Working Hypothesis -- what is the value?

Er, what "yeti" is a bear? Let's say that you confirm the existence of some kind of huge, funky, white bear. Is that the yeti?In any event, formulating h1 would seem to be the easier part, although I don't think it is as trivial as you are making it. Formulating h0 properly seems most important in studying a yeti that may or may not even exist.

There are bears in the Himalayas. There just don't seem to be many polar bears. And of course not all yeti sightings are supposed to be white. I'm not sure that most of them are white.Where I am going with this, is that there are already plenty of excuses to blame Yeti sightings on bears. What new evidence is likely to be found by following up on RAZD's working hypothesis?On the other hand, finding an unknown ape/primate would be far more convincing given that some of supposed Yeti sightings are definitely not easily attributable to something bear like. I'm not recommending that as a hypothesis. That would be kinda like looking for my missing wallet in some place I had not been just because the light was better there.But let's not forget that the evidence for any kind of Yeti is fairly lousy.

None of that stuff would be new. The presence of bears in Tibet and the Himalayas is well known and documented.

What comparison are you making here. More likely to be a bear than what? I'm not the least bit interested in a non scientific investigation into whether Yeti's exist.

Is that what I said, or did I limit my remarks to investigations into whether Yeti's exist?

Generalization is not always a successful strategy.At this point I've just denied that your extrapolation is correct at least twice. I could of course fill in some X (e.g. Loch Ness Monster, Megalodon, or space aliens designing the pyramids) for which the statement is correct and some other X where the statement would not be correct. If you have a case for that, then make it. It should be quite clear that such a strategy is subject to confirmation bias. Nothing you discover using such a hypothesis will ever allow you to reach the conclusion that sightings of Yeti's were erroneous.

You would say that if your goal was simply to deny Tangle's point without actually making a point of your own. When the bridge performs as expected, that is at least a partial verification that the underlying calculations based on physics and material properties was correct. Those things would generally not be considered hypotheses.

That is part of what civil engineers do, but what you describe is not the complete story. In all but the most trivial cases, the cook book is insufficient to design a bridge or other complex structure. And of course the design rules themselves were produced by other engineers.Besides that, civil engineers may well be the most cook book segment of the engineering profession. It is the much denigrated sister of mechanical engineering. What is your experience? What do you think a PhD candidate in mechanical engineering does in school. Learn more thumb-rules?

Actually, at least according to Wikipedia, the word scientist can be used in both senses. When people say that scientists are not engineers, they are using the term in the more restrictive sense. I general use the term in the more restricted since, while Tangle has argued for a more expansive definition.

quote:

---

A scientist, in a broad sense, is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist may refer to an individual who uses the scientific method.[1] The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science.[2] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word.

---

On the other hand, in EvC debates, there is another, even more restricted sense in which the term is used. In most cases, it is unimportant whether an economist is actually a scientist or not because we don't expect an economist's opinion on evolution, cosmology, or geology or other science relevant to a debate about Christian Science to be of any special relevance.There is a tendency among some scientists to characterize engineers as technicians because they generally don't do basic science. While there are some reasons to distinguish between the practice of engineering and the practice of science, a mechanical engineer is not a mechanic, and an electrical engineer is not a tv repair man. In particular, a person with an PhD in engineering is fully capable of doing science in an area of his expertise. But every person is fully capable of being a Creationist regardless of his training. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I think that about nails it. Following mram10 down the credential traill where he drops a couple of names and talks about supposedly significant numbers of unnamed scientists at unnamed secular university was the wrong tactic. He should have been called on his entire line of argument.

The term "hypothetical" here simply means calculated or estimated. It does not mean that the forces are a "working hypothesis" which appears to mean simply an explanation that RAZD neither falsifies or lets go of for any reason.

Apparently not. The fact that your process cannot cast any doubt on the hypothesis is exactly the problem. That would not "explain" the evidence. Instead, your hypothesis would be used to confirm or explain anything that matched. Since you are not concerned with forming a null hypothesis, you are apparently going to simply keep looking until you find something about bears that does match. Good question. I am taking you at your word that you want to use an unfalsifiable hypothesis. In any event, you are describing using it in a way where you won't notice or allow falsification. I suggested forming a null hypothesis and you indicated that you would not be doing that and that you would not be doing a scientific investigation.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Agreed. That's why civil engineers are not scientists.

I would like RAZD to indicate what lines of inquiry he believes would not be followed if this hypothesis were used. RAZD seems to believe that there is evidence of yetis that only non-skeptics have a chance of finding.

Why don't you point out where I said anything that disagrees with your statement.