| Adapted for the Internet from: Why God Doesn't Exist |
| What is a hypothesis? |
1.0 The establishment lives with irreconcilable definitions of the word hypothesis
The American heritage Dictionary defines the term scientific method as:
- “ The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration con-
sidered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally
involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis
concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or
falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the
hypothesis.” [1]
Most, if not all, people who regard themselves to be scientists will more or less agree with this definition. In general, this
standard consists of four or five steps:
- “ observation…hypothesis…prediction…experiment…analysis” [2]
These definitions would seem to be okay except that they contain the mysterious word hypothesis. What does
it mean? I ask this because by merely browsing the Internet you will discover that people hold widely different opinions with
respect to this enigmatic word:
a. an objective or purpose; an investigative proposal or question:
- “ Objectives: State the purpose or hypothesis upon which the project is based.” [3]
“ Will students who attended at least two years of Montessori preschool have
better reading comprehension abilities at the end of first grade than those
students who did not attend preschool at all?” [4]
“ Question or hypothesis to be investigated. A hypothesis is a testable assertion” [5]
- b. a prediction or testable statement
- “ At the end of first grade, there will be a difference between the reading compre-
hension abilities of children who attended Montessori preschool and children
who did not attend preschool at all.” [6]
“ A hypothesis is your question in statement form. For example, ‘Sargassum
inshore will have fewer organisms than Sargassum offshore.’ ” [7] [8]
“ The experimenter soon devises an experiment to test the hypothesis.” [9]
- “ a hypothesis should be falsifiable, meaning that it is possible that it be
shown to be false, usually by observation” [10]
“ Before that hypothesis becomes a theory, we must test that hypothesis” [11]
“ If one could prove the hypothesis, it would no longer be a hypothesis” [12]
“ When a hypothesis fails to give correct results, it is revised or rejected and
replaced.” [13]
[... except in Mathematical Physics! For example, when Einstein's relativity failed to
describe the galaxy rotation problem, the idiots of Mathematics did not reject relativity.
They simply invented something ad hoc called dark matter! Likewise, when the idiots
of Mathematics could not explain light with either the wave or the corpuscular models,
they did not reject Quantum Mechanics. They blended the two and called the result a
wave-packet!]
- c. an assumption or guess:
- “ Hypotheses are single tentative guesses – good hunches – assumed for
use in devising theory or planning experiment” [14]
“ to suppose” [15]
“ supposition: an assumption.” [16]
“ hypothesis: Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation;
an assumption.” [17]
“ assumption: something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a
supposition.” [18]
- d. an explanation.
- “ This hypothesis explains the isomorphism between the structure of experience and
neural organization...” [19]
“ A hypothesis is an explanation with some evidence and testing behind it.” [20]
“ a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.” [21]
- e. a theory:
- “ Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis...”
(p.10) [22]
“ a tentative theory about the natural world” [23]
- f. data analysis
- “ data analysis (hypothesis)” [24]
So what should we conclude about the hypothesis? Is the prosecutor making a prediction, proposing a challenge, making an
assumption, or offering an explanation? Is a prediction the same as an assumption? Is an assumption the same as an
explanation?
Of course, with such an all-encompassing definition, it is not surprising that contemporary 'scientists' cannot tell you whether
Creationism is scientific or whether Evolution is ‘just’ a theory. The morons of the establishment have embodied so many
irreconcilable notions in what they call the hypothesis that this step of the scientific method has lost all meaning. In order to use
the strategic word hypothesis in a scientific setting (i.e., consistently), it cannot continue to be so broad, malleable, and self-
serving.
2.0 Unless they understand what a hypothesis is, the mathematicians cannot claim to be doing science
As a result of the irreconcilable definitions of the word hypothesis that the establishment has come up with, the anonymous
peers that review submissions for publication have not developed an eye for catching theories disguised as assumptions. Take
the statement:
- “ Let us assume that Johnny did not rob the store.”
