Dispelling the myth of “hypothesis”

[gnostic]

I think there are gross misunderstanding by those people who either never study science or were never good at science when they were in colleges and universities, as to what a “hypothesis” is.

It is not a matter of theism vs atheism, but theism can be a problem, especially among theists who are creationists, who interpret their scriptures and treated their scriptures as if it were some sorts of infallible and inerrant science treatises. They have the tendencies of cherry-picking some passages or verses, and try to push modern “scientific” meaning into a single sentence or two.

A hypothesis is a “proposed” scientific theory.

Like a scientific theory, a hypothesis should contain explanations to observed phenomena.

But unlike a scientific theory, a hypothesis isn’t tested, therefore not accepted as “science”. There is a possibility and probability that the hypothesis could be refuted or verified, but that’s all dependent on the physical evidence or the test results of experiments.

A scientific theory is one that have been accepted as science or being scientific, because it is both testable (hence falsifiable) and tested (verified by evidence or by experiments...or both).

The problems I see with creationists, is that don’t understand what a hypothesis is, either due to they not grasping what it mean, or due to reliance on biased unscientific sources...or both.

Anyway , they think a hypothesis can be anything that a person or group of people just making things up, without basis in reality, like some dreams or getting high from acid trips, or like writing some fictions.

Before you even start writing the explanation in the hypothesis, the ideas for the hypothesis, should start with or be based on the “observed” phenomena.

The “initial observations” or “preliminary observations” are essential before you start formulating the hypothesis, because observations should yield some information or data about the phenomena.

When you have some ideas about the observed phenomena, then your ideas should be expanded by asking two essential questions (or “more”) as to -

1. WHAT the phenomena is?
2. HOW does this phenomena work?

A scientist or scientists would try to answer these questions with proposed explanations - proposed solutions. The proposed solutions should be based on “preliminary observations”.

I said that could be “more” than two questions. If you are able to answer the first 2 questions, then you should be asking if there are any USES with the “proposed” answers, meaning are there applications. So the follow up questions might be -

1. What possible applications there might be?
2. How would I implement these applications?

If you may have noticed that I keep quoting the word “proposed”, eg “proposed explanations”, “proposed solutions”, or that a hypothesis is a “proposed scientific theory”, etc.

The reasons I frequently used proposed to the hypothesis, hypothesis is true or false, science or not science, verified or not verified (or “refuted” for the “not verified”), until the hypothesis have been tested.

No hypothesis, no proposed explanations or solutions are considered to be “science” by-default. Accepting anything being true in science, is a no-no.

And if you modify or update the hypothesis, the modification or updates to the hypothesis, must also be tested.

And based on rigorous testing (eg multiple evidence, multiple experiments),

(A) the hypothesis would either be accepted because it has been verified by the evidence,

(B) or rejected because the evidence refuted the hypothesis.​

The evidence/experiments can either support the hypothesis or can refute the hypothesis.

I just think creationists should learn what basic terminology mean, like hypothesis, theory, evidence, proof, observation, test, falsifiable, etc.

Frequently I see creationists either use the wrong terms due to misunderstanding or to relying on non-scientific source, or they are trying to mislead people with misinformation.

Anyway, in summary, hypothesis should be based on initial or preliminary observations (evidence) of the physical or natural phenomena, and not on anything that don’t exist.

Edit:

Not all theists are like creationists, incompetent in sciences. There have been many great scientists, who are theists, but I have never seen creationists being good in sciences, let along being “great” at sciences.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think there are gross misunderstanding by those people who either never study science or were never good at science when they were in colleges and universities, as to what a “hypothesis” is.

It is not a matter of theism vs atheism, but theism can be a problem, especially among theists who are creationists, who interpret their scriptures and treated their scriptures as if it were some sorts of infallible and inerrant science treatises. They have the tendencies of cherry-picking some passages or verses, and try to push modern “scientific” meaning into a single sentence or two.

A hypothesis is a “proposed” scientific theory.

Like a scientific theory, a hypothesis should contain explanations to observed phenomena.

