Is My Hypothesis Valid???

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.

Hi Straggler, still trying to mold things to your liking. That's how world views work. Strangely I don't see it that way. I saw a lot of repetitious assertions that proved nothing in the end. I saw nothing to refute the position that a subjective experience can be evidence of a possibility of reality. I don't mean dreams, btw, never have (so any interjection of dreams in the argument is pointless), but a conscious experience that, without any means of objective verification, is necessarily considered subjective. We can argue over this until the cows come home, but until you can prove my position false you have not "won" anything. Curiously, I never said that such an approach was scientific, as you are doing with your concept here. Not too difficult to do: Thanks for providing such evidence in the same post you ask for it. Oh look: a two-fer! Strangely I've never said otherwise. Interestingly, what I have said is that there are records of subjective experiences that have also been validated by finding objective evidence. I predict next you'll go one about the difference between subjective experience of objective reality and subjective experience that cannot be identified as tied to any aspect of objective reality ... ignoring the fact that they are identical to the observer, to any such observer, and that it assumes that you (particularly you) can identify this difference. Or you'll just devolve into insults. So the scientific search for Nessie was "intellectually incontinent?" Or was this based on some "subjective experience of objective reality" eh? Be specific.Legend of Nessie - Ultimate and Official Loch Ness Monster Site - Searching for Nessie

quote:

---

In July 1987, at the National Museums of Scotland in Edinburgh, The Society for the History of Natural History and the International Society for Cryptozoology held a symposium on "The Search for Nessie in the 1980s"; the reception given there to Dinsdale's election to Honorary Membership of the ISC testified to the wide-spread affection and respect that he had gained.
...
In the memory of the example set by Tim Dinsdale, the Society for Scientific Exploration has established the Tim Dinsdale Memorial Award to honour individuals for their "significant contributions to the expansion of human understanding through the study of unexplained phenomena."

---

Looks like there are a lot of intellectually incontinent people "pissing in the wind" having symposiums and passing out awards for doing it. The part that explained existing evidence is the hypothesis, the predictions made from that hypothesis were conjecture. Curiously, this is standard scientific method approach:Scientific method - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The essential elements[17][18][19] of a scientific method[20] are iterations,[21][22] recursions,[23] interleavings, and orderings of the following:

• Characterizations (observations,[24] definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)
• Hypotheses[25][26] (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)[27]
• Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction[28] from the hypothesis or theory)
• Experiments[29] (tests of all of the above)

---

bold for empHAsis What is the "scientific method"?

quote:

---

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation. .

---

bold for empHASisNotice that the hypothesis explains existing evidence, that the predictions are then derived by logical deduction from the hypothesis. The prediction is not the hypothesis. Looks like it is more than just me, Straggler. Perhaps you should lose your attitude and actually look at the argument against your position. Your attitude has got in the way before (and not just with me). Sorry, the track record of science does not change the fact that in the scientific process, it is the hypothesis that explains existing evidence, and that predictions are then based on that hypothesis, predictions that are by definition conjectures. There are also many many many such conjectures that are on the dust heap, invalidated, failures. This too is part of the "track record" of science and the scientific method.By citing the track record for science you are trying to conflate your equation into the whole scientific method. It isn't.Taking one element out of the scientific method and trying to make it stand alone does not make it scientific. Even as one element it is incomplete. Now if you said: Then you would be significantly closer. You would also see that your conjecture about alien life does not measure up, but that the hypothesis of Intelligent Design does (no matter how fatuous the "explanation" is - I'm not defending ID, just using your examples to see how they fit the equation). Except that it does not describe OR define science, it is a mechanism for making guesses. Curiously, the scientific method can be described simply, as was done in the wiki article and others that give a short list of the elements of the method. It is the whole method that makes it scientific, not any one single element. So then stop claiming that the success of the scientific method equates to success for your formula. Once again, for contrast, I note that the logical extrapolation of submarines from objective evidence, as made by Jules Verne in "20000 Leagues under the Sea" (1896), has also been scientifically verified. Thus it serves as a validated example of your equation: Again I ask: does this make science fiction a branch of science now (perhaps one that should have a department devoted to it)? Be specific. Do you, or do you not, have conclusive or complete evidence of life on other planets? Be specific.Now, I'll happily admit that my position on subjective evidence is just conjecture, and readily admit that I don't have conclusive or complete evidence, because the evidence is subjective ... if that helps you any. Thank you. It's always nice to have one's effort appreciated.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) • • •

