is just nonsense. Scientific laws can be used to make predictions, even if we are sure they are right. That is how they are used. The application of science is all about predicting what will happen usng established laws of science.

Sigh yet again you misunderstand... I didn't say that you cannot make predictions from laws and theories, such a thing is absurd. What I did say is that THE THING YOU ARE PREDICTING needs to be unknown because if it is known then you cannot predict it because it was already known and thus you are claiming it ad hoc, there is not such thing as an ad hoc PREdiction... (As I told you before). I also told you before that an ad hoc observation that fits a pattern is just that an observation that fits the pattern, it is not a prediction.

(As others have pointed out you tend to misinterpret people's arguments and create a strawman of them, if this is deliberate you need to stop, if this is not deliberate you need to read through posts more in order for you to understand their meaning... rather than post knee-jerk comments when you haven't fully understood what you are replying to).

It also misses the point. A hypothesis is not known to be correct, it is assumed to be correct.

You have yet to cite any resource which agrees with this claim... I however have given you many resources which debunk your claims, yet you ignored them on the other thread... (The second one directly debunks your claim)

In order to test whether your hypothesis is true or not, you have to carry out some research to see if you can back it up.

http://www.null-hypo...null_hypothesis

When you hypothesize something, you are not asserting anything about whether the hypothesis is true. It might be known true, known false, probable, improbable, completely unknown, or whatever. Usually the intention is to determine at some later stage the truth or falsity or probability of the hypothesis.

http://www.av8n.com/.../hypothesis.htm

When you hypothesize something, you are not asserting anything about whether the hypothesis is true.

You told me to start another thread on this issue. Pardon me if I did as you requested! I will get back to that thread once we have this issue thrashed out, but it is an issue that was dominating the discussion, and it seems a waste of time to continue discussing other points without resolving this first. Seriously, look though your last response to me, and count how often you mentuion this issue!

Oh really? You do realise that people can go see what was said? Here I will make it easier for you and give you quotes, (the lack of quotation on your part should set alarm bells ringing for the informed reader).

Here is the link to the thread and the post in question, I have pasted quotes of what I said and where I asked Bees to make a new thread. Not once did I ask him to create a thread about the main topic of my thread, I was asking him to take his tangents away from my thread and start his own thread for them, rather than derail and confuse my thread, (which is what he continues to do).

Also please note that the fact I continue to refer him to the OP and ask him to keep on that track defies his claims that I asked him to write a new thread about the same topic, Bees is doing so here to escape my replies to him on that thread because it is easier for an evolutionist to ignore contrary data than to critically think about it.

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5485&p=94922

Create your own thread and post this, or search for a thread dealing with this and post there. I am not letting you derail this thread from my point.

As I said before, (in an attempt for you to stop with the tangent), that it all started from you claiming an argument to the future by saying that there are more fossils to be found. Archeopteryx etc has nothing to do with you using that fallacy.

As I said that is an argument to the future that is a logical fallacy... Not once did I say that it was evidence against evolution, you are now lying, I did say that an argument to the future is a logical fallacy, which is what you are doing when you claim evidence from the future will smooth out problems with your claims... (You cannot predict the future, so how can you know that this future evidence will in fact support you?)

Me asking you to create your own thread about the Archeopteryx debate, (which is what I quoted before this statement), since it has nothing to do with assuming "evolution did it" and the experiments you need to verify it. Also pointing out that it all started from me telling you that hoping future evidence will support your claims, (more fossils links to be found) is the argument to the future fallacy.

No you are dodging MY INITIAL question the one in the OP.. I am asking for the cause of similarities, if you claim similarities are evidence of evolution then you need to demonstrate that evolution is THE cause, and the scientific way to do such is via an experiment. So what experiments have been done which verify this claim?

Me asking you to stick on the topic of the OP the fact that I mention you to do this defies your claims that I told you to make your own thread for this...

Ah so you assume that people adding the words "true tail" makes it a tail... What a joke.

Again this is a tangent, create your own thread, but before you do read my discussions with Greg. I already said it cannot be claimed to be a "tail" in any form of evolutionary sense since it doesn't contain any vertebrae, like the tails of the claimed evolutionary "ancestors"... It seems you're all too quick to jump on anything that says "tail" despite not demonstrating the logic to show the relevance of such a thing. If scientists want to call blobs of fat on someone's back as a "tail" they are welcome to do so, however it has no evolutionary relevance until it contains vertebrae.

Ok so create your own thread about human tails, which have no relevance to assuming "evolution did it"...

So you want me to perform experiments demonstrating God?... You do realise that science cannot investigate that which is beyond nature.

However I could ask you the same thing. Perhaps you can create a thread with the experiments done to demonstrate evolution in real time.

Create your own thread about experiments done in real time for evolution, since you were asking the same of Creationism. This also has nothing to do with assuming "evolution did it".

I asked you this... And I gave you the analogy of the CAUSE of the lightglobe not working, the fact that it is not working doesn't tell you anything about the CAUSE, the exact same as the fact that some organisms seem to be similar doesn't tell you anything about the CAUSE.

Instead you then shifted the goal posts and asked

"So what would you say was evidence for the light not working?"

And I replied

"That isn't the hypothesis... The hypothesis is the CAUSE of the light not working... Seriously stop trying to dodge / ignore my point."

If you are not dodging my point then why try and redefine it and then complain when I call you on your shifting the goal posts?

Me pointing out that you were twisting my light globe analogy. When a light globe stops working you don't automatically assume what the cause is, (assume the hypothesis is true), you go and TEST each hypothesis which you consider possible, (all the tentative assumptions / hypothesises)...

And? As I told you its not scientific.... You know the scientific method, the thing that requires you to do experiments (again read your links), if you use a forensic investigative style for evolution how in the world can you claim it to be part of Biology which is an empirical science..

Firstly this is a tangent...

Ummm no if there is a murder then they already know the wound ergo they can determine if it was the gun or not, they don't assume things and then look to see what fits, (as you are doing). They look at the facts and go from there.

If you do not have a body then you wouldn't have a murder case / no wounds and you wouldn't know what to claim as the murder weapon... (Unless you want them to imagine up literally anything).

However as I said a forensic investigation is not a scientific one, hence your attempt to use it as a proxy here is pretty sad.