But unlike a scientific theory, a hypothesis isn’t tested, therefore not accepted as “science”. There is a possibility and probability that the hypothesis could be refuted or verified, but that’s all dependent on the physical evidence or the test results of experiments.

A scientific theory is one that have been accepted as science or being scientific, because it is both testable (hence falsifiable) and tested (verified by evidence or by experiments...or both).

The problems I see with creationists, is that don’t understand what a hypothesis is, either due to they not grasping what it mean, or due to reliance on biased unscientific sources...or both.

Anyway , they think a hypothesis can be anything that a person or group of people just making things up, without basis in reality, like some dreams or getting high from acid trips, or like writing some fictions.

Before you even start writing the explanation in the hypothesis, the ideas for the hypothesis, should start with or be based on the “observed” phenomena.

The “initial observations” or “preliminary observations” are essential before you start formulating the hypothesis, because observations should yield some information or data about the phenomena.

When you have some ideas about the observed phenomena, then your ideas should be expanded by asking two essential questions (or “more”) as to -

1. WHAT the phenomena is?
2. HOW does this phenomena work?

A scientist or scientists would try to answer these questions with proposed explanations - proposed solutions. The proposed solutions should be based on “preliminary observations”.

I said that could be “more” than two questions. If you are able to answer the first 2 questions, then you should be asking if there are any USES with the “proposed” answers, meaning are there applications. So the follow up questions might be -

1. What possible applications there might be?
2. How would I implement these applications?

If you may have noticed that I keep quoting the word “proposed”, eg “proposed explanations”, “proposed solutions”, or that a hypothesis is a “proposed scientific theory”, etc.

The reasons I frequently used proposed to the hypothesis, hypothesis is true or false, science or not science, verified or not verified (or “refuted” for the “not verified”), until the hypothesis have been tested.

No hypothesis, no proposed explanations or solutions are considered to be “science” by-default. Accepting anything being true in science, is a no-no.

And if you modify or update the hypothesis, the modification or updates to the hypothesis, must also be tested.

And based on rigorous testing (eg multiple evidence, multiple experiments),

(A) the hypothesis would either be accepted because it has been verified by the evidence,

(B) or rejected because the evidence refuted the hypothesis.​

The evidence/experiments can either support the hypothesis or can refute the hypothesis.

I just think creationists should learn what basic terminology mean, like hypothesis, theory, evidence, proof, observation, test, falsifiable, etc.

Frequently I see creationists either use the wrong terms due to misunderstanding or to relying on non-scientific source, or they are trying to mislead people with misinformation.

Anyway, in summary, hypothesis should be based on initial or preliminary observations (evidence) of the physical or natural phenomena, and not on anything that don’t exist.

Edit:

Not all theists are like creationists, incompetent in sciences. There have been many great scientists, who are theists, but I have never seen creationists being good in sciences, let along being “great” at sciences.

Additionally a hypothesis is based on a scientific platform meaning its testable. There is some supporting fact(s) already established that makes it a hypothesis.

Otherwise it's just an idea.

 

[Orbit]

A hypothesis is the falsifiable statement of a relationship between two variables, strictly speaking. It is not a theory, but often derives from theory.

 

[We Never Know]

Additionally a hypothesis is based on a scientific platform meaning its testable. There is some supporting fact(s) already established that makes it a hypothesis.

Otherwise it's just an idea.

For a hypothesis to become a scientific hypothesis, it requires that one can test it(the scientific method).

 

[AlexanderG]

Right, good post. I also share this frustration. Science is a method that incorporates all the tools we've discovered that can reliably distinguish mere imaginary ideas from real facts about the world. If anything supernatural had good, reliable, reasonable cause to believe it was real, then it would become part of science.

At most, theism is a hypothesis. Since most theistic claims aren't even testable, or have been tested and falsified, theology by and large doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis. This means it's not scientific, not supported by science, and cannot be distinguished from any other imaginary idea.

For me, this means theism is unreasonable to believe. I get the impression that it's not about reason for most people, though, but rather about emotional comfort and fitting in with one's local community.

