importance of hypothesis

[Bignose]

Are you purposely misunderstanding what's being written? That's the second time you've rewritten what someone else wrote.

 

Bignose wrote, "Again, to me the starting point [of a scientific investigation] is rather arbitrary". HE DIDN'T SAY PREDICTION IS ARBITRARY.

 

 

 

Perhaps your signature should read, "ask the question, get the answer, and then tailor your response to that answer by strawmanning it, and then claim you're correct because you refuted the wrong answer."

 

+1, I have nothing more to add here, just wanted to indicate that it is exactly what I would have written...

[xxx200]

Are you purposely misunderstanding what's being written? That's the second time you've rewritten what someone else wrote.

 

Bignose wrote, "Again, to me the starting point [of a scientific investigation] is rather arbitrary". HE DIDN'T SAY PREDICTION IS ARBITRARY.

 

 

 

Perhaps your signature should read, "ask the question, get the answer, and then tailor your response to that answer by strawmanning it, and then claim you're correct because you refuted the wrong answer."

 

look man understand this: THERE IS NO LACE OF ARBITRATION IN SCIENCE. be it the begining of scientific invention or middle or end. NO ARBITRATION. ok?

 

the way you write my signature is the way people do debate both in debate forum and in court. i am not debating here. i am just trying to explain that scientific investigation must have sound basis. there should be no arbitration in it.

[uncool]

look man understand this: THERE IS NO LACE OF ARBITRATION IN SCIENCE. be it the begining of scientific invention or middle or end. NO ARBITRATION. ok?

 

the way you write my signature is the way people do debate both in debate forum and in court. i am not debating here. i am just trying to explain that scientific investigation must have sound basis. there should be no arbitration in it.

There is always arbitrariness in anything humans do. There will be arbitrariness in the decision of what to investigate, arbitrariness in the predictions directly, etc. All we can do is remove the arbitrariness from when we decide that predictions are falsified, fulfilled, etc.

=Uncool-

[Phi for All]

i am just trying to explain that scientific investigation must have sound basis. there should be no arbitration in it.

An arbitrary beginning to a scientific investigation and a sound basis for that investigation are NOT mutually exclusive. Please note that nobody suggested the entire methodology is arbitrarily handled, just that the beginning can be arbitrarily chosen. To use words that hopefully won't be misunderstood, it simply doesn't matter in most cases where you start your investigation, as long as the methodology used throughout is sound.

 

And to be clear, arbitration is NOT related to arbitrariness, it's related to arbiter: one who settles a dispute.

[Bignose]

lol, this thread has taken a rather humorous turn.

[xxx200]

An arbitrary beginning to a scientific investigation and a sound basis for that investigation are NOT mutually exclusive. Please note that nobody suggested the entire methodology is arbitrarily handled, just that the beginning can be arbitrarily chosen. To use words that hopefully won't be misunderstood, it simply doesn't matter in most cases where you start your investigation, as long as the methodology used throughout is sound.

 

And to be clear, arbitration is NOT related to arbitrariness, it's related to arbiter: one who settles a dispute.

 

if the begining of a methodology is arbitrary then how come the rest of the methodology is sound? if you start your journey in the wrong direction how come the rest of the journey be in the right direction? how come you arrive at your destination in that case?

 

lol, this thread has taken a rather humorous turn.

 

enjoy the humor and laugh out loud.

[uncool]

if the begining of a methodology is arbitrary then how come the rest of the methodology is sound? if you start your journey in the wrong direction how come the rest of the journey be in the right direction? how come you arrive at your destination in that case?

1) Analogies like this are generally bad for understanding.

 

2) You seem to assume that science has a fixed "destination"; that's inaccurate.

 

3) There is no "wrong direction" for hypotheses; the place where things can go wrong is in when you incorrectly confirm a false hypothesis or incorrectly falsify a true hypothesis.

=Uncool-

[neil2366]

An arbitrary beginning to a scientific investigation and a sound basis for that investigation are NOT mutually exclusive. Please note that nobody suggested the entire methodology is arbitrarily handled, just that the beginning can be arbitrarily chosen. To use words that hopefully won't be misunderstood, it simply doesn't matter in most cases where you start your investigation, as long as the methodology used throughout is sound.

 

And to be clear, arbitration is NOT related to arbitrariness, it's related to arbiter: one who settles a dispute.

 

 

 

 

as long as the methodology used throught is sound--is a very precisly said. Isn't it fair to say in beginning to scientific investigation we should know that in universe two form of actions are taking place all the time 1.simulatneous 2 sequential ?sequential actions are time bound so experimentally can be measured but simultaneous actions are in questions.isn't it? perhaps can only be calculated mathamatically ?

[xxx200]

Isn't it fair to say in beginning to scientific investigation we should know that in universe two form of actions are taking place all the time 1.simulatneous 2 sequential ?sequential actions are time bound so experimentally can be measured but simultaneous actions are in questions.isn't it? perhaps can only be calculated mathamatically ?

 

is it a hypothesis?

[Phi for All]

if the begining of a methodology is arbitrary then how come the rest of the methodology is sound?

The beginning of an investigation, not a methodology. Not the beginning of a methodology, the beginning of an investigation. An investigation is what we're beginning, as opposed to a methodology like you're misreading it to be. We can start an investigation at an arbitrary place as long as the methodology we use is sound. Using sound methodology throughout, where we begin an investigation can be chosen arbitrarily.

 

 

if you start your journey in the wrong direction how come the rest of the journey be in the right direction? how come you arrive at your destination in that case?

False dilemma. You're assuming the direction is wrong simply because it was chosen arbitrarily.

 

This really isn't throwing darts like you seem to think. If you're proposing an hypothesis, chances are you won't have a lot of choices where to start your investigation (indeed, you may have only one place to start). If there are multiple good places to start, why do you object to the starting place being chosen arbitrarily? I think you either have an overly rigid concept of the scientific method, or you misunderstand the idea of choosing from multiple, equally sufficient starting points by whim or personal preference.

 

as long as the methodology used throught is sound--is a very precisly said. Isn't it fair to say in beginning to scientific investigation we should know that in universe two form of actions are taking place all the time 1.simulatneous 2 sequential ?sequential actions are time bound so experimentally can be measured but simultaneous actions are in questions.isn't it? perhaps can only be calculated mathamatically ?

I think this point has been belabored into senselessness. The starting point to any scientific investigation should be in context to the investigation itself, and will most likely vary depending on the phenomena involved.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Neil - your new topic on Simultaneity and Sequence has been split off to a new thread in Speculations. Please try not to lead thread off topic by introducing side-arguments - we have enough room for you to open new threads. Thanks

[swansont]

look man understand this: THERE IS NO LACE OF ARBITRATION IN SCIENCE. be it the begining of scientific invention or middle or end. NO ARBITRATION. ok?

 

the way you write my signature is the way people do debate both in debate forum and in court. i am not debating here. i am just trying to explain that scientific investigation must have sound basis. there should be no arbitration in it.

When Galileo dropped two unequal masses from the tower of Pisa, his choice of the two masses (other than not being equal) could not be arbitrary? Their composition could not be arbitrary? The day he chose to drop them could not be arbitrary? Why?