Is that your idea of being specific? By your dictionary definitions the whole of Special Relativity was conjecture. Thus General Relativity itself was derived from "just conjecture". Gravitational lensing - conjecture. Time dilation - conjecture. Gravitational redshifting - conjecture. Mass energy equivalence - conjecture. I could go on. You have also already stated that by your definitions the prediction of antimatter and the CMBR were also both "conjecture".It makes one wonder what the likes of Einstein, Feynman, Dirac, Hawking et al could have achieved if they had done some real science rather than all this mere conjecturing eh RAZ? Oh that is big of you. In truth I couldn't really give a rats arse as to what words are used. I find argument by dictionary tedious in the extreme. "Conjecture", "hypothesis". Whatever. As long as the differences in conceptual understanding are clear I don't care.What I find wholly unjustified, incredibly arrogant and unbelievably dishonest here is your attempt to use paltry dictionary defintions to equate the term "conjecture" as applied to your hopelessly flawed ideas of subjective "evidence" (a form of "evidence" that you are completely unable to demonstrate to be superior to randomly guessing) with the "conjecture" that has resulted in some of the greatest discoveries and advancements in human knowledge.It is a disgraceful example of conflation absurdium by dictionary definition. Absolutely outrageous! Do we truly have complete and conclusive evidence of any scientific theory or hypothesis? Is not all science tentative to some degree? Is not all science thus "conjecture" by the blanket definition you are applying here? Regardless, the question here is of scientific and evidential validity.Are the predictions of astrobiologists "conjecture" in the sense that they are derived from incomplete evidence? Certainly. As was every single one of the predictions made by scientists throughout history.Are the predictions of astrobiologists equivalent to randomly guessing on the basis of no objective evidence whatsoever? As is the case with various subjectively "evidenced" claims of the supernatural, alien visitation etc? No. Of course they are not.Do you really think that because you have managed to dictionary your way into using the same term for the legitimate workings of science that you use to describe your notions of subjective "evidence" that the two are somehow evidentially equivalent or equally valid? Hmmmm. You seem to be claiming that things that until now I had thought we all agreed were wholly subjectively experienced (e.g. supernatural entities) might actually be objectively evidenced after all. Yes?I mean if it is not possible to tell the difference that must logically be what you are saying...... No RAZ Nessie is not an example of something that is "wholly subjectively evidenced". No it was not "intellectually incontinent". A bit "out there" in my opinion but not "pissing in the wind" as such. We have objective evidence that the sort of creature being proposed had existed at one point in time. It was not completely beyond the realms of evidenced possibility that such a creature might somehow still exist in a Loch in Scotland. Throw in some poor quality photos and a lot of wishful thinking and you end up with the Nessie phenomenon.Not at all evidentially equivalent to those concepts for which there is no objective evidence in existence whatsoever. Not at all evidentially equivalent to those concepts for which "pissing in the wind" evidence is all that there is.But RAZ if Nessie is your prime example of the validity of subjective evidence then I feel I should point out to you that Nessie almost certainly does not exist. So the predictions of astrobiologists regarding the possibility of simple life elsewhere in the universe are, according to you, unevidenced unscientific conjecture.But the nutjobs who spend their time seeking out UFOs, alien abductees and other signs of actual alien visitation to Earth are, apparently, intrepidly investigating valid possibilities derived from legitimate forms of evidence.Well done RAZ. Well done.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.

pardon me.
this is more an exercise in quoting for me than anything else...Straggler writes: no - they have a scientific quality, but not quite as well-founded, possibly, as the nutjob consensus concerning visitations. i think you are getting a tad hyperbolic. he didnt say they were not. he merely said he didnt want to discuss them here:
(RAZD) he's just clarifying what he's been talking about all along in that sentence....you add: so, for example, subjective testimony in a murder trial, in order to be considering relevant, must stay within the norms of ordinary experiences. you can't have the witness claim to have seen the murderer committing the act in the presence of 2 Immaterial Pink Unicorns. ...okay, what about 2 zebras? well - that could happen...but the Defense would probably want some corroborating evidence about these 2 zebras. 2 Ivory Billed Woodpeckers? lots more corroborating evidence, your honor. 2 cats? no objection. it seems the demand for corroborating objective evidence is proportional to the fantasticalituditiousness of the phenomenon.i think it was Dr. Carl Sagan who said extraordinary claims will require extraordinary evidence. it's the term "unevidenced" that is smuggled in here. "truly fantastical" was sufficient to separate the cats from the IPUs. "unevidenced" didn't need to be mentioned, but you had to mention it to stay on your point. did you mean "un-objectively-evidenced"?what is the historical body of objective evidence for extra-terrestrial life?we do have a lot of objective evidence that there is none. many attempts to observe extra-terrestrial life have been made. none have found any that stand up and are convincing. let's compare this to Nessie. many attempts have been made to observe, none have succeeded in a manner that is convincing. now, personally, i think the chances of extra-terrestrial life are better than the chances for Nessie existing, but that is only me.however, i did not want to address those points.here it is: i guess we might be talking about the similarities of stories of alien abduction (i.e. - not a random pattern). we know that the commonailty is in large part self-reinforcing with new stories feeding on old stories. people could hallucinate or have lucid dreams that conform to the general notion in this culture of what such an experience would be like. so this non-randomness can be explained away.infact, the whole subject is inundated with nutjobs & deluded loonies. if there were any reality to it, it would be very hard to ascertain amid the noise signal. probably harder than a SETI filter on a Gamma Ray Burster. but just because it's hard, doesnt mean it's not there. i would have to see some major objective corroborating evidence to be convinced, but i'm sure there are others who have seen such evidence in their mind. i cant rule it out. but i wont bet a single penny on it.and then there's the Von Daniken(sp) side of this issue (maybe visitations happened long ago?) that starts out with a much more plausible argument (suggestive figures in artwork and architecture in different continents, in different civilizations), but in the end is also hard to believe by me. this kind of pursuit has eventually led people to actually go through the trouble to calculate the odds on a pile of dirt on Mars being shaped like a human face when viewed from space, calculations that must be very difficult to make, so strong is the desire to believe. if lots of people think the shots came from the grassy knoll, isn't that better subjective evidence than if those same people had the shot origins scattered all 360 degrees around Daly Plaza and from all angles up in the air?ignoring the Zapruder film and physics analysis on one side and Posner's watermelons on the other, of course.one person saying something doesn't carry the weight of 50-100 people saying the same thing, even if it's all subjective testimony. but one person can testify and put a suspect in jail with no corroborating objective evidence as long as there is no convincing contradictory objective evidence. just their word against his.

