Is My Hypothesis Valid???

I have argued from two opposing ends of the spectrum that:(objective evidence) + (logic) = (hypothesis)In one case I argued that this was not enough to make ID by means of a supernatural entity a viable scientific hypothesis. I argued this on the basis of the inherent untestability of the conclusion (i.e. the conclusion that a supernatural entity was required as a "designer").In another discussion I have also argued that the idea of extraterrestrial life is a viable hypothesis despite the fact that this hypothesis is arguably irrefutable in practical terms.Now I accept that there is a difference between something being inherently untestable and something being untestable in practical terms only. Is the Higgs Boson strictly testable in practical terms at the moment? Does that make it's hypothetical existence non-scientific?BUT I am keen to explore the potential contradictions in my own thinking on these matters by inviting others to comment. As a proviso I would add that my thinking since the ID argument (a great debate topic with Rob for the record) has progressed since that time.What is a valid hypothesis? Need it be derived from evidence? Need it be refutable?If promoted I intend to take a "devils advocate" position on this initially and oppose everyone that comments almost on principle. However given my overly opinionated stance on most things I am sure that this will be short lived and that my true position will surface all too soon.If promoted - Is It Science is the obvious place for this....Alien life exists - Is this a valid hypothesis?
An intelligent designer exists - Is this a valid hypothesis?

I meant to ask if the hypothesis is a valid hypothesis rather than whether or not is has actually been validated as correct.Things like:1) Is it derived from evidence?
2) Is it falsifiable?
3) Is it inherently untestable for some reason?etc.But I can see where my terminology is confusing.One of my post pub not so great posts........

Yes good point.I am not talking about a hypothesis being validated. I do indeed mean "valid" or "well-formed" in terms of construction rather than verification.I had a look at thesaurus alternatives for "valid" and "well-formed" was as good a choice as any.So what makes a "well-formed" hypothesis?Do either of the examples given in the OP qualify as well-formed hypotheses?

Absolutely. Let's take that as a given. I am talking about unverified hypotheses here. OK. I agree. I agree with that too.With my Devils Advocate hat on - At what point does in principle and in practise merge? If the alien life hypothesis were to be applied to those areas of the universe beyond the observable universe would that aspect of the hypothesis be invalidated on the grounds of being "unknowable"? I agree.But again to stir the pot a little.......Is alien visitation a legitimate hypothesis by the standards you are applying here? Not the specifics (like people being probed) just the hypothesis that this could occur.

Um indeed. I think you are taking things a little literally here......It is not a mathematical equation. Just a quick way of writing that a hypothesis is formed by combining establshed evidence of some sort with a degree of speculative logic.Do you disagree with that? If so how would you suggest that a hypothesis is formed?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

A bit clunky.How about the word "legitimate"?What defines a legitimate hypothesis?

I think I agree. We cannot say that the Higgs Boson (for example) suddenly becomes a valid hypothesis when we get the LHC up and running but was not a valid hypothesis before this occurs. Either it is a valid hypothesis or it is not.And who knows what technologies tomorrow will bring that will make the seemingly untestable open to investigation. I dunno. I am actually starting to think that ID is better described as a refuted hypothesis. The concept of irreducible complexity specifically is arguably a scientific hypothesis that can be tested. It just so happens that these tests have resulted in a negative result as far as this hypothesis goes.So I think ID can be, depending on the argument put forward to support it, argued to be a valid hypothesis. I just think it is a failed hypothesis. No green men. No English. And no indecent probes of any sort.On the basis that we know that intelligent life has evolved on this planet and that we also know there to be a multitude of other planets out there capable of potentially evolving intelligent life - I would say that the possibility of intelligent alien life is evidenced to some minimal degree.I am not saying it is probable. I am certainly not claiming that there is any evidence on which to conclude the actuality of intelligent alien life. I am merely saying that intelligent alien life is enough of an evidenced possibility to be described as a "hypothesis".Is the SETI project derived from evidence and thus a valid investigation into this hypothesis? Or is the SETI project just an unevidenced blast of wishful thinking gone mad? I would argue the former.But no I don't think the little green men are walking amongst us.....

