Re: Frosted Popper-Tarts (was Re: Underlying basis...)

[Philidor11@aol.com]

Hi, Matt, great to hear from you again!
You've raised some fascinating questions about the difference between the 
observations leading to a hypothesis and the testing of the hypothesis.  As 
I'd formulate them:
1.  Is it testing the hypothesis when additional data/observations are sought 
to support the hypothesis?
2.  Is it testing the hypothesis when inferences are used to obtain 
conclusions supporting the hypothesis?
In both cases, the activities seem to be use of existing data/observations to 
justify the hypothesis initially.
The type of test we're talking about includes prediction/experiment.  As I 
understand it, the hypothesis can be falsified if it leads to a prediction of 
something which follows from the hypothesis but was not part of the original 
observations.  The experiment is making that something happen in such a way 
that your rooting interest cannot influence the outcome.  If the hypothesis 
cannot be falsified then it can be regarded as proven.  The problem with 
testing the past is you can't make it happen any other way, you can't 
manipulate it.  (But see below.)

The first example is the evidence for the K/T bolide:
<<Take the asteroid-impact hypothesis: first, all we had was high 
concentrations of iridum around the world at K/T boundary.  Since asteroids 
and/or comets tend to have high concentrations it was argued that an 
asteroid/comet hit about 65 MYA.  But this evidence alone was not enough...
However, more evidence began to mount for a bolide impact, including the 
presence of shocked-quartz.  Shocked quartz is only known to form at impact 
sites.  Furthermore, large tsunami (tidal wave) deposits were known from the 
Gulf of Mexico region, some of these up into central Texas.  But this was 
still not enough ...
Finally in 1992, a crater approximately 150 km across was found off the 
Yucatan penninsula in Mexico.  The age of the crater has been dated to 65 
MYA [and the crater fit with the rest of the evidence]...>>
So, isn't this a description of getting enough evidence to justify making the 
hypothesis in the first place?  I'm not saying that the hypothesis is not 
well-supported and true, but what consequence of the hypothesis could be used 
to make a prediction which could fail and so falsify the hypothesis? 

Your second example concerns gaining evidence about terrain preferences of 
certain dinosaurs:
<<If my hypothesis is true that two families of North American sauropods,
Diplodocidae and Camarasauridae, had different terrain preferences (i.e., 
tending to stick to certain areas of land, dry or wet), then I should find 
differing degrees of phalangeal, metatarsal, and claw mobility in the feet 
(pes).
First, I physically MANIPULATED the feet of various sauropods, and my 
observations seemed to suggest that Diplodocids had more mobile feet and 
ankles than Camarasaurids.  However, I have my biases.  If there really is a 
different in foot mobility, this should be reflected in the shapes of the 
articular surfaces and the bones themselves...
Using a shape analysis program...[and]...ANOVA..., I found that 
my...hypothesis... was statistically viable...  
In other words, by physical manipulation and statistical manipulation, I 
have determined that, for now (until new evidence comes to light), these two 
families differed in their foot mobility.  This empirical data suggests 
(although does not prove) that these two sauropod families may have preferred 
to walk on differing terrains, which in turn may have implications for 
paleoecology.  This is what I am scrambling to get a paper out on.>>
I admire the ingenuity used to make observations which are not available 
directly from the physical evidence.  (I'd ask about how directly foot 
mobility correlates to terrain preference, but I suspect this is not all the 
evidence you've educed.)  You have justification for your hypothesis, but can 
you describe what currently unavailable data would prove your hypothesis 
incorrect?

These examples appear to be about obtaining the data/observations needed to 
formulate a hypothesis rather than testing it.  They do prove the rigor of 
paleontology and the other historical sciences, even if that rigor is not 
exactly the same as that of the 'experimental world' as Dr. Brochu called it.
I'm checking on Karl Popper as recommended by Dr. Holtz to see how the 
appropriate modifications to the 'classic' scientific method (which, if I 
understand Dr. Holtz correctly, was actually misunderstood by a substantial 
number of people) have already been made.  Wish me luck.  
 
A couple of notes:
Where I went to school, the Teachers were called Mr.  No need to compliment 
with another title, you knew how good they were just by listening, closely!  
To me, that's respect. I could never call a Teacher by his first name during 
working hours, but I'm switching to Dr. because it's more regular.
Also, the following site shows a comparison between the scientific method and 
the Socratic method:
<A HREF="http://www.soci.niu.edu/~phildept/Dye/method.html";>socratic method
</A>
http://www.soci.niu.edu/~phildept/Dye/method.html
Shows why us old English majors are so comfortable with both.

Don't be a stranger, Matt!
Regards,
 Brian