---

- xongsmith

Actually no. This is a reference to a previous discussion. RAZD does indeed seem to think that he is the arbiter of what is and is not valid subjective evidence. And apparently dreams don't count for some unspecified reason.If they did we would have documented subjective evidence of the IPU. And RAZ wouldn't like that. If we had direct or historical evidence of such things we wouldn't need to predict them would we?If we take the objectively evidenced explanatory theories that we have as to how life arose and evolved on this planet then use these to predict the possibility of life evolving in similar conditions elsewhere then we seem to have met all of RAZD's explanatory requirements to justify the term "hypothesis" and predictions derived from scientific theory.But RAZD's denial of this is just a tedious exercise in semantics and phraseology as he attempts to self justify the "evidenced" nature of whatever it is he actually believes in supposedly on "faith".It is all very contradictory. Fine. But that does not make the proposal of the possibility "unscientific unevidenced conjecture". It just makes it a false claim or one that requires more investigation. Believe me I am not proposing that extraterrestrial life is some sort of certainty at all!! Not if the defence lawyer can show that the "witness" was not actually present at the scene of the crime. Nor if the defence lawyer can show that the "witness" was high on serious hallucinogens at the time of the crime. Not if the witness was blind and deaf. Nor if there is not actually a dead body or a murder weapon or various other elements of corroborating objective evidence.None of these things would matter if it was indeed "subjective evidence" that was being sought. But courts are not interested in "subjective evidence". They are not interested because such a thing is a useful as a chocolate teapot. Courts are interested in objective reality. The fact that this objective reality is necessarily subjectively experienced and that testimony is thus objectively imperfect should not be conflated with flawed notions of "subjective evidence".The subjective interpretation of objective reality is inevitable and just a fact of human reality. And is indeed used in court.But you try telling a judge or a jury that you weren't actually physically able to witness the event but instead have had a wholly subjective "experience" as to how a crime has occurred and see how long it takes you to get thrown out for contempt of court. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Just to quickly kick into touch one extra thing not covered in my previous post for sake of brevity: No RAZ. That would be silly. OK.This shorthand description is simply stating that all untested scientific conclusions are derived from a combination of objective evidence and logic.To invert this, as you are doing, by suggesting that all examples of combining objective evidence and logic are therefore untested scientific conclusions is to commit a logical fallacy of the following form:If ALL A = B
Then All B = AI'll leave it to you (or someone else) to state which specific fallacy this is as I always get the terminology of such things woefully wrong.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I don't want to side track from the topic, but as I'm reading the debate this continues to cause some confusion, for me. Wouldn't the historical objective evidence for extra-terrestrial life be "terrestrial life", here, on this planet?How is that not sufficiant enough? I mean, in all of the discussions with creationist, we, the advocates of evolution, play down the process of life originating from basic elements. Why, now, do we play up the possibility of this happening again, on another random planet, with it's own set of elements, that simply combine to form life?IMO, it doesn't follow that we view life on this planet to be nothing more than simply chemical reactions that can take place without any guildance from non-complex natural processes. But, when we view it happening on another planet, we require evidence far beyond what our current technology can give us, for the sole purpose of winning an argument.It seems a bit stubborn to me to hold to the opinion that objective evidence of other life is required so that the meer hypothesis that life has occured elsewhere be valid.Life occurs in the universe, that should be suffice enough to know that life IS elsewhere. I'm having a little trouble following this. If the people think the shot came from some direction, versus, hearing the shot come from another direction, I would say the heard outweighs the think, right?Or did you mean something else? I would say that (50-100) people thinking something came from one direction, versus, (1) person saying they heard it from another direction, loses due to physical sensory usage, versus, wholely subjective intuition.- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Big foot may exist somewhere in the Northern hemisphere. Since there is adequate terrain and food sources to sustain such a creature and since every conceivable place such a creature could exist has not been simultaneously searched. It seems logical to assume that a homonid bipedal type creature yet undiscovered could exist in the remote regions of un-explored forest. Irregardless of all physical evidence being debunked.Is this a plausible hypothesis? Or is it ludicrous to make such a assumption without any evidence that has not as of now been refuted.Can a hypothesis stand on plausibility. If other creatures are continualy being discovered and some animals thought to be extinct are still in existance then how far of a stretch is it to hypothesize Big Foot exist? Or Megladon, or any other Leviathan.

