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?
™ Version 4.2