Me pointing out that your analogy of a forensic investigation doesn't stand since we are meant to be discussing science. Also demonstrating how your analogy fails since the weapon isn't assumed first, the data is determined first THEN they work out the probable weapon. Also mentioned this is another tangent because forensics has nothing to do with empirical science of which Biology is a part of.

Ah so now we have the equivocation of what evolution is... You already claimed UCD is the evolution you are discussing here...

Variation happens, so I don't see why we need to call this "evolution" as if doing so gives the theory more creditability via such a word game.

Again this is another tangent. Stick on topic.

Me pointing out your equivocation on the word evolution when you already defined it in that discussion as UCD...Asking you to stick on topic, because whether you call variations "evolution" or not has nothing to do with you assuming "evolution did it".

Despite that similarities have already been found, (taxonomy - classification), meaning you cannot cite similarities as a prediction. (I already told you this)

Me demonstrating that similarities are not predictions of evolution because they were already observed and known prior to evolution.. You cannot predict that which is known.

In fact I bolded the words for you, I even gave you quotes from sites, one of which specifically stated that you do not assume the truth or falseness of the hypothesis until the experiment is completed. You even agreed with that statement...

The hypothesis is an assumption. For example

Hypothesis: Adding the endophyte to the plant will assist in plant growth

Until I do the experiment nobody can tell whether this is true or not, it is merely a statement. Just because the hypothesis is an assumption doesn't therefore mean that you can assume that it is correct?

I had a chat with my lab mates today about this "assume your hypothesis is true" notion, we had a bit of a giggle. Have you had a chat with your science teacher?

No.. The hypothesis is an assumption about what you expect from an experiment..

My hypothesis before predicted additional plant growth, it defies logic to assume that it is true before doing the experiment.

Really... Where does it say that you can assume your hypothesis (assumption) is correct?

I think you misunderstand English, (are you an English as a 2nd language person? Just so I know for the future)

The word I want to teach you today is TENTATIVE (as you see underlined above)

ten·ta·tive (tnt-tv)

adj.
1. Not fully worked out, concluded, or agreed on; provisional: tentative plans.

2. Uncertain; hesitant.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tentative

1

: not fully worked out or developed <tentative plans>

2

: hesitant, uncertain <a tentative smile>

— tentative noun

— ten·ta·tive·ly adverb

— ten·ta·tive·ness noun

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tentative

tentative adjective
not certain or fixed; provisional:a tentative conclusion

done without confidence; hesitant:he eventually tried a few tentative steps round his hospital room

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/tentative

So if a hypothesis is a tentative assumption by definition, (and you agreed to this) then how in the world can you logically claim to be able to assume it is true?

I have thought about it, I am a scientist. I would ask you to read the quotes I have given from many sites discussing science as well as your blunder above and perhaps consider the possibility that you are wrong.

As I demonstrated I asked you to start new threads for YOUR tangents, instead you continued your tangents on my thread and created a new thread for my main point thus allowing you to ignore my responses, (an earlier one where I demonstrated clear cases of your cognitive dissonance, which I guess you didn't want to address).

I even used your own links to demonstrate that you had no clue on what they were discussing, since if you had bothered to actually READ them you would have seen that they support my claims and debunk your own.

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5485&p=94898

See post# 61 Here is one using your link

http://teacher.nsrl..../appendixe.html

"As just stated, experimental tests may lead either to the confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the hypothesis. The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories."

Just in case you "missed" that

"as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. "

Biology is an empirical (experimental) science therefore experimental VERIFICATION of the hypothesis is required, rather than assuming it is correct.

"As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. Like assuming that whatever you claim is the cause of an observation without testing if it is the actual cause..... The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples of this, dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day.

Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), Oh like assuming it is correct before doing the experiment?... or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong", such as systematic effects, with data which do not support the scientist's expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way."

The link explains that (REAL) scientists are not to be biased. Assuming your hypothesis is correct BEFORE experimentation is an example of such bias, since it was an example here.

a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true

Assuming the hypothesis is true is a strong belief that it is true, yes?

BeesKnees · October 13, 2013

gilbo12345

If that is so then how can you justify claiming your hypothesis is true when it is yet to be verified? This has been the trust of my points on the other thread.

Do you know what "assume" means? You assume the hypothesis (that is, you assume the tentative assumption). That is not the same as claiming it is true.

As you say, this confusion has been the trust of so much of your posts.

Nowhere in my example is it assumed to be true.

Of course it is. You specially said "The hypothesis is an assumption". You do not know it is true, but you do assume it is nevertheless.

Yes you assume a POSSIBLE cause for the observation and then you TEST it... That is how you do science, as I said go read up on the scientific method, or better yet go and actually read my replies on the evolution did it thread, since you ignored them at your own whim.

That is right. You assume the hypothesis, and then you test it. Are you getting this? You do not know it is the cause, but you do assume it is.

The thing you are "forgetting" is that a hypothesis is not just an assumption it is a TENTATIVE assumption, a definition you agreed with. Tentative meaning UNSURE.

Therefore it is by definition an unsure assumption, meaning you are not allowed to assume it is true because it is unsure.

Of course it is unsure. The point of testing is to get some certainty. You assume the hypothesis, even though (indeed because) you do not know if it is true or not.

Also please note that the fact I continue to refer him to the OP and ask him to keep on that track defies his claims that I asked him to write a new thread about the same topic, Bees is doing so here to escape my replies to him on that thread because it is easier for an evolutionist to ignore contrary data than to critically think about it.

This is what you said on the other thread:

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5485&p=94898
"So rather than address the OP you instead create your own "challenge" why don't you create YOUR OWN thread rather than derail mine. I have seen on other threads that you like to derail them with tangents I will not allow you to further derail mine like you have over the last couple of pages."

I will be happy to get back to that thread, but this is an issue that was dominating our posts, so needs to be resolved.

The link explains that (REAL) scientists are not to be biased. Assuming your hypothesis is correct BEFORE experimentation is an example of such bias, since it was an example here.

a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true

Assuming the hypothesis is true is a strong belief that it is true, yes?

Perhaps this is the best illustration of your confusion. Assuming the hypothesis, the tentative assumption, is part of making predictions. You assume the hypothesis specifically because you do not know if it is true or not. It is not indicative of having a strong belief that the hypothesis is right (though that may well be the case).

Assuming the hypothesis is say that for the sake of argument you will suppose the the hypothesis is correct, and then use it to make predictions.