After alien visitation and Nessie I had a feeling that Bigfoot would rear his ugly mug and inevitably be enetered into this discussion at some point....... That is an exceptionally poor evidential basis for a "hypothesis". It takes quite a leap of logic to draw that conclusion. Well if all physical evidence had been debunked then it would have been indisputably refuted. I would suggest that three questions need to be asked in order to answer your question:1) Is it an evidentially supported conceptual possibility?
2) Based on objective evidence is it probable?
3) Is there any evidence of the actuality of such a phenomeon?My answers would be:1) Yes. Just about. No matter how exceptionally poor or tangential the evidential basis may be the "conjecture" is still rooted in what we know about the empirical world. For this reason, despite being a fantastical claim, it is not in the same class as the IPU, gods or other supernatural inherently undetectable entities.2) No. There is no evidential basis for deeming such a conclusion probable. In fact the evidence we have, I would suggest, implies that such a thing is exceptionally unlikely.3) No. There is no evidential basis for concluding that bigfoot actually exists.Of the above 2) is the most open to wishful thinking and subjective interpretation. Should anyone choose to conclude that such a phenomenon is in fact probable and set off to find bigfoot on this basis they would be a bit bonkers in my opinion but I would wish them well in their endevours. In fact I think it would be quite fun for such a thing to turn out to be true. But such is the nature of wishful thinking....In conclusion I would suggest that it is not a plausible hypothesis based on the severe paucity of evidence and the "leap" of logic from which the conclusion regarding the possibility was drawn.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Oni asks sorry, i didnt mean it that way. i meant there is no direct evidence from out there in space.the existence of life here certainly allows us to form the conjecture that it must happen elsewhere. the Drake Equation gets its factors bracketed by improved error bars as we learn more and see more. and it also gets new coefficients added to it that were previously assumed to be 1.00 for multiplications and 0.0 for additions.in the comparison to Nessie, there is also indirect objective evidence (fossils of aquatic beasts that are similar to the descriptions of Nessie, geological events leading to landlocked isolated ecologies) that allow some people to make the conjecture that it is possible.it was the lack of direct evidence in both cases. well, to quote Fermi, where are they? (smart enough to stay far away!) ....so far it seems that we have a case of something very unlikely multiplied by an extremely large number of event trials. on the one hand, the process is very complex and fraught with perils on any primitive planet. on the other, there are so many possible planets that somewhere else it could have happened. it appears so far that Mars is sterile, Titan inhospitable and so on, but Earth was the only planet in the goldilocks zone of comfort for our solar system. so that was a long shot anyway (if other life is found in this solar system, it will vastly improve the Drake Equation by orders of magnitude).as we search out further and further away from Earth, we wind up having to examine electromagnetic radiation for all the information we can get.frankly, if there were to be intelligent life elsewhere, they probably wouldnt still be trying to use something as slow as light travel to communicate anyway. maybe they invented the Ansible? something else. i was guilty of badly constructed sentences. think and hear would be interchangeable in that i was imagining witnesses telling the police what they heard. if they all said they heard shots from the grassy knoll, that would still be subjective testimony. but it would certainly be given attention. if they all had conflicting stories of where they heard the shots coming from, scattered around 360 degrees, then the police would not have a much useful information to go on. perhaps the number of shots would be all they could use. i was trying to construct a situation of non-random subjective evidence being more useful than random subjective evidence. it had seemed to me that Straggler was trying to claim that any subjective evidence was no more useful than random evidence.sorry for the confusion.

---

- xongsmith

well, ok, but different discussion.... i would think that there would be a rat's nest of Semantic Disagreements. "documented", "subjective", "evidence", "the IPU",
so better discussed elsewhere as it doesnt seem necessary to this discussion to resolve that one. i thought he made it clear that the hypothesis has to fit the facts observed so far. we dont have any hard facts on life out there. so we take what we have and make a tentative prediction, say, that there is life out there. i think RAZD is calling that a conjecture. so yeah, semantics.let's take the predictions of Einstein before they were "proved" - the amount that light bends around a star would be a good example from the General Theory. before they measured it, it was a prediction based on the Theory. was it still only a conjecture? ah, but math is math and the math predicted it in such a way that failure would be troublesome indeed. so it has to get some more sense of validity than the subconscious fallability buried in the human term "conjecture". would it be fair to say that conjectures are often proven wrong? often enough so that when it happens, it's no big deal. ah, a so-it-goes sort of shrugging of the shoulders. in the case of the light bending, this would be a bit more than a shrugging it off.now, back to extra-terrestrial life. a conjecture. if it turns out to be false (and actually that will never happen in an infinite search of space-time), there may be a great emotional disappointment, but nobody's scientific theory will collapse. science will shrug their shoulders in this infinitely distant future situation. and the bio-engineers will continue to terraform their dead planets anyway. i said no convincing contradictory objective evidence, so only the last sentence i may have missed covering. no dead body! ok, assume a dead body for the purposes of this argument. but people have been convicted without a murder weapon in the case, based only on the testimony of an eye witness - "eye" may mean any sensory capability that the witness has demonstrated is reliable. no no no - a witness who saw with good eyes, sober, reliable.but you missed the point i was after, as i did. hi. as a parting aside, i might point out that "subjective interpretation of objective reality" is the difference that rules dreams out of this thread. dreams would be closer to "subjective interpretation of subjective memory". but nevermind that.

