Is My Hypothesis Valid???

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

The point is that even though those are themselves speculations that seem unlikely we can't absolutely rule them out. To say that an idea is untestable in principle means that we have ruled out any possibility of testing it.

quote:

---

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?

---

It depends a lot on the nature of the hypothesis. In it's most general form it's at the far end of those that can be investigated in principle - there's no chance of us doing it at any time in the forseeable future (although I'd say we've got good reasons to doubt that there is any anywhere near us - where "near" is measured on the scale of our galaxy).

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.

Aside from questions of terminology and maybe a little improvement on the third - it does matter how difficult the problems are - I pretty much agree. I would like to see more emphasis on indirect support, too. (String theory has a lot of problems with testability, but a lot of good points, as well).

quote:

---

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.

---

Don't forget the Fermi Paradox and the failure of SETI to find anything but one possible - and unrepeated - signal. The sheer lack of evidence convinces me that there are at most a few species capable of space travel within our galaxy.

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.

Hi Straggler. Let me play "devils advocate" to your "devils advocate" then ... My first impression of "hypothesis" is that it is essentially a logical construction, as used in math, and formal logic, and isn't necessarily tied to objective evidence. A hypothesis is "true" IF the logical structure is valid and the premises are "true" ... and that at some point you have a set of starting assumptions considered "true" for the sake of argument. Because of this logical basis, a hypothesis does not have to be testable or falsifiable, as they can be subject to mathematical\logical proofs. Here you are qualifying the term to apply to science, where the "untestability" (unfalsifiability) is due to the science application, rather than inherent in the term "hypothesis" - science is testable\falsifiable. If you mean it is "irrefutable in practical terms" because it is (logically) impossible to prove a negative, then you must realize that this also applies to the "ID by means of a supernatural entity" argument (hence the realization you are arguing from opposing ends of the issue/s?). In the later case, it is not scientific either, for the same reason that the first example wasn't -- because this too is not testable or falsifiable -- but can it still be a valid (logical) hypothesis?Let's haul out dusty old Webster and see what the cantankerous codger has to say: Definition 1In the first definition we see that a hypothesis can be pure fiction, with no basis on reality, limited only by imagination. In this instance one can build an internally consistent logical construction, a fictional world, an extrapolation, and where several hypotheses within that world can be proven "true" from a basic set of first principles assumed to be true.In this sense, your second argument ("the idea of extraterrestrial life is a viable hypothesis") is based on the assumption that life developed on earth by natural processes, on the assumption (as a result of the first assumption) that life can develop on other planets in a similar manner, and on the assumption that (given enough opportunity) that a planet similar enough to earth for similar life to develop should exist, and on the assumption that if all the conditions are (goldilocks) "just right" that because it can develop that it will develop, and the assumption that nothing else would be required.In this sense it is a "valid" hypothesis - it is "true" if the premises are (assumed to be) true. This, however, is "mere supposition" on your part, or as previously described, a guess, and on this basis it is not a scientific hypothesis. Which, in this case, is pure speculation.Definition 2In the second definition we see that a (Natural Science) hypothesis is a working explanation to explain facts and guide further investigation. It doesn't come up to the level of scientific theory, because as a working explanation it doesn't necessarily need to be falsifiable, or tested, it just needs to work when explaining the evidence.In this sense, your second argument fails to qualify as a (Natural Science) hypothesis because it is not explaining any evidence, it is a conjectural extrapolation, it is imagined to happen.Curiously, your first argument ("that this was not enough to make ID by means of a supernatural entity a viable scientific hypothesis") fails against this test as well: the concept of a "supernatural entity" is meant to explain facts - the world exists, life exists because a supernatural entity created the conditions for it to exist - and ID can (whether it has, or not, is immaterial) be used to guide further investigations - certainly one can investigate how it (the world exists, life exists) happened, and consider whether there anything that cannot be explained by "natural" science.Conclusion/s It is valid as a hypothetical guess, speculation, as science fiction, it qualifies as hypothesis₁, but it is not a working explanation of facts, so it is not a (Natural Science) hypothesis, and it does not qualify as hypothesis₂. It is a valid "working explanation of facts," and a stated objective is to "guide further investigation," so yes, on this basis it qualifies as a (Natural Science) hypothesis, as hypothesis₂, ... just not as a scientific (testable, falsifiable) theory.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : conc

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

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.

Yes, you're right. I suppose I should have said that "ID" was too vague of an idea as well Yes, I agree again. I originally meant for my water-based life example to extend into "more complicated life" from there. But I don't know much of biology so I quickly stick a foot in my mouth at this point. We have good evidence that life forms in water... pretty much all the time. We have good evidence to suggest that water exists on other planets. We have good evidence to suggest that once you have small life, you will eventually (perhaps a really long "eventually") have larger (or more intelligent) life. The SETI project is strange.
I think of the water-to-small-life-to-larger-life chain, and think there is good evidence to form a SETI-like hypothesis. Then I think of the idea of throwing out "a signal" in "all directions" and "hoping for some sort of return signal"... and I can't help but think of a two year old crying out a tantrum until someone notices him I think that there is an objective base to form a good, scientific, extraterrestrial life hypothesis and therefore the foundation for a well-formed scientific experiment of some kind in order to test for intelligent life. However, I think our technology (space travel/signal processing) has not reached the level necessary to implement a good scientific experiment. SETI seems to be "filling the gap" so to speak. Doing what they can, with what resources we have now, while we wait for technology to catch up for a firmer more scientific experiment.So... I think, yes, the SETI experiment is derived from good scientific princples. But I think it's current implementation is more of a "this is all we can do right now" thing rather than a strictly scientific process. I didn't mean to imply that you did
My point was to show that if we define 'extraterrestrial life' to something very specific, then we'll require much more specific scientific evidence to create a well-formed hypothesis about that life.