It does not mean you believe the hypothesis is true, it does not mean you are sure the hypothesis is true.

gilbo12345 · October 13, 2013

Do you know what "assume" means? You assume the hypothesis (that is, you assume the tentative assumption). That is not the same as claiming it is true.

Do you know what the scientific method is? Where does it claim that you can assume the hypothesis is true? Where does any scientific resource make that claim?

You admitted that you are not a scientist, I am and so are my colleagues with whom I have mentioned this issue of yours and they too agree that you're being irrational. As I said go ask your science teacher at school.

As you say, this confusion has been the trust of so much of your posts.

Yes because a certain atheist cannot accept when he is wrong. As I said you have yet to give any form of resources that support your claims all you are doing is simply asserting you are correct, as I told you this is a fallacy, (assertum non est demonstratum)...

I have given you multiple quotes debunking your claims.. Yet it seems you continue to ignore them because you never address them... I know "ignorance is bliss" but ignoring the facts only makes you look like a fool.

You have yet to cite any resource which agrees with this claim... I however have given you many resources which debunk your claims, yet you ignored them on the other thread... (The second one directly debunks your claim)

In order to test whether your hypothesis is true or not, you have to carry out some research to see if you can back it up.

http://www.null-hypo...null_hypothesis

When you hypothesize something, you are not asserting anything about whether the hypothesis is true. It might be known true, known false, probable, improbable, completely unknown, or whatever. Usually the intention is to determine at some later stage the truth or falsity or probability of the hypothesis.

http://www.av8n.com/.../hypothesis.htm

When you hypothesize something, you are not asserting anything about whether the hypothesis is true.

I had hoped the giant lettering would alert your attention and dissuade you from ignoring this... Alas I admit I didn't know the depths you would ignore in order to claim you are correct. Read the 2nd quote it directly refutes your claim, you do not and can not make presumptions about the validity of the hypothesis BEFORE doing the experiment. IF you had studied science you would know this.

Of course it is. You specially said "The hypothesis is an assumption". You do not know it is true, but you do assume it is nevertheless.

A TENTATIVE assumption..... You continue to "forget" (aka ignore) this point. If the assumption is tentative (which is the definition of hypothesis you agreed with), then you cannot assume it is correct because it is TENTATIVE.

Additionally how does the hypothesis being an assumption allows you to assume it is true. The hypothesis is a tentative assumption about the a possible cause of an observation, it being an assumption doesn't allow you to assume it correct.

As I said much earlier on the other thread, you are assuming an assumption is correct? That is irrational... I am asking you to DEMONSTRATE how you are allowed to do this, you merely stating it does literally nothing to support your claim and only makes you look the fool (again).

That is right. You assume the hypothesis, and then you test it. Are you getting this? You do not know it is the cause, but you do assume it is.

The hypothesis is the assumption itself, you don't go and assume the assumption is true... Again where is your EVIDENCE?

Of course it is unsure. The point of testing is to get some certainty. You assume the hypothesis, even though (indeed because) you do not know if it is true or not.

Again all you are doing is claiming yourself correct.. Yet again I have to remind you that this is the assertum non est demonstratum fallacy. DEMONSTRATE how you are allowed to assume an unknown is true before you test it.

This is what you said on the other thread:

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5485&p=94898

"So rather than address the OP you instead create your own "challenge" why don't you create YOUR OWN thread rather than derail mine. I have seen on other threads that you like to derail them with tangents I will not allow you to further derail mine like you have over the last couple of pages."

Facepalm... Yes why don't you create your own thread about your tangents... That is what I was asking you to do. I gave you quotes of where I was asking you to do just that... I was addressing your "challenge" which I mentioned directly before asking you to create your own thread... Your challenge the one about relativity... Relativity has nothing to do with assuming "evolution did it" (which is the title of my thread).

In other words, Relativity is theoretical physics, I am discussing Biology. They are not relevant to each other, therefore create your own thread about this Relativity challenge, (as well as all your other tangents). Instead you have attempted to combine the two, when all you are doing is comparing apples to oranges.

Read the 2nd sentence... "I have seen on other threads that you like to derail them with tangents I will not allow you to further derail mine like you have over the last couple of pages"

I am not wanting you to derail my thread with your tangents hence I asked you to make a new thread for them... (them = the tangents... just so you can understand this time)

This is an example of your inability to comprehend... I'm starting to feel sorry for you dude.

I will be happy to get back to that thread, but this is an issue that was dominating our posts, so needs to be resolved.

Yes. Go and actually READ my posts, read what I have quoted...

Perhaps this is the best illustration of your confusion. Assuming the hypothesis, the tentative assumption, is part of making predictions. You assume the hypothesis specifically because you do not know if it is true or not. It is not indicative of having a strong belief that the hypothesis is right (though that may well be the case).

Yes the hypothesis is a prediction, I already told you this before. Its what you assume is the conclusion of the experiment... In my plant example, it is assumed that plant growth will be increased. However this doesn't allow you to assume it is true, or false or anything you cannot know until you do the experiment.

In fact if you had read up on hypothesis testing you would see that the null hypothesis is assumed to be true until there is reasonable cause to doubt it.. Meaning if anything the hypothesis is assumed to be false until the experiment demonstrates it is true... The exact opposite you claim, and in keeping with the cautious nature scientists are meant to exhibit.

Assuming the hypothesis is say that for the sake of argument you will suppose the the hypothesis is correct, and then use it to make predictions.

The hypothesis itself is the prediction.... It is the prediction of what you will observe in the experiment.

Hypothesis: If I add the endophytes there will be an increase in plant growth

I am predicting increase plant growth in my experiment... Understand? The hypothesis itself is the prediction of the experiment you use to verify it.

So you are claiming that you assume one prediction true in order to justify other predictions?.. Where does the scientific method claim this? Where is the experiment to verify the hypothesis you assume? You keep "forgetting" that...

You realise you are admitting that you're "predictions" are based on an assumption? Take away that assumption and your house of cards falls down.

It does not mean you believe the hypothesis is true, it does not mean you are sure the hypothesis is true.

That is what you are doing, despite what you claim.

Perhaps actually answer my request for EVIDENCE and give some for allowing people to assume a hypothesis is correct without experimental justification.