Most people would regard this as an assumption simply because the sentence includes the word ‘assume’. It would appear,
however, that the prosecutor is already presenting a theory. The prosecutor is starting his case not with the initial scene, but in
the middle of the opera. Johnny robbing the store is not a photograph, but a motion picture. The ET has not yet had a chance to
learn what the words Johnny, store, gun, and car allude to when we are already reaching the movie’s unhappy ending. Johnny
robbing the store is already a belief, an explanation or, perhaps, an investigative proposal. It surely does not sound like an
assumption. We confirm that this statement is not a hypothesis when the prosecutor synthesizes his closing remarks:
- “ ...and therefore, this shows that Johnny could very well have robbed the store.”
In retrospect, the prosecutor began by denying a statement that he intended to prove from the start:
- “Recent observations vindicate the assumption” [25]
However, if an assumption is not a statement that we prove, but rather a statement that the juror is supposed to take at face
value, then clearly the morons of the establishment need to take a beginner's course in Science.
3.0 A brief history of hypothesis
One major reason the word hypothesis is so misunderstood has to do with the widespread notion that there are two methods
of acquiring knowledge: the deductive method and the inductive method. The deductive method allegedly goes from the
general to the specific. [26] The inductive method is its antithesis and apparently goes in reverse, from the specific to the
general. Its purported aim is to derive general principles from particular instances or facts.
The mainstream champions the inductive method and claims that it revolutionized science starting in the 17th Century.
Induction was a procedure a researcher would follow to unlock the secrets of nature:
- “The scientific method provides an objective process to find solutions to pro-
blems” [27]
[By scientific method, the establishment really means the inductive method…]
“ The inductive method (usually called the scientific method) is the deductive
method ‘turned upside down’…The inductive method of investigation has
become so entrenched in science that it is often referred to as the scientific
method.”[28]
- Newton synthesized his generation's perception of the word hypothesis in Principia:
- “ I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena
(observational data) is to be called a hypothesis and hypotheses....have no
place in experimental philosophy…propositions are inferred from the data
and afterwards rendered general by induction.” [29]
Induction was allegedly superior to deduction because it began with observation and made ‘testable predictions.’ Skeptics
could experimentally corroborate the claims made by others. Unlike Plato, Aristotle, and Euclid, who began with a set of
self-evident or intuitive truths – oftentimes shown to be unjustified opinions – the new breed of empiricists (Galileo, Bacon,
Brahe, Keppler, Descartes) began with a set of testable proposals which, believing to be consistent with the Greek tradition,
they called hypotheses.
Another source of confusion is the habit the Greeks had of following up their illustrations with a hodge-podge of definitions,
descriptions, axioms, postulates, and propositions, all of which are conceptually irreconcilable. The following examples are
all taken from Euclid’s Elements:
a. definition
b. description
- “ Let AB be the given finite straight line.” (Bk I, Prop 1) [31]
c. underscore a particular static, self-evident, or intuitive relation the geometer wants the jury to focus on
- “ Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another.”
(Bk I, Ax. 1) [32]
d. construct a figure (a set of guidelines to construct a specific geometric figure)
- “ To draw a straight line from any point to any point.” (Bk I, Post. 1) [33]
e. tell the reader what the theorist is proposing to accomplish with the instant exercis
(purpose/prediction)
- “ That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines make the interior angles on
the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced
indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right
angles.” (Bk I, Post. 5) [34]
Yet, despite that the Greeks had but remote ideas of the purpose of the hypothesis, they more or less followed the scientific
method largely because of the nature of the field to which they applied it. Geometry is ideally a static science, a close relative
of Art, and lends itself to illustration. The Greeks started their theorems with an illustration, made a set of assumptions, and
inferred a set of static relations that followed from these assumptions. Fields such as Philosophy, Economics, and History
often deal with abstract concepts and are not readily amenable to illustration.
The empiricists, instead, applied the method to metaphysics. They started with theories intuitively inferred from observing
dynamic physical phenomena and then attempted to discover and formulate the underlying assumptions. Thus the modern
researchers erroneously focused on the dynamic aspects of the Greek hypothesis – axioms, postulates, and propositions.
