Eric Bohlman wrote:
In science, it's not enough to
> say that you have data that's consistent with your hypothesis; you also
> need to show a) that you don't have data that's inconsistent with your
> hypothesis and b) that your data is *not* consistent with competing
> hypotheses. And there's absolutely nothing controversial about that last
> sentence [...]
Well, I'd want to modify it a little. On the one hand, a certain amount
of inconsistency can be (and sometimes must be) dealt with by saying
"every so often something unexpected happens"; otherwise it would only
take two researchers making inconsistent observations to bring the whole
structure of science crashing down. And on the other hand there are
_always_ competing hypotheses. [Consider Jaynes' example of the
policeman seeing one who appears to be a masked burglar exiting from the
broken window of a jewellery store with a bag of jewellery; he (the
policeman) does *not* draw the perfectly logical conclusion that this
might be the owner, returning from a costume party, and, having noticed
that the window was broken, collecting his stock for safekeeping.] It is
sufficient to show that your data are not consistent with hypotheses
that are simpler or more plausible, or at least not much less simple or
plausible.
-Robert Dawson
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