FaithfulCenturion · October 13, 2013

BK,

If I may, on a more layman's level, if you assume your hypothesis (assumption) is true, where is the driving force to go any further? Ie, if you assume evolution is true, where is the drive to prove so, and what is there to keep said idea from spawning more and worse "scientific" ideas? If you start with a faulty premise (evolution is true) you end up with faulty answers.

gilbo12345 · October 13, 2013

BK,

If I may, on a more layman's level, if you assume your hypothesis (assumption) is true, where is the driving force to go any further? Ie, if you assume evolution is true, where is the drive to prove so, and what is there to keep said idea from spawning more and worse "scientific" ideas? If you start with a faulty premise (evolution is true) you end up with faulty answers.

I agree, by doing so Bees is effectively skipping the experiment part of the scientific method in order justify the lack of experimentation done to verify the hypothesis "evolution did it".

As he has said before, Bees believes that observing things that fit the patterns for evolution is the "verification" however that just speaks to his misunderstanding of the scientific method. These things do not verify the hypothesis as the actual cause they only imply that it is possible. The verification comes with experiment, where a test is done to determine the actual cause... (As the scientific method dictates; hypothesis then experiment). The issue here is that Bees cannot consider that there may be other causes (some unknown) for the observations, this is why it needs to be tested. Its a momentous fail when a person simply assumes their position is correct by virtue of assuming it is the only position one can take.

However all this I have already attempted to explain to Bees

BeesKnees · October 14, 2013

gilbo12345

Do you know what the scientific method is? Where does it claim that you can assume the hypothesis is true? Where does any scientific resource make that claim?

Er, it was right there in the definition of hypothesis that you found (sorry, this is going to feature rather heavily):

Hypothesis: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

You admitted that you are not a scientist, I am and so are my colleagues with whom I have mentioned this issue of yours and they too agree that you're being irrational. As I said go ask your science teacher at school.

I admitted no such thing. Please stop making stuff up. It does your credibility no good.

Yes because a certain atheist cannot accept when he is wrong. As I said you have yet to give any form of resources that support your claims all you are doing is simply asserting you are correct, as I told you this is a fallacy, (assertum non est demonstratum)...

Again, it was right there in the definition of hypothesis that you found:

Hypothesis: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

I have given you multiple quotes debunking your claims.. Yet it seems you continue to ignore them because you never address them... I know "ignorance is bliss" but ignoring the facts only makes you look like a fool.

You gave a definition of hypothesis that shows I am right. Here is is again.

Hypothesis: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

Which bit of this are you not getting, gilbo? A hypothesis is an assumption. It is right there is the definition. A definition you gave.

As for the quotes, they failed to address the issue. We both agree it is tentative. We both agree experimental testing is done. They are fighting a straw man!

I had hoped the giant lettering would alert your attention and dissuade you from ignoring this... Alas I admit I didn't know the depths you would ignore in order to claim you are correct. Read the 2nd quote it directly refutes your claim, you do not and can not make presumptions about the validity of the hypothesis BEFORE doing the experiment. IF you had studied science you would know this.

Of course you do. It specifically says that in the definition.

Hypothesis: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

You make that assumption to draw out its logical consequences, i.e., predictions.

A TENTATIVE assumption..... You continue to "forget" (aka ignore) this point. If the assumption is tentative (which is the definition of hypothesis you agreed with), then you cannot assume it is correct because it is TENTATIVE.

Yes, a tentative assumption. Of course it is tentative. You do not know if it is true or not, but you assume it is to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences. Did you read that definition you found?

Additionally how does the hypothesis being an assumption allows you to assume it is true. The hypothesis is a tentative assumption about the a possible cause of an observation, it being an assumption doesn't allow you to assume it correct.

What does that mean? What are you assuming if you are not assuming it is true? Are you assuming it is false? Sometimes that is the way it is done too, I appreciate.

Can you please explain how you can assume sdomething without assuming it is true. Give an example. This is, I suspect, the crux of the issue.

See to me, if I assume all buses are red, then I am assuming that it is true that all buses are red. I ave no idea what it would mean to say that I am assuming all buses are red, but I am not assuming that it is true that all buses are right. Either way I am supposing that all buses being red is the case, and in both cases I am acknowledghing that this may well be wrong - in both cases the assumption is tentative.

As I said much earlier on the other thread, you are assuming an assumption is correct? That is irrational... I am asking you to DEMONSTRATE how you are allowed to do this, you merely stating it does literally nothing to support your claim and only makes you look the fool (again).

Assuming an assumption is correct is what assuming means. As I say, this would seem to be the crix of the matter.

Again all you are doing is claiming yourself correct.. Yet again I have to remind you that this is the assertum non est demonstratum fallacy. DEMONSTRATE how you are allowed to assume an unknown is true before you test it.

No, I am not claiming it is correct. see, this is the confusing. To assume a hypothesis is true is not to asseert or claim it is true, it is to suppose it is true. Can you see the difference? The hypothesis is tentative, we both agree with that right? No one is claiming the hypothesis is correct, instead, we assume it is.

Did I mention that defintion?

Hypothesis: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

It is tentatively assumed to be so. Not claimed to be so, not asserted to be so. Tentatively assumed.

Yes the hypothesis is a prediction, I already told you this before. Its what you assume is the conclusion of the experiment... In my plant example, it is assumed that plant growth will be increased. However this doesn't allow you to assume it is true, or false or anything you cannot know until you do the experiment.

But that is exactly what you are doing. Again, this is you seeing "assume" and "assume it is true" to be two very different things.

If we assume plant growth will be increased, then we predict that it will grow more
If we assume it is true that plant growth will be increased, then we predict that it will grow more

Please explain the difference here.

In fact if you had read up on hypothesis testing you would see that the null hypothesis is assumed to be true until there is reasonable cause to doubt it.. Meaning if anything the hypothesis is assumed to be false until the experiment demonstrates it is true... The exact opposite you claim, and in keeping with the cautious nature scientists are meant to exhibit.

As I already pointed out, the null hypothesis is looking at correlations in statistical data, so not quite what we are talking about. However:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
Hypothesis testing works by collecting data and measuring how likely the particular set of data is, assuming the null hypothesis is true.

Oh look, they are assuming something is true (albeit the reverse of the original hypothesis). Is it real science if they assume it is true? of course it is. They are not saying it is true, they are only assuming it is true to do the testing.