---

- xongsmith

Well Straggler, is see your still struggling. Argument from incredulity. It is sufficient, if you know what the evidence was that was explained, and the conjectural results that were predicted by the theory ... and can tell the difference. Looks like you can't tell the difference between hypothesis and the predictions based on it: it's relatively simple to spell out:Relativity explained the existing evidence of gravity, defaulting to match Newton's formula in the conditions we see locally. It also explained the known anomaly of mercury's orbit, which Newton did not.Gravity - Wikipedia

quote:

---

By the end of the 19th century, it was known that the orbit of Mercury showed slight perturbations that could not be accounted for entirely under Newton's theory, but all searches for another perturbing body (such as a planet orbiting the Sun even closer than Mercury) had been fruitless. The issue was resolved in 1915 by Albert Einstein's new General Theory of Relativity, which accounted for the small discrepancy in Mercury's orbit.

---

In addition, Einstein included a fudge factor to make the universe a constant size instead of expanding or contracting, as was what he thought to be the case at the time:Fudge factor - Wikipedia

quote:

---

In theoretical physics, when Einstein originally tried to produce a general theory of relativity, he found that the theory seemed to predict the gravitational collapse of the universe: it seemed that the universe should either be expanding or collapsing, and in order to produce a model in which the universe was static and stable (which seemed to Einstein at the time to be the "proper" result), he introduced an expansionist variable (called the Cosmological Constant) whose sole purpose was to cancel out the cumulative effects of gravitation. He later called this, "the biggest blunder of my life."

---

Thus the theory explained the existing evidence as it was then known. The fudge factor was later deleted when further evidence showed that it was an error. This is the way science works, modifying or revamping theory when invalidated by new evidence, yes? The theory then still explains the existing evidence. Before a theory has been validated by passing some falsification tests it is considered a hypothesis, but that hypothesis must also necessarily explain existing evidence in order to grow into a theory when tested. Again, this is not the hypothesis, they are predictions based on the hypothesis that explains existing evidence, to see what new evidence would confirm or invalidate the hypothesis. This too is science: predictions are tested because they are conjectures based on the hypothesis. When they are validated then they become additional existing evidence that supports the theory. This too is how science works. Argument from incredulity again. But they did. Unlike you, and your formula, they formed hypothesis based on existing evidence, then used that hypothesis to form conjectural predictions based on the hypothesis, and then proceeded to test those predictions. When reality did not match the predictions (see fudge factor above) the theory\hypothesis was modified to explain the new evidence in addition to the old evidence, and they began again, forming conjectural predictions based on the hypothesis and to test the predictions. This is how science works, not just by extrapolations. Then you should admit that in science, hypothesis explains existing evidence. Predictions are based on the hypothesis, and they are tested because they are conjectures -- inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence.If you were really concerned with the meanings of the words then you would concede that your conjecture about alien life on other planets is conjectural extrapolation and not an hypothesis as used in science. More argument from incredulity, with a little hyperbole and some (more) ad hominem thrown in for spice? Amusingly, your opinion has no impact on reality, it cannot make reality conform to your concept of the universe, and your opinion will not be the basis on which conjectures are validated or invalidated, no matter what their source is. Curiously, the "objective evidence that the sort of creature being proposed" was imposed on this afterwards, as a hypothetical explanation of the evidence of a subjective experience, and this hypothesis is not the subjective experience. So I ask again:Was the scientific search for Nessie "intellectually incontinent?" Or was this based on some "subjective experience of objective reality" eh? See if you can keep from confusing the evidence and the hypothesis formed to explain the evidence this time. Was the evidence a "subjective experience of objective reality" or was it a "wholly subjective experience"?The next question for you, is whether science was done to investigate this phenomena:

• Was there evidence?
• Was a hypothesis formed to explain the evidence?
• Were predictions made based on the hypothesis?
• Were the predictions tested?
• Has the hypothesis been revised based on the result of tests?

If science was done, then you need to revisit your opinion on subjective evidence as a basis for doing science - if you are honest with yourself. If science was not done, then you need to explain what they were doing and how it was not science. More argument from incredulity. This is how denial works, Straggler: you just can't believe the truth of the argument, you can't argue against it, so you end up in a tirade about how impossible it is, and attack the messenger instead of the message. I've demonstrated that it is more than just a dictionary definition, it is the way these words are actually used in practice. LOL. Let me return your "message" (slightly paraphrased):

quote:

---

What I find wholly unjustified, incredibly arrogant and unbelievably dishonest here is your attempt to use paltry dictionary defintions to equate the term "conjecture" as applied to your hopelessly flawed ideas of subjective "evidence" "formula" (a form of "evidence" "formula" that you are completely unable to demonstrate to be superior to randomly guessing science fiction) with the "conjecture" that has resulted in some of the greatest discoveries and advancements in human knowledge.

