--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 09:56:38AM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
>
> > > Of course you can use anecdotal evidence in formulating a
> > > theory. The point is, you CANNOT use the SAME data to validate the
> > > theory.
> >
> >
> > You are wrong Erik. You can not formulat _theories_ in this manner.
>
> I think we are arguing semantics. The point was about the concept of
> EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS vs. EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTED THE
> HYPOTHESIS. Semantic differences between "I have a theory" and "I have
> a hypothesis" are not worth arguing about. If you change "theory" in
> my quote above to "hypothesis", then I don't believe it changes the
> meaning. So feel free to substitute hypothesis if it makes you happy.
>
Yes Erik, I agree, and I did know what you meant, but since to a SCIENTIST
these words are used in such a narrow way, and since the distinction between
the two is so important (especialy in this case) I thought it was more
important to strive for correct knowledge and
_accurate_transmission_thereof_. (There I go paraphrasing again.)
Anyway it's not a game or a competition, I just wanted to make sure that the
transmission of this information was accurate.
Hypothesis: A tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its
logical or empirical consequences.
Theory: A scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles
offered to explain phenomena.
Of course "Theory "is used by _layman_ in place of "Hypothesis". But we are
not _laymen_ we are scientificaly trained and should use the words
appropriatly.
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