The problem actually originates with Aristotle, who apparently extrapolated the syllogism from the deductive method, until
then consisting of illustrations and axioms. The syllogism dealt with abstract concepts rather than with geometry, thus
emphasizing the relations between premises rather than between substances or things. [35] [36] [37] The inductive method
emphasizes the detective and not the prosecutor. It has to do with how a detective came across his knowledge and not
with why a phenomenon happened.
Together with their newly discovered inductive method, the modern theorists erroneously inferred from Euclid et al that a
hypothesis is both a step in which the experimenter gathers data and makes statements regarding what he is about to prove.
The empiricists of the 17th Century emphasized observation and prediction and forgot about the underlying objects, facts, and
assumptions altogether. A bad habit gradually developed of taking the objects for granted. Increasingly, the proponent dealt in
abstract mode altogether. Since everyone was familiar with ordinary objects, it would have seemed childish for the prosecutor
to begin his case by exhibiting a picture of a knife and a statue of a human. The prosecutors got into the habit of skipping this
boring and redundant step for fear of belittling the scholars. It is thus how the modern peer reviewers have grown accustomed
to reading about point and quasi-particles and with 0D singularities and 4D universes without batting an eyelash. The modern
prosecutors, in effect, did away with the hypothesis (initial scene, objects, facts) and plowed ahead directly to the theory
(explanation, belief). The genuine hypothesis gradually faded almost unnoticed into oblivion and with it the entire scientific
method. Whether the discussion was about elephants or mice, spirits or souls, space-time or black holes, particles or waves,
the prosecutors bypassed the exhibits stage because no one demanded or realized the significance of illustrations and
objects.
Thus, the reason the forgoing definition of the term scientific method lacks a provision for the word theory is that the word
hypothesis has usurped this spot. It would be redundant to define science in terms of two words that have the same meaning
and no purpose to talk about theory if the theory was already embodied in the hypothesis. It is, thus, how the modern idiots
refined the word hypothesis to mean ‘untested theory’ whereas the theory became a rubber-stamped hypothesis:
- “ hypothesis: An explanation accounting for a set of facts that can be tested by
further investigation: THEORY…theory: An assumption or guess based on
limited knowledge or information: HYPOTHESIS.” [38]
- “ If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a
theory or law of nature” [39]
“ A Theory is a hypothesis that has been experimentally tested and pretty soundly
confirmed. A Law is a Theory so well confirmed and so widely accepted, that no
reputable scientist doubts its truth.”[40]
[Oh yeah? " Orbis judicat terrarum" (The verdict of the world is conclusive; the
whole world cannot be wrong). St. Augustine said this in a time when all reputable
scientists believed the Earth was flat! If science depended on a show of hands, we
would still be in the dark ages. What am I saying? Stupid of me! We ARE in the Dark
Ages!]
- Of course, we can spend all day justifying that a scientific thesis may not do without a hypothesis, but then it is more productive
to establish its nature unambiguously. Here I will attempt to elucidate the purpose of this mysterious step and show why it is
needed. I argue that a hypothesis is a recipe that consists of three phases which I respectively call:
- 1. The Exhibits
2. The Definitions
3. A Statement of the facts
Without these ingredients, whether in explicit or implicit form, the prosecutor of a theory is not doing science.
4.0 Conclusions
The infamous inductive method steamrolled over the scientific method, specifically over the step called the hypothesis. The
inductive method is a good guideline to develop technology, but is lethal to theoretical physics and science. The empiricists
followed their worst intuition regarding the purpose of the step known as hypothesis, thus breaking with an unwitting Greek
tradition and with science.
| Sometimes I frame oil paintings. Other times I frame people. But I never frame hypotheses. |
Newt Bill
fingoing hypotheses
- Module main page: A relativist believes that a hypothesis is a prediction
Pages in this module:
- 1. This page: What is a hypothesis?
2. A hypothesis demands an exhibit
3. A scientific definition is one that can be used consistently
4. The scientific method demands a statement of the facts
5. A show of hands does not establish a fact
| But I insist, Bill! I'm going to prove to you my assumption that fire is hot. |
| It's okay, Newt! I believe you. You don't really have to do this. |
- ________________________________________________________________________________________
- Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008