---

See how well your argument from incredulity works? Perhaps you'll see why I find your argument so ... unconvincing.No, straggler, we don't have "complete and conclusive evidence of any scientific theory" - and that is why we have scientific tentativity. But once again you are confusing the hypothesis, that explains existing evidence, with the predictions, that are conjectures of possible new evidence, based on the hypothesis. What we have are hypothesis that tentatively explain all the known evidence as best as we are able to determine, and then we have predictions of potential new evidence, conjectures that are not based on sufficient evidence to be considered a hypothesis. Such predictions are necessarily more removed from objective reality than the hypothesis, and this extra remove justifies calling them conjectures, and allow us to distinguish them from hypothesis - the tentative explanation of evidence.Your extrapolation of the existence of alien life on other planets is such a conjecture of possibility for new evidence, but it is not an explanation of existing evidence. The concept of ID still beats you out there: it explains existing evidence and it can be used to make predictions of potential new evidence, even predict life on other planets .... Yes, and those predictions are\were not the hypothesis, they were based on the hypothesis, and the hypothesis was based on existing evidence. When you talk about astrobiology you find it is a much more tentative science than earthbound biology, for it is abiogenesis on another planet, and we aren't even that sure about the mechanisms of abiogenesis yet. Amusingly, you have once again based your argument on incredulity and hyperbole, finishing with an assertion that is just your opinion. Strangely, once again, your opinion is not the arbiter of reality.I find your insistence on "randomly guessing" rather amusing, another indication of your denial of the process as I have really discussed it (rather than your subjectivized story version of it). It is always amusing when creationists call evolution random chance when in reality a small bit of natural selection over time adds up to significant selection and non-random results. Would you not agree that a selection mechanism can turn an otherwise random process into a non-random process?Tell me, Straggler, was the investigation of Nessie equivalent to "randomly guessing" or did they select a "most likely" hypothesis based on the subjective evidence, and then test that hypothesis? Is it "randomly guessing" to look at a subjective experience, form a set of hypothesis selected to explain the evidence, and then use the best of those hypotheses to make predictions of things that would occur as new evidence if the hypothesis were true, and then test those predictions to see if the hypothesis is valid or invalid? And here we have yet another example of the argument from incredulity.Actually, what I have used is evidence, evidence from the dictionaries, from encyclopedia, from general descriptions of the scientific method to show that your equation does not meet the criteria of a scientific hypothesis, and that it is a conjectural extrapolation not significantly different from science fiction.All you have used is assertion, opinion, incredulity, hyperbole and ad hominems. And again I ask, do you have evidence, objective evidence for you, of life on a single other planet? Or are you confusing prediction with evidence now? Message 36
As are science fiction stories. So far you have demonstrated zero difference between using your formula to extrapolate the existence of alien life on other planets and science fiction. You have failed to demonstrate that this formula alone separates scientific methodology from fiction. If it is incapable of doing that alone, then logically it is incomplete or overly simplified - similar to saying that "evolution is change" - and as such, it is not useful.Once again you are using "scientific" to modify the conclusion in order to ask if the result is scientific. What we see is, when we only look at red cars, that all well built cars are red. This isn't because being red results in being well-built but because you have begged the question by omitting well built blue cars.This fails to demonstrate that your equation does not apply to science fiction while applying to your alien life conjecture, just that you have committed a special pleading ... because it would be "silly" for one but not for the other. Message 1
If you only include hypothesis that are derived in science (your equivocation now to "untested scientific conclusions"), and then ask if your formula results in scientific hypothesis, then the answer will always be yes because you have already included ONLY scientific hypothesis in your set under evaluation. You've limited the selection to the desired result, curiously, like creationism using preconceptions to blind oneself to reality.It also does not demonstrate that you cannot start with a subjective experience and do science, as in the subjective experience at Loch Ness that resulted in the hypothesis that there was a living plesiosaur in the lake, a hypothesis that made testable predictions, and resulted in experiments to test those predictions. Perhaps as wrong as your claim that it is an inversion. Actually yes. This is yet another example of your misrepresentation of my argument. When I say: Message 275

quote:

---

All I argue is that (a) your experience is an indication of the possibility that a cat crossed the road and (b) that it is justification for you to believe you saw a cat cross the road.

If someone claims to have seen a cat, this is relatively mundane, and is supported by the evidence we have all seen that cats do exist, and so his claim has a high probability of being true ("true" in this sense meaning "the cat actually existed in objective reality, and did in fact run across the street").

As noted, the fact that people have had similar experiences increases their likelihood of accepting the experience of others.

Claiming that a deity exists, however, is ...

NOT part of this thread. I don't understand the inability to accept this restriction.

How many people have had dreams involving ...