 

[gnostic]

Additionally a hypothesis is based on a scientific platform meaning its testable. There is some supporting fact(s) already established that makes it a hypothesis.

Otherwise it's just an idea.

Most of resistance by creationists are with Evolution, because since the days of Bishop Samuel Wilberforce and Richard Owen (eg 1860, like the Oxford debate), they were still under the impressions that God created man (Adam) “special”, man being made dust from the ground, most likely Genesis 2:7 was referring to soil, since not long after god created the Garden of Eden.

So the very idea that humans sharing some same physical traits to other apes, were offensive to bishop Wilberforce.

The fact is that before Darwin and Wilberforce, humans were always born. That’s nature.

No where in history of human kind were humans “observed” being created directly from dust or soil. That could only happen in stories and in myths, and through blind faith in such belief.

Charles Darwin didn’t simply make up that species exist in given regions where environments varied. He spent most of his voyage from 1831 to 1836, mostly in coastal regions in South America, recording plants and animals and collecting samples, as well as Galapagos, and to lesser extents in Australia, other Pacific islands and South Africa.

Alfred Russel Wallace, Darwin’s contemporary, did similar field trips in the Amazon rainforest and the Malay Archipelago, and also wrote about Natural Selection.

Both Darwin and Wallace relied on studying species, hence their researches were based on evidence, not something that they just made up in their minds.

I think there are some degrees of assumptions made during hypothesis formulation, but assumptions based on preliminary evidence or preliminary observations, the hypotheses aren’t pure speculations.

Michael Behe for instance, wrote paper on Irreducible Complexity, but could never produce any physical evidence or experiments to show that IC was testable and being tested as being probable. He could never get IC peer-reviewed, and perhaps he didn’t try, because he knew he had no original experiments and data to back it up.

And being supporter of Intelligent Design, he wrote Irreducible Complexity in support of ID.

His only argument for was to write books that support IC & ID published in “popular science” for general readers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The only change that I would make is that a hypothesis is not fully tested. Some hypotheses can be quite complex. Some aspects of them may have been tested and confirmed while others have still not been tested. Abiogenesis is a rather good example of this. And to be honest I have seen far too often headlines stating that abiogenesis has been solved. That is simply not the case yet. Aspects of it have been solved, but not the full idea.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Most of the strict creationists that debate against science on these forums demonstrate a deep and distinct lack of scientific literacy. Despite this, they all claim to have done the research. What research that is eludes me. Claims, statements and conclusions promoted by creationists do not bear any evidence of being derived from the existing research or knowledge arising from the scientific method.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think there are gross misunderstanding by those people who either never study science or were never good at science when they were in colleges and universities, as to what a “hypothesis” is.

...

Okay, here it is as a civil servant, because that is a part of what I have done. And for which I am a member of different subculture than you.
So to get different cultures out of the way. In my culture your science is not science, it is natural science and relevant for this thread I will use 4 kinds of science. Natural, cultural, mental and humanistic science.

Now let us, you and I, then do what science is, as it can be observed as done by humans. It is a human behaviour that is cultural and can be observed over different cultures with some variance.
I am not going to define science. I am going describe it as a human behaviour and I am going to note, that this description is done by a human, me.
So humanistic science is the description of the everyday world for which is taken for granted, than humans are in the word as parts of the world, but they are not the only parts. And the method of this kind of science, is to describe the human experience in all forms. And that includes me doing that right now.

So natural science is as a human behavior characterized by a combination of cognition and observing. The main requirement is observation as to external sensory experience or instruments calibrated to a given norm.
Culture science is then the observation and description of humans in groups and how that works and that is influenced by the person doing the observation and description.
Mental science is how human coping, cognition and feelings are observed and described by another human, which copes, have cognition and feelings.

So to round this of. This OP of yours and my answer are both cases of something that involves more than natural science.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I think there are gross misunderstanding by those people who either never study science or were never good at science when they were in colleges and universities, as to what a “hypothesis” is.

The problem isn’t so much that creationists (or anyone else) never took college courses in science, nor is it a question of whether they did well in these courses. To the extent that we can say “the problem” (as opposed to one of many problems), the far more central issue is that scientific education together with popular science systematically misleads, misinforms, and creates more misunderstanding than it does understanding.
This has been a topic of discussion among scientific societies, organizations, etc., along with educational societies/organizations not to mention government-sponsored inquiries and funded reform programs for several decades. After all, a great deal of science education continues to revolve around a myth called The Scientific Method, based largely on a popular book from the turn of the century and its author (John Dewey) among others. The idea was to try to instill scientific thinking as kind of everyday thinking, and the idea that this is what we do as scientists remains today (along with the idea that we carry out steps like some algorithm, make careful distinctions between things like hypotheses, theories, models, conjectures, etc.).

A hypothesis is a “proposed” scientific theory.

Like a scientific theory, a hypothesis should contain explanations to observed phenomena.

But unlike a scientific theory, a hypothesis isn’t tested, therefore not accepted as “science”.

"Several hypotheses seek to explain variation in levels of plant defense across tissues and within or among populations (Stamp 2003). One of the leading hypotheses, optimal defense theory, predicts that plants will evolve levels of defense that are positively related to levels of herbivory and negatively related to allocation or ecological costs (Rhoads 1979, Stamp 2003)." (emphases added)
Kooyers, N. J., Blackman, B. K., & Holeski, L. M. (2017). Optimal defense theory explains deviations from latitudinal herbivory defense hypothesis. Ecology, 98(4), 1036-1048.

Likewise: Testing the optimal defense hypothesis in nature: Variation for glucosinolate profiles within plants

"Studies of this variation have given rise to a number of general hypotheses regarding the evolution and allocation of defenses. The Optimal Defense Hypothesis (ODH) is one of the primary theories addressing the distribution of defenses within a plant." (emphases added)
Keith RA, Mitchell-Olds T (2017) Testing the optimal defense hypothesis in nature: Variation for glucosinolate profiles within plants. PLOS ONE 12(7): e0180971. Testing the optimal defense hypothesis in nature: Variation for glucosinolate profiles within plants

This kind of description is ubiquitous. Generally, in the actual scientific literature as well as in practice we don't make these kinds of distinctions as they are usually unimportant, irrelevant, and generally nonsensical. One may try to sort out what sort of statements in the literature should count as being in the category "hypothesis" or what kinds of terms, phrases, names, and similar varying ways in which some sort of meaningful way of referring to a framework or approach within or across fields should be termed a "theory" (e.g., embodied cognition, the neuron doctrine, etc.). But we don't do that. Philosophers of science sometimes do, and sometimes in popular literature scientists will fall back on carelessly used, overly simplistic descriptions from other popular sources or textbooks. Inevitably, with the possible exception of certain work in the philosophy and history of science (with different goals and in a far more nuanced fashion), any attempt to make distinctions between what counts as theory vs. hypothesis (or even theory vs. scientific field, or an approach within a discipline, etc.) is not only guaranteed to fail, it's also a waste of time.

It's not just a waste of time because it "educates" people into thinking these are important scientific terms that scientists use. It's a waste of time primarily because of the ways in which different approaches, theories, hypotheses, methods, etc., within and across disciplines that are interested in X (e.g., evolutionary theory, climate, cognitive linguistics, spectroscopy, etc.) are intricately tied together in a manner that makes it largely impossible even to separate out theoretical frameworks from methodological approaches.

There is a possibility and probability that the hypothesis could be refuted or verified, but that’s all dependent on the physical evidence or the test results of experiments.

These things matter, but it's not at all the most important aspect, as very little experimental data is readily interpretable or meaningful.
My favorite go-to example (even if it is simplistic) is Young vs. Einstein. Roughly 100 years apart, one showed definitively that light was a wave. Not only that, but because of such progress the 1800s saw the development of an extremely successful unification of various laws relating to electricity and magnetism into the framework electromagnetism. So not only did Young empirically demonstrate, quite clearly, that light was a wave, one of the more successful physical theories ever devised is based upon this "fact."

Then Einstein proposed that light was made up of discrete components or Lichtquanta. And he had some evidence to back this up (not nearly as much, but then again electromagnetism was facing serious problems on at least two different fronts).

So we have experimental evidence supporting Einstein's hypothesis, and a wealth of experimental evidence supporting the theory of electromagnetism. Which was correct?
Neither. They were both wrong because the entire approach to physics was predicated upon a non-existent distinction into non-existent categories that were (and remain) useful approximations, but approximations nonetheless.

A scientific theory is one that have been accepted as science or being scientific, because it is both testable (hence falsifiable) and tested (verified by evidence or by experiments...or both).

Hypotheses are developed within the context of theoretical frameworks, often overlapping with other competing hypotheses in the same framework all of which are attempting to extend, further, modify, or clarify the framework. Falsification is typically impossible because the kind of falsifiability Popper proposed was akin to that of logic. A theory is supposed to be like the empirical assertion that all swans are white, which can be falsified by a single black swan (because a single counterexample is all it takes, logically). In practice, this wouldn’t work even in the swan case, but more generally it would lead to the collapse of scientific practice if actually adopted.

Anyway , they think a hypothesis can be anything that a person or group of people just making things up, without basis in reality, like some dreams or getting high from acid trips, or like writing some fictions.

It can be. The simulation hypothesis comes to mind, but that's a bit beyond what many would consider science (and I would agree). But there are other examples that abound: the Gaia hypothesis (which, if it is considered supported by evidence vs. mainly one individual writing dream-like speculation with scientific terms, means that the Medea hypothesis is the problematic one), the Goldilocks hypothesis, the rare earth hypothesis, the Tree of Life hypothesis, etc. There are a lot like this. Many have some support, some have really no scientific support, many are proposed by a single individual and maybe picked up by followers, and many never made it anywhere not because of new evidence or really evidence at all but rather because they didn't garner enough support from a broader community.

Before you even start writing the explanation in the hypothesis, the ideas for the hypothesis, should start with or be based on the “observed” phenomena.

Much of the time in physics, it's based on manipulating mathematics, physicists' intuition, and certain deep mathematical structures (especially symmetries).

Frequently I see creationists either use the wrong terms due to misunderstanding or to relying on non-scientific source, or they are trying to mislead people with misinformation.

Given how often I see non-scientists trying to "correct" creationists with ideas that, while at least they don't rely on religious concepts, are not rooted in science and are also inaccurate and misleading, I would say that there's a bigger problem.

 

[pearl]

Before you even start writing the explanation in the hypothesis, the ideas for the hypothesis, should start with or be based on the “observed” phenomena.

So, when discussing hypotheses and a relation to faith what is 'observed' relates to what is biblical.
Its a search through scripture not unlike an archeological dig, through layer after layer after layer through extant manuscripts.

 

[Revoltingest]

Notice:
"Phenomenon" is the singular form.
"Phenomena" is plural.

I was triggered, but feel better now.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think there are gross misunderstanding by those people who either never study science or were never good at science when they were in colleges and universities, as to what a “hypothesis” is.

It is not a matter of theism vs atheism, but theism can be a problem, especially among theists who are creationists, who interpret their scriptures and treated their scriptures as if it were some sorts of infallible and inerrant science treatises. They have the tendencies of cherry-picking some passages or verses, and try to push modern “scientific” meaning into a single sentence or two.

A hypothesis is a “proposed” scientific theory.

Like a scientific theory, a hypothesis should contain explanations to observed phenomena.

But unlike a scientific theory, a hypothesis isn’t tested, therefore not accepted as “science”. There is a possibility and probability that the hypothesis could be refuted or verified, but that’s all dependent on the physical evidence or the test results of experiments.

A scientific theory is one that have been accepted as science or being scientific, because it is both testable (hence falsifiable) and tested (verified by evidence or by experiments...or both).

The problems I see with creationists, is that don’t understand what a hypothesis is, either due to they not grasping what it mean, or due to reliance on biased unscientific sources...or both.

