John Sowa, others ~ I wanted to comment on statements made last night about the meaning of law-theory-hypothesis. For convenience (i.e., mine), I will address your statements in a different order: 1-3-2. See below.
Regards, Tom Wyrick "Scientists make a three-way distinction of hypotheses, theories, and laws: 1. A law is a theory that has been thoroughly tested on some observable phenomena and shown to be reliable in making predictions about the future development of those phenomena." There are a lot of scientists, so I won't claim that all agree with a single definition. But when I see the term "law" being used by scientists (e.g., Kepler's Law), it is normally used to describe a physical-empirical regularity. It is assumed that something causes/generates the regularity, and that cause can (eventually) be formalized in a theory -- but the law itself is a phenomenological description of reality. An empirical habit. Laws: Orbits are ellipses (Kepler's Law). If the price of good X decreases, people buy more of good X (law of demand). If something can go wrong, it will (Murphy's Law). These laws-regularities are not accompanied by theories or tentative explanations (hypotheses). "3. A hypothesis is any theory in the logicians' sense. No tests of relevance or reliability have yet been made." This is broadly accurate, but lacks precision. An hypothesis is not "any theory," but a proposed explanation (story) for the observed regularity-law and/or "surprising facts" that depart from the law. Tests of the hypothesis may or may not have been made; being tested does not eliminate something from being an hypothesis. "2. A theory is a hypothesis that ... has not yet been sufficiently tested for it to be accepted as a law." This reads as though a moderate amount of hypothesis testing produces a theory, then more testing produces a law. No cause and effect is hinted at. The alternative view: A theory provides a widely-accepted causal explanation for a physical regularity (law). A generally accepted theory is the best causal explanation that society (scientists and practitioners) can presently offer for the physical law and/or exceptions to it. ..... 4. A theory is the culmination of observation and measurement, hypothesis construction, empirical testing, debate and discussion. As such, a theory is an intellectual-capital good developed over time. There is no logical activity known as "deduction" without first developing a "theoretical model" that, when combined with relevant premises, generates syllogisms (predictions, explanations) relating to a class of phenomena. On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > On 12/12/2016 1:24 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > >> I don’t like the term “legitimate” precisely because it’s ambiguous. >> However I think good theories are theories that allow us to inquire >> about their truthfulness by making somewhat testable predictions. >> > > I agree with both points. > > I think that some of the objections arise from different uses > of the word 'theory'. Logicians typically use the word 'theory' > for the deductive closure of a set of propositions called axioms. > They impose no constraints the relevance or applicability of > the axioms to any kind of phenomena. > > But scientists make a three-way distinction of hypotheses, > theories, and laws: > > 1. A law is a theory that has been thoroughly tested on some > observable phenomena and shown to be reliable in making > predictions about the future development of those phenomena. > > 2. A theory is a hypothesis that has some relevance to some > observable phenomena about which it makes some testable > predictions. But its reliability has not yet been > sufficiently tested for it to be accepted as a law. > > 3. A hypothesis is any theory in the logicians' sense. > No tests of relevance or reliability have yet been made. > > This distinction allows anyone to suggest a hypothesis at > any time -- there is no penalty for proposing something > irrelevant or untestable. Then a community of inquirers may > choose to collaborate in exploring some interesting hypotheses > to determine which might be sufficiently promising for further > development. > > John > > > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