Nor is it about dreams or fantasies.

---

All I said was that they were not part of the topic under discussion. I am NOT saying that dreams are not subjective. Which is why they are conjectures ... and why they can be false. Correct, but the prediction is not the hypothesis, the prediction is based on the hypothesis and not on the evidence. Curiously, I am not the one who has confused hypothesis with prediction, nor conflated the general track record for science to apply to a cherry picked set of conjectures to imply that conjectures in general are scientific. None of which applied to the person with the subjective experience on the shores of Loch Ness, and all of which together are in the minority in such cases -- weeded out by the prosecution before being used. And here we have it - as predicted - the "subjective experience of objective reality," somehow magically discerned by Straggler from "wholly subjective experience" -- when they are equally real to the person with the experience, and we are back to the question from the shores of Loch Ness:Was that initial experience a "subjective experience of objective reality" or a "wholly subjective experience" .... and how do you know? And yet just this kind of discovery happened recently - and not just one but two large mammals:http://coombs.anu.edu.au/~vern/species.html

quote:

---

Pseudoryx nghetinhensis
This is the first of the new mammal species discovered. First found in Vu Quang forest reserve, which is in Ha Tinh province of north central Vietnam.

​

Megamuntiacus vuquangensis
This robust muntjak deer was discovered in Vu Quang forest reserve, in Ha Tinh province.

---

Which just proves that your arguments from incredulity and your personal opinion on the value of evidence are no measure of reality.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : qs fix

---

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) • • •

You have unequivocably stated that all scientific predictions are, by your definition, "conjecture". You have also been quite clear that any theory which is derived from the logical extrapolation of evidence as opposed to being an explanation of observed data is "conjecture". In fact wherever theory leads observation we have "conjecture". I see that you conveniently rewritten the history of science to prop up your your flawed argument. You have completely omitted Special Relativity which has nothing to do with gravity and which simply determines the logical consequences of the constancy of the speed of light in inertial frames. You have also failed to recognise that General Relativity was derived from this logical extrapolation by applying the same principle to accelerating frames in order to derive a theory of gravitation. The clue is in the names "special" and "general" relativity: Special relativity - WikipediaJust because your argument requires that Einstein's masterwork be created in order to explain a minor anomoly in the observed orbit of Mercury does not in fact mean that this was why or how the theory arose. But redefining evidence and rewriting history to meet your deeply held world view is only to be expected I guess.Do you agree that, by your definition, Einstein's theory of special relativity specifically is "conjecture"?RECAP
Let's have a recap and clarification. In this summary I am going to attribute you with certain positions as I honestly understand them to be. If these are wrong rather than just making snide remarks and yelling "misrepresentation" it would be appreciated if you would just clearly tell us how the stated position is wrong and exactly what your position actually is.STRAGGLER CONCEDES
I originally suggested that: (objective evidence) + (logic) = (hypothesis) where "hypothesis" referred to an untested scientific conclusion.Despite the fact that every other participant in this thread has understood, and indeed used, the term hypothesis as I intended it to be meant and despite the arrogant and condescending manner in which you expressed yourself you did actually present a pretty strong case for your assertion that the term "hypothesis" had been wrongly deployed in this instance. I accept that the term "hypothesis" when used formally implies, as you suggest, a wider explanatory framework than I had intended in my original usage. As stated previously I simply used the term to mean an "untested scientific conclusion". The title of this thread should strictly therefore be "Is a particular untested conclusion a scientifically legitimate proposal?" or something equally horrid and clumsy. Given that everyone else has understood and used the term as intended I'll leave it as is. But I accept your objections as valid. If you want to take this change of terminology alone as a victory on your part then I guess it is time to break open the champagne. Congratulations and well done on winning the "battle of the dictionaries".However it is when we come to your suggested replacement term and the eventual exercise in self justifying flawed thinking behind your use of this term that things really get interesting.SCIENTIFIC "CONJECTURE"
According to you: (objective evidence) + (logic) = ("conjecture")According to the definitions you have insisted upon, the term "conjecture" used here was an appropriate description of special relativity, all of the predictions and the foundation of general relativity, the prediction of the precise values of the CMBR, most of the work of Einstein, Feynman, Dirac, Hawking..... In fact every scientific prediction ever made and a large portion of the work of pretty much every theoretical scientist that has every lived. Wherever theory, no matter how well supported, leads observation rather than the other way round we have "conjecture".Now the term "conjecture" as used here in itself does not seem to do justice to this record of success in my opinion BUT if we take "conjecture" simply to mean a "conclusion borne of incomplete evidence" then the term itself is neither wholly inaccurate nor utterly objectionable. HoweverSUBJECTIVE CONFLATION OF TERMS
Also according to you (as I understand it - please feel free to clarify): (subjective evidence) + (something?) = (conjecture)Here we have a form of "evidence" that is unable to be shown to be any more reliable than simply guessing allied to something else as yet undefined (RAZD what is that "something"?) to derive conclusions which have only ever been refuted and never verified. No significant milestones in human knowledge reached. No record of success of any sort. In fact a complete inability to supply even one example of such a "conjecture" derived from wholly subjective evidence ever having been objectively verified.Now the term "conjecture" as used here in itself seems to imply a degree of evidence and logic that is unjustified in this context BUT if we take "conjecture" to mean simply a "guess" then the use of the term itself is neither wholly inaccurate nor utterly objectionable. HoweverCONCLUSION
RAZD has managed to convince himself, by means of some advanced work in dictionary dynamics, that the term "conjecture" as he has applied it to scientific predictions and the term "conjecture" as applied to his pet theory of "subjective evidence" are in fact one and the same thing. Thus his flawed notion that supernatural entities and other "subjectively evidenced" phenomenon are legitimately evidenced have been vindicated and he can sleep soundly at night safe in the knowledge that his subjectively evidenced conclusions and thought processes are following in the footsteps of true giants.So RAZD please tell us: Do you equate the conjecture that you derive from subjective "evidence" with the "conjecture" that has resulted in some of the greatest human discoveries and achievements in scientific history? Are they one and the same thing?(objective evidence) + (logic) = (conjecture) = (subjective evidence) + (something?)The above "equation" is a shorthand description of your position as I genuinely understand it to be. Is that what you are saying? And if so what is that "something"? Feel free to rewrite the equation to show exactly what components go into formulating a subjectively evidenced conjecture.We need to establish whether your use of the term "conjecture" in both instances actually means the same thing or whether it means "conclusion borne of incomplete evidence" in one case and simply an unevidenced stab in the dark "guess" in the other. These are quite obviously not the same conceptually regardless of any further tedious exercises in dictionary dynamics.Essentially this will come down to your ability to demonstrate that "subjective evidence" is in fact evidence at all. See my next post for that discussion.Edited by Straggler, : SpellingEdited 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.