The hypothesis itself is the prediction.... It is the prediction of what you will observe in the experiment.

No it is not! Are you really a scientist? Did you read that definition?

Hypothesis: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

The hypothesis is what you use to draw out its logical or empirical consequences, i.e., its predictions, which you can then test.

Hypothesis: If I add the endophytes there will be an increase in plant growth

I am predicting increase plant growth in my experiment... Understand? The hypothesis itself is the prediction of the experiment you use to verify it.

If you make specific hypotheses, the predictions are bound up in it, true. What is the prediction from these more general hypotheses:

force is proportial to mass time acceleration
energy is conserved

You are presumably aware that hypothesis and prediction are classically described as two distint steps, right?

So you are claiming that you assume one prediction true in order to justify other predictions?.. Where does the scientific method claim this? Where is the experiment to verify the hypothesis you assume? You keep "forgetting" that...

The scientific methods claims that by its use of the word "hypothesis".

Hypothesis: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

See, the hypothesis is a tentative assumption. You tentatively assume it is true. Then you can use it to draw out its logical or empirical consequences. That is, you make predictions from it. Then you test that prediction.

I just mentioned the first law of thermodynamics. It is well established now, but let us turn back the clock. A scientist has noticed that energy apparently is not lost in various processes, and so proposes this law; his hypothesis.

Now, assuming (tentatively of course), that the hypothesis is true, then what do we predict? We can design a number of experiments in which energy is moving around, and carefully measure the total energy at the start and end. The prediction is that the start energy will be equal to the end energy, within experimental error.

You realise you are admitting that you're "predictions" are based on an assumption? Take away that assumption and your house of cards falls down.

Remember that definition of hypothesis? The way predictions are made is to do just that.

Hypothesis: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

It does not mean you believe the hypothesis is true, it does not mean you are sure the hypothesis is true.

That is what you are doing, despite what you claim.

See, there is that confusion. You seem convinced of this, but it is not so. Assuming something is true does not mean you are sure it is true, it means you assume it is true.

BeesKnees · October 14, 2013

If I may, on a more layman's level, if you assume your hypothesis (assumption) is true, where is the driving force to go any further? Ie, if you assume evolution is true, where is the drive to prove so, and what is there to keep said idea from spawning more and worse "scientific" ideas? If you start with a faulty premise (evolution is true) you end up with faulty answers.

I think you are suffering the same confusing as gilbo. You assume a hypothesis is true in order to draw out predictions from it, and those predictions can then be tested. That does not mean you assert it is true, or that you claim it is true. Only that you assume it is true.

When Einstein proposed relativity, he said, Look, let us assume relativity is true. If it is, then the orbit we would expect for Mercury is this. If we compare that to the real data, there is very good agreement. He supposed his hypothesis was true to draw out a prediction, and then tested that prediction.

Now that said, there is another type of assumption in science. Eventually theories are so well supported that scientists assume they are true. Most physicists nowadays are happy to assume relativity is true because there is so much evidence to support it (a few interested in tying relativity to QM will not; it is just a model, and they are in the business of refining it). Nowadays biologists assume evolution is true because there is so much evidence for it. Both of these assumptions are done on the basis of evidential support, and neither are the same as assuming the hypothesis, the topic of this thread (but thinking about it, may well be the source of gilbo's confusion).

gilbo12345 · October 14, 2013

I think you are suffering the same confusing as gilbo. You assume a hypothesis is true in order to draw out predictions from it, and those predictions can then be tested. That does not mean you assert it is true, or that you claim it is true. Only that you assume it is true.

As I told you before, and demonstrated with examples the hypothesis is the prediction you make for the experiment you use to confirm it.

Hypothesis: Adding endophytes to the plant will result in increased plant growth

Increased plant growth is being predicted...

As I said go and ask your science teacher I bet you she will agree with me.

When Einstein proposed relativity, he said, Look, let us assume relativity is true. If it is, then the orbit we would expect for Mercury is this. If we compare that to the real data, there is very good agreement. He supposed his hypothesis was true to draw out a prediction, and then tested that prediction.

Please give a quote of Einstein saying that we are allowed to assume a hypothesis is true. If not then don't claim he said such an absurd claim.

Now that said, there is another type of assumption in science. Eventually theories are so well supported that scientists assume they are true. Most physicists nowadays are happy to assume relativity is true because there is so much evidence to support it (a few interested in tying relativity to QM will not; it is just a model, and they are in the business of refining it).

Perhaps consider in what way is THEORETICAL physics can be related to EMPIRICAL biology....

Nowadays biologists assume evolution is true because there is so much evidence for it. Both of these assumptions are done on the basis of evidential support, and neither are the same as assuming the hypothesis, the topic of this thread (but thinking about it, may well be the source of gilbo's confusion).

Ah so what experiment support the hypothesis that evolution did it? I have yet to hear a single example.

"Evidence" based on assuming the hypothesis is true is not evidence which allows you to support assuming the hypothesis is true, since that is the begging the question fallacy. Do you really think that science is based on a logical fallacy?

Bond007 · October 14, 2013

Relativity and QM and have no bearing on the origin of the universe. Genesis/Darwin do.

Nowadays biologists assume evolution is true because there is so much evidence for it.

You mean evo biologists, you dont mean biblical creation biologists. Again defining words to suit yourself.

gilbo12345 · October 14, 2013

You mean evo biologists, you dont mean biblical creation biologists. Again defining words to suit yourself.

I agree, he's also redefining the scientific method since there is nothing in the scientific method which states to assume the hypothesis is correct before the experiment is done to verify it is.

Additionally did you notice how he claims you assume the hypothesis is correct and then you make predictions... Where is the experiment which verifies that assuming the hypothesis is correct is a correct assumption? He is building his house of cards on an unverified position.

BeesKnees · October 14, 2013

gilbo12345

As I told you before, and demonstrated with examples the hypothesis is the prediction you make for the experiment you use to confirm it.

And as I told you before, you are wrong.

http://www.scientus.org/Science-Method.html
Observation and description of natural phenomenon.
Formulation of a testable hypothesis to explain the phenomenon.
Use the hypothesis to predict other phenomenon or results.
Perform an experiment or experiments to ensure that results predicted based on hypothesis are achieved in the experiments.

http://biology.unm.edu/ccouncil/Biology_203/Summaries/ScientificMethod.htm
1. Observe some aspect of the universe and formulate a question about your observation.
2. Invent a tentative description to explain what you observed, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments, further observations, or synthesizing other available data. Modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/sci/hd.php
Identify the hypothesis to be tested.
Generate predications from the hypothesis.
Use experiments to check whether predictions are correct.
If the predictions are correct, then the hypothesis is confirmed. If not, then the hypothesis is disconfirmed.