I am not sure what the answer is either.
Just to heap hypotheis upon hypothesis upon hypotheis to come up with total science fiction it is arguable that futute technologies or discoveries might expand what the "observable" universe actually is. I am thinking of wormholes and the like to shortcut to otherwise unreachable destinations.But I am not seriously suggesting this. Just pushing the boundaries of "testable in principle" to it's hypothetical limit. No UFOlogy here. I guess I mean the possibility not just of alien life existing but of intelligent alien life with space travel capabilities not dissimilar to our own (although perhaps slightly superior to make the question more interesting). Is that a valid hypothesis by the standard you have suggested?I am not talking about the actuality of aliens having already visited us. I think we both agree that this sort of claim is essentially unevidenced nonsense.

We seem to broadly agree agree on the following regarding a good/valid/legitimate/well formed/whatever hypothesis.1) A hypothesis should be derived from established objective evidence.2) Conclusions which are inherently untestable in principle cannot be claimed as valid hypotheses.3) Conclusions which are able to be tested in principle but which cannot be tested due to current practical or technological limitations can be claimed as valid hypotheses. Not ideal. But valid nevertheless.Is that fair? Yeah I would broadly go along with that. I think that the possibility that alien visitation could occur is both derived from evidence and testable in principle. By the above criteria it is a valid hypothesis. Just.I also agree that other evidence (distances involved, the restrictions on speed implied by the laws of physics, the relative rarity of hospitable planets etc. etc. etc. etc.) suggest that this is incredibly unlikely and that this strongly negates any of the ridiculously weak evidence that is used to support the claim that alien visitation has actually already occurred.So much for my devils advocate approach...........Finally - Intelligent Design. I would say that an approach to ID that is in principle testable (e.g. the irreducible complexity argument) is indeed a valid hypothesis. I would just add that it is also a refuted hypothesis.

I accept that. Brevity and lack of any significant disagreement is the only reason I didn't make more of the issues you mention. I think the ability of mathematical extrapolation to derive hypotheses that have been successfully verified (e.g. General Relativity, Quantum Electrodynamics etc.) indicates a fascinating link between maths and reality.Who knows how string theory will fare ultimately. But the pedigree of this mathematical method of deriving valid hypotheses is both remarkable and significant. No particular argument from me there either. I had to look up "Fermi paradox" as I had not heard this phrase before despite being aware of the problem it describes.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Let's take it as read that we are talking about hypotheses as applied to investigating reality rather than pure mathematics. Let's also take it as read that unless otherwise stated we are using the term "hypothesis" to refer to those conclusions which are as yet untested and which may well be false.So do you or don't you think scientific hypotheses need necessarily be derived from objective evidence?So do you or don't you see a difference between an inherently untestable hypothesis and a hypothesis that is testable in principle but which it is beyond our current practical or technological capabilities to actually test?(objective evidence) + (logic) = (hypothesis)Is the above incorrect, as applied to investigating reality as opposed to pure maths? If so how is it wrong exactly?Is the SETI project a valid scientific investigation in principle? Is it's working hypothesis (i.e. that alien intelligence exists) derived from objective evidence of some sort? Or is it just the product of watching too much 'X Files' in your view?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I would agree with most of that.But what technologies would enable this process to be more scientific? Are they technologies that are in principle possible? Or do they need to be technologies that are deemed practically realistic?