Enlighten me RAZ. I want to know what is "subjective evidence" and what is not. Once we have establshed that we can pick up on some of your intriguing examples. Hmmm. Careful wording there. Of course dreams are subjective. We all agree on that. But are they "subjective evidence"? That is the question.Given the reliance of your position on "subjective evidence", given that you are claiming that the predictions of science (borne from logic and objective evidence) and conclusions derived from subjective evidence are in fact equivalent (i.e. both are conjecture) I think it is both on topic and appropriate for you to define what it is exactly you do mean by "subjective evidence". What is subjective evidence? Can you give us some specific examples?Are dreams "subjective evidence"? Or not? This is surely a simple Yes or No question. I really thought that there were some things that you considered to be evidenced purely by means of "subjective evidence" alone. Is this no longer the case? Are you now claiming that those things may well have objective evidence in their favour after all? Again this should be a simple yes or no question.THOUGHT "EXPERIMENT"
Let's try a little "thought experiment" to get us into thinking about what we mean by "wholly subjective evidence" as opposed the "subjective interpretation of objective evidence". People seem to be fond of courtroom scenarios so here goes my attempt:Imagine a murder trial. Imagine an "eye" witness who was physically present at the time and place that the alleged crime took place. Now imagine that this witness is a blind, deaf, quadriplegic with no sense of touch from the neck down and who also has no sense smell or taste. This rather unfortunate individual is fully cognisant and indeed capable of speech. Information and communication in general can be conveyed by means of an intricate Morse code style of taps to his head and face where sensory perception by touch is limited but possible.Now if the court is truly interested in "subjective evidence" the testimony of this individual would be as valid as any other. There is nothing wrong with the ability of this individual to subjectively experience wholly subjective thoughts, feelings or indeed anything else that might be wholly "subjectively evidenced". In fact given the poor chaps predicament it is probably fair to say that he is rather well versed in such wholly subjective pastimes.However if the court is actually only interested in objective evidence, albeit as recounted by those who have necessarily experienced objective reality and the specific event in question subjectively, then the complete inability of our witness to experience the vast majority of that objective reality empirically could be seen as something of an impediment to testimony.Call me a closed minded stick-in-the-mud if you will but I would suggest that the judge and jury would, quite legitimately, be somewhat reluctant to rely on the testimony of such a witness. I would even go so far as to say that such a testimony might be deemed by the judge and jury as no more or less reliable than simply guessing.Bearing in mind your advocacy of "subjective evidence" (as opposed to and distinct from the "subjective interpretation of objective evidence") would you deem this a valid and reliable witness? Or not? Would you expect the testimony of such a witness to be superior to merely guessing?Why? Please be specific.*For the sake of pedantic argument lets assume that the witness was too far away for his face to be splattered by blood or anything silly like that and that he has had no communicaion about the crime with anybody prior to the trial. It should also be noted that he had never been in presence of the accused before or since the crime took place. 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.

i think "hypothesis was the correct term to put in your equation, but the hypothesis is for explaining existing facts, the objective evidence.when we confirm that it explains the existing objective evidence, then we look to see if it can make predictions that are distinguishable from the former accepted theory. these predictions, especially as less and less is currently known about the issue, are conjectures. so: this is completely off the wall. way off track....

---

- xongsmith