Look the words up in a dictionary. You will find they have different meanings. You claim to be a scientist - ask your scientist buddies if they think a hypothesis is a prediction. A hypothesis is something you are assuming, a prediction is something you are predicting. Do you know the difference between "assume" and "predict"?

Sure, you can word a hypothesis so it is also a prediction, but in the scientific method, making a hypothesis, and drawing predictions from it, and two distinct steps. As I said last time.

Perhaps consider in what way is THEORETICAL physics can be related to EMPIRICAL biology....

They both use the same methodology.

Ah so what experiment support the hypothesis that evolution did it? I have yet to hear a single example.

Last time you were pretending I had said I was not a scientist (an acknowledgement that you had made an error might have been in order, but I appreciate creationists are pathologically unable to apologist to atheists). Now you are pretending I have not presented evidence for evolution.

The fact is that I stated a hypothesis, and followed it with three predictions and three tests of those predictions here:
http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5485&p=94624

You know very well that I did so, because you replied to that post.

"Evidence" based on assuming the hypothesis is true is not evidence which allows you to support assuming the hypothesis is true, since that is the begging the question fallacy. Do you really think that science is based on a logical fallacy?

Again, assuming the hyopothesis is what the hypothesis means.

Hypothesis: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

I see you have ignored that definition. I do not know how you can do so when I repeated it so often. Was the text to small? And let us not forget that it was you who presented that defintion.

I see you have refused to explain the difference betweem "assume the hypothesis" and "assume the hypothesis is true". I am not surprised. I strongly suspect you are now realising you are in the wrong.

I agree, he's also redefining the scientific method since there is nothing in the scientific method which states to assume the hypothesis is correct before the experiment is done to verify it is.

Nothing apart from what the word "hypothesis" means.

Hypothesis: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

I suppose if you ignore what the word means, and pretend it means predictions...

Additionally did you notice how he claims you assume the hypothesis is correct and then you make predictions... Where is the experiment which verifies that assuming the hypothesis is correct is a correct assumption? He is building his house of cards on an unverified position.

If the prediction is correct, the hypothesis is confirmed. That is how science is done. Look at the steps I quoted above.

Let us remind ourselves what you said last time:

Yes the hypothesis is a prediction, I already told you this before. Its what you assume is the conclusion of the experiment... In my plant example, it is assumed that plant growth will be increased. However this doesn't allow you to assume it is true, or false or anything you cannot know until you do the experiment.

If you are right, gilbo, then you will have no problem explaining the difference between assuming that plant growth will be increased and assuming it is true.

I think you are talking nonsense, and I think you know it. My prediction, then (based on that tentative assumption), is that you will not be able to explain the difference.

gilbo12345 · October 14, 2013

And as I told you before, you are wrong.

http://www.scientus.org/Science-Method.html

Observation and description of natural phenomenon.

Formulation of a testable hypothesis to explain the phenomenon.

Use the hypothesis to predict other phenomenon or results.

Perform an experiment or experiments to ensure that results predicted based on hypothesis are achieved in the experiments.

As was my first point of contention... Where are your EXPERIMENTS? You need to verify the hypothesis.

And no, ad hoc observations made from assuming the hypothesis is true are not EXPERIMENTS that verify the hypothesis is true, I know this is what people from the League of "Reason" were claiming, however as I have told you over and over that is the begging the question fallacy, additionally they are not EXPERIMENTS.

If you cannot formulate an experiment for the hypothesis then guess what you don't have a scientific hypothesis in the empirical sense. Simple.

I guess you "forgot" to read their definitions, (yet again you skip over the information in your links)

http://biology.unm.edu/ccouncil/Biology_203/Summaries/ScientificMethod.htm

Hypothesis - a working assumption, a possible cause, an educated guess, a tentative answer to some question. Contains only a statement of possible fact.

Prediction – what you expect to be true if your hypothesis is correct, formed as an if-then statement.

It STILL doesn't allow you to assume a hypothesis to be true.

http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/sci/hd.php

Identify the hypothesis to be tested.

Generate predications from the hypothesis.

Use experiments to check whether predictions are correct.

If the predictions are correct, then the hypothesis is confirmed. If not, then the hypothesis is disconfirmed.

Look the words up in a dictionary. You will find they have different meanings. You claim to be a scientist - ask your scientist buddies if they think a hypothesis is a prediction. A hypothesis is something you are assuming, a prediction is something you are predicting. Do you know the difference between "assume" and "predict"?

Sure, you can word a hypothesis so it is also a prediction, but in the scientific method, making a hypothesis, and drawing predictions from it, and two distinct steps. As I said last time.

That is the overarching hypothesis for my thesis..... My supervisor doesn't have a problem with it...

Really because in my tertiary studies we were taught exactly what I have been telling you,

Observation > Hypothesis > Experiment > Results

Perhaps because I was studying EMPIRICAL Biology rather than theoretical science.

The steps of the scientific method are to:

Ask a Question

Do Background Research

Construct a HypothesisTest Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment

Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion

Communicate Your Results

It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. A "fair test" occurs when you change only one factor (variable) and keep all other conditions the same.

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml

Also see the link Ron gave you.

They both use the same methodology.

Nope wrong.

Theoretical research has its findings based on existing theories and hypothesis...there is no practical application in the research.

Empirical research has its findings based on the verification through experiments, experiences and observations......

So again I ask you why are you attempting to use theoretical methodology for something which is claimed to be a part of Biology, (an empirical science)... Hmm very curious... I think that is the crux of the problem. If you want to debate an issue on empirical science be sure to use the methodology we use in empirical science. When in Rome...

gilbo12345 · October 14, 2013

Last time you were pretending I had said I was not a scientist (an acknowledgement that you had made an error might have been in order, but I appreciate creationists are pathologically unable to apologist to atheists). Now you are pretending I have not presented evidence for evolution.

