The Scientific Method (Page 10) AchillesSinatra: I'm reproducing the following which I posted in Blackshoes' "The So Called Science of Evolution is Anything but Science" in the science forum: (Just in case it vanishes. Should be safe here.) More on the "stage theory" of theories... On page 103, both JohnWhitmore and KittyBobo shared with us their insight that a scientific theory goes through a form of evolution. It starts off as a hypothesis. Then, subsequent upon testing, assuming the hypothesis is not immediately falsified, it is upgraded to the status of "theory". E.g. "Until both of these conditions are met, a theory does not exist; it is simply an hyposthosis awaiting testing." - JohnWhitmore "Step 2 would be testing the hypothesis. Step 3 upon successful testing, It's a theory" - KittyBobo Right now, among other daunting tomes, I'm struggling through Carl Zimmer and Douglas J. Emlen's epic 700-page "Evolution: Making Sense of Life". As luck would have it, I just now stumbled upon the following passage, relating to sex in the biological realm: "Yet sex is everywhere. Evolutionary biologists have developed a number of competing hypotheses to explain why sex is so common, despite its steep cost. They've tested these explanations on animals, plants, and microbes. They've made their models more complex and tested them yet again. After decades of research, a few hypotheses have emerged as particularly promising." -- pp321-322 Now, according to John and Kitty's "stage theory" of theories, since the writers leave us in no doubt that these few emergent "promising" hypotheses have been subject to extensive and successful testing, they should now have reached maturity and been upgraded to the status of "theory". Strangely, however, Zimmer and Emlem continue to refer to them as "hypotheses". It would appear, then, that either Mr Zimmer and Elmen are confused. Their scientific credentials, however, do seem beyond reproach... ... or else the "stage theory" of theories is a load of bollocks. AchillesSinatra: The "Stage Theory" of theories saga continues... We saw above that, according to the Stage Theory of theories currently being advanced by various members in the science forum, for a hypothesis to be upgraded to the status of a theory, it must have survived testing. Prior to testing, it's a hypothesis; subsequent upon successful testing, it's a theory. Among various other counterexamples to the Stage Theory that I adduced, we saw the example from an evolutionary textbook (post above) where successful testing had occurred, yet the entities in question are still referred to as "hypotheses". JohnWhitmore, in the same Blackshoes' thread mentioned above (p106), responds thus: "Regarding AchillesSinatra's argument about the arising of sex: If (some) facts support two different hypotheses, how can both become theories. Only one of the hypotheses is potentially true. Until competing hypotheses are disproved, none can become a theory." So, under the refined Stage Theory, in order to be granted theoryhood, a hypothesis must satisfy the following conditions: Condition 1 : It has been successfully tested Condition 2 : It has no rivals It's fairly commonplace in science for one particular theory to hold sway, to gain the almost universal assent of the relevant scientific community. But the hegemony tends not to last; sooner or later an upstart new theory (or whatever you want to call it) bursts onto the scene, threatening the dominance of the emperor theory. Now, when this happens, JohnWhitmore's two conditions are no longer satisfied: the emperor theory now has a rival and no longer qualifies for theory status. Are we to believe that under such circumstances an emergency meeting of the Theory Appraisal Committee is convened, and that the heretofore dominant theory is ignominiously downgraded to the humbling status of "hypothesis" again?  