Dictionary definitions are a poor indicator as to how science and scientists actually operate. Despite this you base your entire argument on a slavish adherence to the specific dictionary definition proposed by you in your previous post: I don't dispute that a hypothesis can be a "supposition provisionally adopted" to explain observed phenomenon. I do not dispute this as a valid form of hypothesis at all. But your definition largely eliminates the role of scientific hypotheses in the discovery of new physical phenomenon.By the definition you insist upon scientific hypotheses are restricted to explanations of currently observable phenomenon only. By this definition a valid scientific hypothesis cannot be in itself a prediction of an as yet unevidenced phenomenon. By adhering to this definition you are denying one of the main methods by which science progresses.Consider the predicted existence of the CMB or the predicted existence of antimater. Neither of these phenomenon were proposed to explain other facts or observations. They were instead the direct result of extrapolating known evidence by means of logic to predict something completely new and as yet unevidenced at the time. Both were the result of:(objective evidence) + (logic) = (hypothesis)By the terms of your argument neither of these predictions of new and unevidenced physical phenomenon was worthy of the term "hypothesis". As you said: By your definition two of the most successfully verified hypotheses in the history of science were unworthy of the term "hypothesis" prior to being verified. Both were merely "conjecture". Doesn't this cause you to rethink your definition at all? Your answer to this seems to be 'No'.Can you give an example of any now verified hypothesis that was not derived from objective evidence? I am still unclear as to your exact position on this question.In the context of the validity of a scientific hypothesis do you draw a distinction between the inherently untestable and the technologically untestable? Or not? You seem to be saying that the actuality of advanced space-travelling alien life having visted Earth and interracted with humans is better and more directly evidenced than the possibility that simple and as yet undetected alien life might exist elsewhere in our galaxy.That is quite a bizzarre claim............?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Whilst I wait in eager anticipation of your response to my previous post I thought it would be worth asking this one simple question that seems to sum up the essence of our differences.Has it ever occurred to you that there is a reason why most established and respected universities have a department of theoretical phyiscs whilst none, that I am aware of, have a department of any sort devoted to "subjective evidence"?Why do you think that is?

How kind.Let's consider a specific example shall we? In light of your prior definitions would you be so kind as to enlighten us as to exactly which aspects of the theory of relativity (pre-verification) were "just conjecture" and which were "hypotheses"? Which were explanatory and which were not. Be specific. Oh I may well yet lose the argument of definitions. We will see how you get on with applying your definitions to the above example.But you lost the argument (and the plot) with regard to differing forms of evidence a very long time ago. Hiding behind semantics, even with a hollow victory to your name, won't change that fact. Yes Raz. But the question is why is theoretical physics accepted science? Is the methodology scientifically valid in your opinion? Or is it just unscientific conjecture? ("pissing in the wind" as you so eloquently put it previously elsewhere) Indeed. Nobody is denying that. But how many of these studies conclude, as you do, that wholly subjective experiences can be called "evidence" with regard to objective reality?I will ask yet again - Can you give an example of any now verified hypothesis that was not derived from objective evidence?If not then I would suggest that any reliance on wholly subjective "evidence" is "pissing in the wind" to such an extent that anyone who advocates this method of determining reality as remotely valid should be deemed intellectually incontinent. The logical extrapolation of objective evidence has a long and distinguished pedigree of deriving "conjecture" that has subsequently been scientifically verified. A proven track record that has resulted in this form of investigation being universally deemed evidentially and scientifically valid. A proven track record that has resulted in the finest academic institutions in the world having well funded sections devoted almost entirely to this form of scientific investigation. A proven track record that means that this form of investigation is widely deemed to be more than "just conjecture".Regardless of your little definitions. It is based on knowing the conditions in which life evolved on this planet and extrapolating the evidence available to derive the possibility that life has also arisen and evolved in similar conditions elsewhere. A perfectly scientific proposition. By any sane standard of evidence. As usual you claim misrepresentation without making any effort to clarify what you did actually mean by your apparently outlandish statement. So why don't you tell us what did you mean by this specific quote exactly?Are subjective claims regarding actual encounters with advanced alien lifeforms visiting Earth more or less reliably evidenced than the logical extrapolation of objective evidence that is being used to derive the possibility of simple life existing elsewhere in our galaxy?On what evidential basis do you draw this conclusion? I think you are confusing an attempt to describe the valid workings of science with an effort to define them. As a shorthand description (which is all it was ever meant to be) I think it remains as valid as was ever intended.Nobody, certainly not I, has ever claimed to be able to encompass the entirety of the scientific method and the philosophy of science in four words. That would be ridiculous.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.