You said you were not a Biologist, which makes you a layman in Biology. I suspect you are a theoretical physicist? Perhaps that is the source of your confusion. You know what the word THEORETICAL means?

the·o·ret·i·cal (th-rt-kl) also the·o·ret·ic (-rtk)

adj.

1. Of, relating to, or based on theory.

2. Restricted to theory; not practical: theoretical physics.

3. Given to theorizing; speculative.

So I guess it all makes sense now, if you are a theoretical scientist then of course you are not going to be concerned with experiments, its not a part of what you do.

HOWEVER, when it comes to Biology, experiments are king.

The fact is that I stated a hypothesis, and followed it with three predictions and three tests of those predictions here:

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5485&p=94624

I already responded to your "evidence". However as I keep on telling you in Biology we use EXPERIMENTS to verify a hypothesis. Observations are not experiments.

As I told you these "predictions" were based on the assumed hypothesis you are claiming to verify... In other words..

- You assume the hypothesis is true in order to justify your predictions

- You then use the predictions to justify the hypothesis

Can you not see that this is circular reasoning?

You know very well that I did so, because you replied to that post.

Yet again I remind you that making predictions are not EXPERIMENTS.. I ask you for experiments and you give me predictions... Is a prediction an experiment, (first consider the fact that they have different names and different roles).

Again, assuming the hyopothesis is what the hypothesis means.

How does this in any way address my comment, you are ignoring it. I told you that if your evidence is based on your assumption then it cannot be used to verify your assumption because that is the begging the question fallacy, and science is not based on a fallacy.

"Evidence" based on assuming the hypothesis is true is not evidence which allows you to support assuming the hypothesis is true, since that is the begging the question fallacy. Do you really think that science is based on a logical fallacy?

I have demonstrated that you are engaged in using the begging the question fallacy, it seems that you continue to do exactly what you have done on the other thread... Ignore that I point this out and continue on as if it was never said.

gilbo12345 · October 14, 2013

Hypothesis: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

I see you have ignored that definition. I do not know how you can do so when I repeated it so often. Was the text to small? And let us not forget that it was you who presented that defintion.

How have I ignored this definition? Assertum non est demonstratum fallacy (yet again).

It seems YOU keep ignoring me since I will say again the world TENTATIVE ensures that you cannot assume the hypothesis is true.

ten·ta·tive (tnt-tv)

adj.

1. Not fully worked out, concluded, or agreed on; provisional: tentative plans.

2. Uncertain; hesitant.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tentative

Oh provisional, like making the hypothesis and then VERIFYING it by an experiment... Oh exactly what I have been telling you...

Additionally I refer you to the links you continue to ignore...

In order to test whether your hypothesis is true or not, you have to carry out some research to see if you can back it up.

http://www.null-hypo...null_hypothesis

If you are testing to see whether the hypothesis is true or not then you are not assuming it is true...

When you hypothesize something, you are not asserting anything about whether the hypothesis is true. It might be known true, known false, probable, improbable, completely unknown, or whatever. Usually the intention is to determine at some later stage the truth or falsity or probability of the hypothesis.

http://www.av8n.com/.../hypothesis.htm

When you hypothesize something, you are not asserting anything about whether the hypothesis is true.

I see you have refused to explain the difference betweem "assume the hypothesis" and "assume the hypothesis is true". I am not surprised. I strongly suspect you are now realising you are in the wrong.

Assume the hypothesis? What does that mean... Assume the hypothesis...what? Seems like you've asked me to explain something illogical...

as·sume (-sm)

tr.v. as·sumed, as·sum·ing, as·sumes

1. To take upon oneself: assume responsibility; assume another's debts.

2. To undertake the duties of (an office): assumed the presidency.

3. To take on; adopt: "The god assumes a human form" (John Ruskin).

4. To put on; don: The queen assumed a velvet robe.

5. To affect the appearance or possession of; feign.

6. To take for granted; suppose: assumed that prices would rise. See Synonyms at presume.

7. To take over without justification; seize: assume control.

8. To take up or receive into heaven.

As I keep telling you it is a TENTATIVE assumption, you cannot claims something which is TENTATIVE is True... Because being true (or false) is the opposite of tentative.

Nothing apart from what the word "hypothesis" means.

Hypothesis: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

I suppose if you ignore what the word means, and pretend it means predictions...

Again I refer you to the word TENTATIVE.... TENTATIVE = UNSURE

If you are unsure of something then it is irrational to assume it is true

If the prediction is correct, the hypothesis is confirmed. That is how science is done. Look at the steps I quoted above.

Oh so the hypothesis that we are the centre of the universe is correct because that prediction was correct also... (As I told you earlier on the other thread and you ignored it).

Where does your links claim what you say here? Oh look what one of them say?... Exactly what I have been saying to you...

In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary.

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

Oops.... So I guess your links only apply to whatever you want to include and all else can go over a cliff? That is called cherry picking.

Let us remind ourselves what you said last time:

If you are right, gilbo, then you will have no problem explaining the difference between assuming that plant growth will be increased and assuming it is true.

I have told you this over and over

Predicting plant growth will increase is a TENTATIVE assumption it is not known for sure, because I hadn't done the experiment yet... That is what I have been trying to teach you.... There is no requirement to assume the hypothesis is true for any prediction. I think this is where you are majorly confused. In order to make a prediction you do not need to assume your hypothesis is true, you simply grant that it is TENTATIVE, that it is possible, that it is an unknown.

Additionally I already told you if you assume your hypothesis is true then you cannot create predictions from it since if you claim it is true then what you claim follows from the hypothesis is simple a claim about it, since you assume it is true there is no need for a prediction because you assume it is true and whatever follows will come to pass. Meaning in order to make a prediction in the first place you cannot assume the hypothesis is true.

Therefore there is no reason for you to claim to assume the hypothesis is true.

I think you are talking nonsense, and I think you know it. My prediction, then (based on that tentative assumption), is that you will not be able to explain the difference.

Your prediction fails.

In fact you already conceded with this statement

Now, assuming (tentatively of course), that the hypothesis is true, then what do we predict?

You've changed your stance from assuming the hypothesis is true, to assuming it is tentative (you can forget adding the word true since it carries no meaning with the tentative in front of it, you can say tentatively false and it would mean the exactly the same thing). This is what I have been telling you over and over you don't assume it is true, you merely take it as an unknown, you don't know if its true or not that is why you are doing the tests... Finally starting to teach you something.