But seriously, folks. Why do people continue to promulgate such obvious nonsense? Well, here's my suggestion. They've read it or heard it somewhere, perhaps in a textbook about science, accepted it without question -- after all, if it's in a science textbook it MUST be true -- and, contrary to the spirit of healthy scientific skepticism, neglected to compare it against the actual facts of scientific practice. And when you DO get out the books and test the Stage Theory against the historical facts of science, it is quickly shown to be woefully inadequate. (Edited by AchillesSinatra) (Post deleted by staff ) AchillesSinatra: As if the "Stage Theory" of theories required any further pummeling, here's Isaac Newton in his magnum opus, the "Principia": "Hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from the phenomena, and I frame no hypothesis; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy." (read "experimental philosophy" as "science" ) The Stage Theory of theories insists that all theories start off as hypotheses, and a hypothesis is upgraded to the status of "theory" only when certain conditions have been satisfied. Sir Isaac, to the contrary, tells us that hypotheses have no place in good science, and that he, for one, certainly doesn't propose any, at least with respect to his ideas about gravity. So, on the assumptions that (i) the Stage Theory is true, and (ii) Sir Isaac's musings on hypotheses can be trusted, we arrive at the somewhat unpalatable conclusion: Conclusion: Isaac Newton had no theory of gravity. AchillesSinatra: I'd advise everyone out there, rather than bowing to the terminological imperatives of our resident science experts here (and elsewhere), to just pay attention from now on and decide for yourself whether or not scientists' own usage of the terms "hypothesis" and "theory" conforms to the strictures of what I've been calling the "Stage Theory" of theories (see above for details) being promoted by several members in various threads in the science forum. Here's what appears to be yet another counterexample -- to add to the stockpile -- militating against the Stage Theory, that I just stumbled across in my diurnal lucubrations. In their "Understanding Scientific Reasoning", authors Giere, Bickle, and Mauldin teach the reader how to think like a scientist; how to go about appraising scientific knowledge claims for oneself. On page 269 we see this: "No matter how good the evidence for any hypothesis, it is always possible that it is wide of the truth." Now, given that the hypothesis has evidence, we can reasonably take this to mean that the hypothesis has been subject to test. And if the evidence is very good, we might reasonably assume that the testing has been both extensive and rigorous. But the Stage Theory of theories, or at least KittyBobo's understanding thereof, tells us that subsequent upon testing, a hypothesis is upgraded to the status of theory. E.g. "Step 2 would be testing the hypothesis. Step 3 upon successful testing, It's a theory" - KittyBobo (for source, see above) Why, then, are the above-mentioned writers still calling it a "hypothesis"?  (Edited by AchillesSinatra) AchillesSinatra: Well, exactly, Beaver. What do proponents of the Stage Theory intend to do to violators? Slap 'em with a fine? AchillesSinatra: " Achilles,, why , because its a free country, and no one cares if you don't like it." Kitty, your slogans are adorable. Kinda reminds me of a parrot in a Skinner cage. But, if you ever come up with a cogent argument, be sure to let me know. AchillesSinatra: @ Edward. Great post. In one of his essays, Thomas Kuhn remarks upon the distressing tendency for science students to believe anything they have read in a science textbook. And, as far as I can discern, his apercu seems fairly accurate (with a few exceptions, of course). It's been noted many times, by those like myself standing on the outside and peering through the window, that the putative "healthy skepticism" of science applies universally... except when directed at science itself. How many counterexamples to your manifestly nonsensical "Stage Theory" of theories do you need, Kitty, before you admit error? 100? !000000? As the Chinese say, it's like playing the piano to a cow. Or in layman's terms... 對牛彈琴  kittybobo34: Oh,, was I supposed to apologize to you for saying that the theory has helped science, I still think its an admirable goal to pursue, in spite of the many scientists that do not use it.
AchillesSinatra: And perhaps one of these days you'll tell me what "The Theory" is. Perhaps one of these days you'll provide evidence to support your slogans ( "The theory has helped science" ) Perhaps pigs will fly. (Post deleted by staff ) (Post deleted by staff ) MJ59: Oh ffs we all know what the theory is, semantics aside, English speaking folk have no problem with it AchillesSinatra: @ Beaver Well, since "we all know" what "The Theory" is, this presumably includes yourself. Go ahead and tell me IN YOUR OWN WORDS what The Theory is. No googling, now, like you've done every other time in the past. | Science Chat Room 2 People Chatting Similar Conversations |
