Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Working Hypothesis -- what is the value?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 32 of 92 (735617)
08-19-2014 7:51 AM


The principles used to design and build bridges have a proven track record of success.
This has little or nothing to do with unsubstantiated myths about the existence of the Abominable Snowman.
To label them both as "working hypotheses" and insist that they are in some way methodologically the same is just conflation by virtue of linguistic contortion.

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 47 of 92 (735634)
08-19-2014 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by RAZD
08-19-2014 10:36 AM


Re: for the purpose of discovering further evidence
With regard to the abominable snowman and bears as per the OP — One could hypothesise that the abominable snowman is a myth borne of human invention combined with the embellishment of some genuine, but highly misinterpreted, bear sightings.
This hypothesis has the benefit of:
A) Being falsifiable (by the discovery of a creature that is consistent with the legend rather than just a bear)
B) Leading to verifiable predictions (e.g. proclaimed sightings of the creature conform to observable migration patterns of bears in the region, physical evidence of the creature is analysed and found to be bear fur/droppings/whatever))
C) Being based on the wealth of evidence that human beings have a tendency to create such myths and make such embellishments
Evidentially supported, falsifiable and with potentially verifiable predictions.
Isn’t that a better hypothesis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 08-19-2014 10:36 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by NoNukes, posted 08-19-2014 12:18 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 79 by RAZD, posted 09-07-2014 5:39 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 65 of 92 (735684)
08-22-2014 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by RAZD
08-21-2014 7:43 PM


Re: for the purpose of discovering further evidence
In Message 47 I provided an evidence based falsifiable hypthosis for the abominable snowman. Why are you insisting on some unfalsifiable variant? Why do that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 08-21-2014 7:43 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 70 of 92 (735742)
08-23-2014 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by NoNukes
08-22-2014 8:25 PM


Re: logic and science vs engineer and equivocation
Just to add fuel to the flames...
Is genetic engineering undertaken by scientists? Or engineers?
Frankly I think in a lot of cases there is enough overlap that attempting to make a clear distinction is a futile exercise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by NoNukes, posted 08-22-2014 8:25 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by NoNukes, posted 08-23-2014 9:51 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 73 of 92 (735750)
08-23-2014 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by RAZD
08-23-2014 12:43 PM


Re: logic and scientist vs engineer and equivocation
Are those who undertake gentic engineering scientists? Or engineers?
And why does it matter here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 08-23-2014 12:43 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by NoNukes, posted 08-23-2014 10:41 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 74 of 92 (735751)
08-23-2014 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by RAZD
08-23-2014 12:43 PM


Re: logic and scientist vs engineer and equivocation
Are those who undertake gentic engineering scientists? Or engineers?
And why does it matter here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 08-23-2014 12:43 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 85 of 92 (736385)
09-08-2014 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by RAZD
09-07-2014 5:39 PM


Re: discovering further evidence and "human imagination" pseudoscience
The hypothesis that the abominable snowman is a mythical creature is falsified by the discovery of a real abominable snowman.
Nothing about this hypothesis stops anyone actively investigating the existence of such a creature or actively seeking to falsify the hypothesis in question.
Evidence which suggest that proclaimed sightings of the abominable snowman are in fact bear sightings with a large degree of elaboration added on top, would be supportive of the mythical creature hypothesis in question. Only someone desperate not to be wrong and intent on a course of terminological woo woo would start saying that the abominable snowman really does exist because bears exist......
quote:
The scientific community generally regards the Yeti as a legend, given the lack of conclusive evidence, but it remains one of the most famous creatures of cryptozoology.
quote:
Cryptozoology is not a recognized branch of zoology or a discipline of science. It is an example of pseudoscience because it relies heavily upon anecdotal evidence, stories and alleged sightings.
The hypothesis that the abominable snowman is a mythical creature is the working hypothesis of he scientific community on this matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by RAZD, posted 09-07-2014 5:39 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by NoNukes, posted 09-09-2014 1:09 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 89 of 92 (736409)
09-09-2014 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by NoNukes
09-09-2014 1:09 PM


Re: discovering further evidence and "human imagination" pseudoscience
NN writes:
But such a hypothesis is not very specific.
Well it was more specific in Message 47
I haven't deviated from that except to refer to it in shortened form.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by NoNukes, posted 09-09-2014 1:09 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 90 of 92 (736426)
09-10-2014 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by RAZD
09-08-2014 8:21 AM


Re: discovering further evidence and "human imagination" pseudoscience
RAZD writes:
The 'human imagination' hypothesis (Message 79) is that anything that is believed to exist without empirical objective evidence is actually due to human imagination, rather than any objective reality or observation
Well, not really.
In a lot of cases it's not so much pure invention as embellishment, misinterpretation and wishful thinking over-laden on top of relatively mundane observations and perceptions.
E.g. A bear sighting gets reported as an encounter with the abominable snowman. That sort of thing.
RAZ writes:
Further note that the 'human imagination' hypothesis does not provide any useful or practical prediction of something not previously known or considered
Again - Not true. The question as to why humans are both so prone to, and capable of, such invention is a question that has led to much psychological research and borne some significant evolutionary answers. The human proclivity to seek patterns, the proclivity to think teleologically, hyperactive agency detection and other such phenomena are all ongoing areas of scientific investigation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2014 8:21 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by 1.61803, posted 09-10-2014 12:37 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 92 of 92 (736452)
09-10-2014 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by 1.61803
09-10-2014 12:37 PM


Re: discovering further evidence and "human imagination" pseudoscience
Numbers writes:
In other words, human imagination.
Well, yes.
But human imagination doesn't operate in a vacuum. Most of the fantastical things we can imagine but which don't actually exist aren't entirely 100% original. They are often wild extrapolations and elaborations of things that we can observe.
So, yes, it's human imagination at work if the abominable snowman legend is actually largely based on misinterpreted and elaborated-upon bear sightings.
Nice pic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by 1.61803, posted 09-10-2014 12:37 PM 1.61803 has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024