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?

Thanks Straggler. In other words, you are going with hypothesis₂:This leaves you in a bit of a quandary regarding ID - as noted previously. First off ID is not just irreducible complexity, so logically the invalidation of IC does not invalidate ID. What the whole issue of IC does show however, is that ID can be a guide to further investigations, and as such it does qualify as a "supposition provisionally adopted to explain certain facts" about reality. As such ID does qualify as hypothesis₂. If ALL the further investigations also end up failing the way IC has, it will still be a "supposition provisionally adopted to explain certain facts, and to guide in the investigation of others" and as such it will still qualify as hypothesis₂.Your extrapolation of alien life, however, is not "adopted to explain certain facts" and is instead a conjecture on your part. It does NOT qualify as hypothesis₂. How long have humans used radio waves? 110 to 120 years out of how many millions? How long will we continue to broadcast radio waves into space? With cable TV and internet etc? When energy becomes more and more costly, well focused systems that do not waste energy where it is not productive will further reduce -imho- the transmission of radio waves. This is part of the Drake equation used for SETI.If I had to be honest, I would have to say that it is more conjecture than science. We can call it a "scientific conjecture" if you want. Again, it is the modification with "scientific" that is more relevant to the question than the term "hypothesis" - let's say we are going to limit our discussion to red cars, and then ask whether you think all well made cars are red. It is also possible to have hypothesis that are true but are not derived from objective evidence.As noted previously, being testable is not necessarily a requirement for a hypothesis. Further, we may never know whether some hypothesis are true or false, no matter how testable they appear, and yet be able to derive further explanations of evidence and objective reality by using them as a guide, assuming them to be true for the sake of argument. Much of theoretical physics seems -to me- to fall in this category. Well, the truth is out there ... (including the truth that SETI existed long before X-files) but no, I do not believe it is founded on any actual objective evidence. I would say there is more possible foundation on the subjective evidence of alien visitation experiences, and the conjectures of science fiction, than actual objective evidence of the existence of extra terrestrial life.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Any technology that would allow a sensory system to visit other planets and report the findings back to society. Yes. Although they'll take a long time. But "taking a long time" doesn't remove scientific rigour, it just makes it annoying. The technologies are practically realistic. They just don't fit into the timeline we would like. This doesn't make them practically unrealistic, it simply makes them expensive. Expensive in a monetary and temporal sense. It's likely that our current society isn't at a point where such exploration is affordable. But affordability doesn't affect scientific well-formedness. Or my grammar, apparently

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?

Hi Straggler, The short answer is because one is accepted science, and one involves philosophy and psychology, or how we perceive reality. Curiously, there are many studies in psychology of subjective experiences. A google on study of subjective experience is interesting, eh? Easy elaboration: The subjective experience of message processing and persuasion

quote:

---

People’s experience with processing a message may influence (a) their perceptions of the message and, ultimately, (b) the message’s persuasibility. When generating more evidence feels difficult to readers, a message’s content may seem less credible; consequently, the message is less persuasive. Memory studies provide empirical support for the impact of subjective experience on memory evaluations. In our study, the relationship weakly generalized to message processing. Sometimes, generating more evidence was subjectively easier and therefore more persuasive. Completing a more difficult processing task was associated with participants’ intentions and actions to seek more information about a message’s topic.

---

Sound familiar? Looks like you've been caught out on another unsupported assertion. Message 28
You are so funny. If two posts referring to a dictionary definition is "slavish" then I wonder how you categorize half your posts where you repeat yourself ad nauseum.Strangely, using uncommon definitions, or misusing words, is a common ploy by creationists. Interestingly, it is a well known part of the scientific method that a hypothesis explains existing evidence. From this hypothesis, predictions and falsification tests are then developed -- if one is engaged in science, rather than just in conjecture. Correct, "a prediction of an as yet unevidenced phenomenon" is a conjecture, it could be a prediction based on a hypothesis that explains existing evidence, but it is not the hypothesis. The hypothesis is the part that explains the existing evidence (let me get my little slave out here): Your conjecture that life exists on other planets is not based on any evidence of life on other planets, it is a conjecture. Thus you lose this argument.Conversely, the hypothesis that an intelligent designer developed, or augmented the development of, life does explain existing evidence. It has also been used as a basis for further investigation, into concepts like Irreducible Complexity and Specific Information. Thus you lose this argument. Interestingly, you seem surprised that conjectures could be true. Sadly, the fact that conjectures do come true, does not in itself make the process scientific. No, because conjectures can be true.Second, by your argument the conjectures of science fiction qualify as scienfic:(objective evidence) + (logic) = (hypothesis)Jules Verne's conjecture of a submarine qualifies.Does this mean that his conjecture about a voyage to the center of the earth is science?Obviously something is wrong, and the logical conclusion is that it is your position that is wrong: your equation does not generate "scientific" hypothesis, it generates conjectures. Conjectures that are not any more supported by evidence of reality than are many science fiction stories.Thus your concept of alien life does not qualify as a "scientific" hypothesis because it does not explain existing facts and evidence, it is just conjecture. Message 23
You asked what was wrong with your equation, and in a nutshell, what you are doing is confusing hypothesis, as used in science, with conjecture based on evidence and logic, as used in science and in science fiction.Glad I could help. As are almost all of your misrepresentations of what I've said.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •