__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
This is why you must generate a null hypothesis (what you would predict if your hypothesis was wrong) and test that in science.
You can never prove that something is absolutly right, as there might be a better, unknown, explanation. You can only show that alternative explanations must be false.
But what if the hypothesis is representative of something that is devoid of reasoning, such as the reason in which one is going about finding a hypothesis. If one is absolutely sure about what they are looking for, and who they are, then there should be no reason to continue testing someone, unless of course the person they are testing is not who they claim to be...I mean we each should have an accurate understanding of what it is what we're doing before we test something, and make sure it falls within reasonable guidelines.
__________________
Thundercats Hooo!!!
Last edited by Thundar on Mar 22nd, 2010 at 07:33 PM
I don't know if that is worded correctly, do you mean to ask "what if the hypothesis represents something which is without the faculties of reason?" or "what if the hypothesis represents something which reason cannot solve?"
each has a different answer, though, I'm generally confused as to what you mean...
well, the reason someone is proposing a hypothesis isn't necessarily a tangible thing, but that doesn't mean that [refering to the options above] a) it is about something that can't reason, or b) not solvable by reason...
The problem is, there is a huge difference between "reason" and "science". "Reason" is a philosophical concept birthed from the Enlightenment based around the supremecy of European intellects over the "barbaric" or "noble" savage. Science is a specific and constantly changing methodology. So, I guess this is a long winded way of saying it is really unimportant (unless one wishes to specifically study why researchers are motivated to study what they do) as to why a researcher is motivated in the way they are, as the method of science will, eventually, detect and correct conclusions a researcher may have come to through "reason" alone, through specific methodology that is not the same as the faculty of reason, at all.
The closest thing you would be describing is called researcher bias, and might actually touch on something called the "file drawer effect", where studies with null (negative) results are not published because they aren't as flashy to the journals, or because they often serve as disconforming evidence to the theses held by journal publishers. These are valid issues, and there is really no empirical way to address them yet, but, the most important thing to note would be that: compared with any other way of discerning evidence about the universe, science is the only one which is able to best correct science, which is itself the best at producing models ment to represent the physical world. So, even when there are pitfalls, there is no other real option other than using the methods developed within science to show its own limitations (which many people within the scientific community do, and make a career out of).
there is never any way to be absolutly sure. This is why, again, science differs from reason. Science is, by its design, a work in progress, whereas people subjectively seek absolutes.
There is always reason to continue testing, because we can't know we are right, in fact, probability says it is close to 100% certain we are wrong.
what a strange qualification...
how could you possibly know if what you are testing is what it claims to be without further testing?
there are pre-experiment power analyses that can be done to determine how likely positive results would be, and all research must be approved through a board, so everyone knows what they are looking for before they start....
however, I really get the feeling you are less interested in the philosophy behind statistical analysis and are more interested in some bizarre spiritual affirmations...
We all think we are right, but that doesn't help when when make the wrong turn. Sometimes you have to make sure you know nothing before you know something. Then you will know, what you don't know, because what you don't know, may hurt you. -Goku
We don't know what we don't know, so we should be sensative to that. Even Scientists understand that there are spots that we really don't know what we don't know. So, even what we think we know, we really don't know, we just think we know. Wow, what a trip. LOl
I think I should put this drink down now.
__________________ Deja Moo: The feeling that you've heard this bull before.
All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
KMC Community Forums
Feb 28th, 2010 09:11 PM
but it is usally because they believe themeleves to be right.