Ok lets for arguments sake allow you to assume "evolution did it", (even though you have given no reason for assuming it is correct making predictions doesn't require you to assume it is correct).... Now what?

You (tentatively) assume evolution was the cause of similarities in fossils, ok then where is the experiment to confirm that hypothesis? You know all those links you posted, they all claim that you verify a hypothesis with an experiment, so even if I allow you to assume the hypothesis is true and you make these predictions (based on an unverified assumption), where is the experiment which supports such an assumption?

Now I know you will claim that having those predictions come true, (if they are valid predictions not ad hoc ones in the first place) is your verification... However that is NOT what your links say. As I have been trying to teach you, there may well be an unknown cause or reason for these observations, meaning you cannot simply assume whatever you imagine to be true is true.

As I told you earlier...

Hypothesis: The Earth is the centre of the universe

Prediction: The sun and stars will all revolve around the Earth

Apparently using your "logic" this hypothesis holds true, because its prediction is correct. However we now know this hypothesis is false due to the fact that there is a different reason, (an unknown hypothesis), for the observations which confirmed the prediction.

This is why you NEED experiments to verify your hypothesis!

Because all I or any other Creationist needs to do is simply point out that you are basing your beliefs on an unverified assumption, unverified assumptions are not scientific... And bam there goes your claims, your predictions, everything, due to the bad foundation they were based on. As I said your house of cards fall down.

FaithfulCenturion · October 14, 2013

BK, in the simplest terms, when you assume your hypothesis is true, you are introducing your biases into your science. It causes you to (most often subconsciously) disregard certain evidences that may run contrary to your hypothesis. In in other words, you're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, if you will.

Mike Summers · October 14, 2013

Let me see if I can try to explain to you in different words, what gilbo ia trying to show you.

You observe a small furry creature scurrying towards you. You immediately create an hypothesis in your mind to explain that it is probably a dog. You've had previous experience with four legged furry little creatures that turn out to be dogs..

Neither creationists or evolutionists are debating whether dogs exist or not. Most of us, if not all of us, will readily accept that your hypothesis about a furry little creature being a dog is a valid theory.

After your first hypothesis is determined a theory, you may construct an hypothesis of how a dog came to exist. Let's say that hypothesis is evolution. To prove your hypothesis can be a theory you will have to do experiments to replicate a dog via the the alleged evolutionary process. If you cannot demonstrate that you can evolve a dog from a previous ancestor which was an animal that is not a dog, then your hypothesis of evolution remains an hypothesis and cannot be considered a theory.

The only way you can override this conclusion is by using your innate ability to override reality with your own innate creativity. However that is not science.

Here's the problem with assuming an hypothesis is true. An assumed hypothesis could be the initiator of an effect. And yes that hypothesis could be the cause of an effect which would prove it a theory that is valid. But it would not cause the effect you originally observed. Because a causative agent preceded an observed effect does not allow us to conclude that it caused the originally observed effect..

An effect is not the same as a cause. If we observe an effect, it already exists. Causes exist before effects. While it's true, that an effect may initiate another cause-and-effect paradigm, If the first alleged cause is actually an unrelated hypothesis/ theory to an observed effect, it would as a causative agent produce a different effect than the one originally observed. Error will compounded the further down the chain from our assumed hypothesis.

BeesKnees · October 15, 2013

gilbo12345

Can you please stop with the straw men?

Straw man 1: Tentative

I have never said that assuming something is true is not a tentative assumption.

From post #1:

When Einstein first thought of it, relativity was a hypothesis; that is, a tentative assumption that he made, according to gilbo's defintion. gilbo seems to take the position that Einstein can make a tentative assumption about relativity, but cannot assume it is true. So what did Einstein assume? Exactly what weas that tentative assumption?

From post #8:

No, to assume it is correct is to suppose that that is the case without proof. To be sure something is correct is quite different to assuming it is correct.

From post #10:

Do you know what "assume" means? You assume the hypothesis (that is, you assume the tentative assumption). That is not the same as claiming it is true.

From post #14

See to me, if I assume all buses are red, then I am assuming that it is true that all buses are red. I ave no idea what it would mean to say that I am assuming all buses are red, but I am not assuming that it is true that all buses are right. Either way I am supposing that all buses being red is the case, and in both cases I am acknowledghing that this may well be wrong - in both cases the assumption is tentative.

Also from post #14:

As for the quotes, they failed to address the issue. We both agree it is tentative. We both agree experimental testing is done. They are fighting a straw man!

Now this forum has rules about dilberately misrepresenting an opponent. Given that I have pointed this out to you several times already, do you think you can desist from doing so again?

Straw man 2: Experiments

I have never said experiments are not required.

From post #1

My position is the hypothesis of relativity was assumed to be true. If we assume relativity is true, then we can make calculations about the world using relativity, abnd then do experiments to confirm those result.

Also from post #1

Just to be clear here, we all agree that verifying experiments are done,

From post #8:

We all agree that a hypothesis is verified via the experiments done, and that a hypothesis is unknown to be true until the experiment is done. Can we drop the straw men please?

From post #14:

As for the quotes, they failed to address the issue. We both agree it is tentative. We both agree experimental testing is done. They are fighting a straw man!

If you can stop attacking straw men, perhaps we can focus on those areras where we disagree.

By the way, I appreciate I have been accused of misrepresenting people a few times, and I am sure to be called a hypocrite. I would like to point out in advance that these were all accidental, and as soon as it was pointed out to me that I had misunderstood, I stopped (and in most cases explained the cause of my confusion). In contrast, I have pointed out to you that you are misrepresenting me on several occasions, and yet you persist in doing so. In my case, it was because of confusion. In your case it looks increasingly like a deliberate strategy (of course, if you think I have changed my position, then do please go back though my posts and quote the parts that prove that to be the case).

How Is Science Done? Assuming The Hypothesis!

Recommended Posts

BeesKnees 1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Bond007 46

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Ron 10

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Ron 10

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

gilbo12345 860

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Ron 10

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

BeesKnees 1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

BeesKnees 1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

gilbo12345 860

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

BeesKnees 1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

gilbo12345 860

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

FaithfulCenturion 206

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

gilbo12345 860

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

BeesKnees 1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

BeesKnees 1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

gilbo12345 860

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Bond007 46

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

gilbo12345 860

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

BeesKnees 1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

gilbo12345 860

Share this post