Anyway , they think a hypothesis can be anything that a person or group of people just making things up, without basis in reality, like some dreams or getting high from acid trips, or like writing some fictions.

Before you even start writing the explanation in the hypothesis, the ideas for the hypothesis, should start with or be based on the “observed” phenomena.

The “initial observations” or “preliminary observations” are essential before you start formulating the hypothesis, because observations should yield some information or data about the phenomena.

When you have some ideas about the observed phenomena, then your ideas should be expanded by asking two essential questions (or “more”) as to -

1. WHAT the phenomena is?
2. HOW does this phenomena work?

A scientist or scientists would try to answer these questions with proposed explanations - proposed solutions. The proposed solutions should be based on “preliminary observations”.

I said that could be “more” than two questions. If you are able to answer the first 2 questions, then you should be asking if there are any USES with the “proposed” answers, meaning are there applications. So the follow up questions might be -

1. What possible applications there might be?
2. How would I implement these applications?

If you may have noticed that I keep quoting the word “proposed”, eg “proposed explanations”, “proposed solutions”, or that a hypothesis is a “proposed scientific theory”, etc.

The reasons I frequently used proposed to the hypothesis, hypothesis is true or false, science or not science, verified or not verified (or “refuted” for the “not verified”), until the hypothesis have been tested.

No hypothesis, no proposed explanations or solutions are considered to be “science” by-default. Accepting anything being true in science, is a no-no.

And if you modify or update the hypothesis, the modification or updates to the hypothesis, must also be tested.

And based on rigorous testing (eg multiple evidence, multiple experiments),

(A) the hypothesis would either be accepted because it has been verified by the evidence,

(B) or rejected because the evidence refuted the hypothesis.​

The evidence/experiments can either support the hypothesis or can refute the hypothesis.

I just think creationists should learn what basic terminology mean, like hypothesis, theory, evidence, proof, observation, test, falsifiable, etc.

Frequently I see creationists either use the wrong terms due to misunderstanding or to relying on non-scientific source, or they are trying to mislead people with misinformation.

Anyway, in summary, hypothesis should be based on initial or preliminary observations (evidence) of the physical or natural phenomena, and not on anything that don’t exist.

Edit:

Not all theists are like creationists, incompetent in sciences. There have been many great scientists, who are theists, but I have never seen creationists being good in sciences, let along being “great” at sciences.

I would say, based on my experience talking with them, that most creationists are not scientifically literate and don't care to be. As a group, I have found they are not exceptionally skilled in logic either. But when you view the entire world as belief based only and exclude evidence and acquired knowledge from systematic study and experimentation, I do not find it surprising to see so many that know so little about the subjects they seek to get everyone to reject in favor of their personal doctrine.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Notice:
"Phenomenon" is the singular form.
"Phenomena" is plural.

I was triggered, but feel better now.

That word "triggered" triggers me. Hmmmm?

 

[Revoltingest]

That word "triggered" triggers me. Hmmmm?

Meta triggered, eh.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Meta triggered, eh.

Not to go off half cocked, but there it is again and once more I am trigger, triggered.

I never meta, but I wanted too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Notice:
"Phenomenon" is the singular form.
"Phenomena" is plural.

I was triggered, but feel better now.

In deference to the OP and not to further stray from it, I did want to say that your reference to phenomenon/phenomena reminded me that I have noticed that many creationists do not seem to differentiate between the phenomena of evolution and the theory of evolution.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not to go off half cocked, but there it is again and once more I am trigger, triggered.

I never meta, but I wanted too.

Guess the name of this horse.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Guess the name of this horse.

This does trigger me.

I accept the existence of horses. My family has owned some. I have seen them. I see this picture of a horse. I have seen the evidence horses leave behind. In fact, I collect and study some of the critters that take up residence in that horse evidence.

I wonder what sort of hypothesis might arise from what we know of this picture, the horse therein and the man who loves him. Oh the fury. Wait a minute, I may be mixing my fictional world views up.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Guess the name of this horse.

Look what you triggered with your Trigger picture.