--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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. > > I would only add that hypothesis should only be used in the context of > > fulfilling the initial requirement for the scientific method process, and > > theory is used in place of proof, if a proof is not complete or not > > possible. > > At least this is what I was taught in High school science, for what > that's > > worth. > > I was taught the same thing in high school science. But, after a few years > in graduate school I formed a different opinion. The scientific method is > not as cut and dried as it appears in textbooks. >
Wow! I was taught the same thing in Uni as well. Of course you don't mean that this is wrong do you? Just that it is more complex in the day to day operation right?
> First of all, things are not nearly as clear as they are in a textbook. > The data show some inconsistencies, there are always 2-sd anomalies that > lead you to investigate blind alleys. Further, experimentalists rarely > have formulated a hypothesis to test before taking data. Rather, the > hypothesis is much more loose: such as "I bet this would be an interesting > place to look."
Hmm. I was not taught that way, and in fact was taught specifically not to work this way. I was taught that even when doing some loose exploratory to formalize it. To actualize why I "bet it would be interesting." Or to formalize that I was "looking in that place" because I needed evidence. Pose negative hypothesis that I do not expect to be valid simply to cut out a large area of probability. Is this any different really?
*sigh* I know I must have made some syntactic mistake their myself but, hay, I'm just as human as Erik.
> A good theorist may come up with 5 different ideas in a day. About one > every day or two is worth trying on colleagues. About one a month is worth > publishing...at least according to Shelly Glashow, who shares the Nobel > Prize for the Standard Model.
> So, the scientific method is a lot more about good experimental technique > (workmanlike effort in the words of a professor I've always respected) and > thinking about the data and throwing models at it until one sticks.
Spoken like a true experimentalist. The thing is that once you get a model to stick, you have to make it all rigorous. You have to state, or at least back-state the Hypothesis, show that the experiment supports it. Have it checked by your peers. And make sure that it is reproducible. To have a Hypothesis become a theory you have to do it all in such a way that makes any other or Hypothesis improbable. Right?
Dan, you work as a scientist right? A Chemist? I forget. My field is Computation Science (Computer Science)
So, is the flowchart that appears in the finished documentation the one you drew before you wrote a single line of code and followed rigorously (the proper method of program design as taught in textbooks), or is it a diagram which illustrates how the finished code works?
;-)
-- Ronn! :)
God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam… God bless America! My home, sweet home.
-- Irving Berlin (1888-1989)
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
