- "progress in science" is the new topic. I comment.
On 9 Apr 2001 07:12:08 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert J.
MacG. Dawson) wrote:
> 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
Once upon a time, I spent many hours with the book, "Criticism and the
growth of knowledge." Various (top) philosophers comment on Thomas
Kuhn's contributions (normal and revolutionary science; paradigms; and
so on), and on each other.
In real science (I. Lakatos argues), models are strongly resistant
to refutation so long as they remain fertile for research and
speculation. The pertinent historical model is "phlogiston versus the
caloric theory" -- The honored professors on neither side, it seems,
ever convinced the other; there was plenty of conflicting data, for
decades. But one side won new adherents and new researchers.
> _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.
--
Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
