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

[Philidor11@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/19/99 9:31:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
th81@umail.umd.edu writes:

<< Ah.  This is indeed where Popper and his colleagues came in to show that 
the
 traditional view of the Scientific Method is in error.  Failure to disprove
 something does not equal proof of something.  My failure to disprove
 tyrannosaurids were hot pink colored is not proof that they were so colored. 
>>

Ok, and this is where I read Popper to find out.
My current understanding is there has to be enough observation and inference 
to make the hypothesis plausible (consistent with, extending from known 
facts).  Support for hot pink tyrannosaurids would be ... remarkable.  It 
wouldn't replace the Calvin & Hobbes cartoon of Tyrannosaurs flying F-14's as 
an image, but it would be right up there.  The hypothesis is then tested by 
making a prediction based on the implications of the hypothesis, not counting 
the observations/inferences included in formulating the hypothesis.  The 
prediction is then tested experimentally, bias excluded.
A past event such as the K/T bolide impact cannot be tested experimentally 
because prediction is impossible.  A possible set of relationships among 
animals consistent with all known data cannot lead to predictions which can 
be tested immediately in a laboratory. 
However, a hypothesis in the historical sciences generally can lead to 
predictions of future discoveries.  For example, discovery of material 
associated with an impact from 65 mya might be predicted.  A hypothesis about 
evolutionary relationships among animals can lead to predictions that animals 
with certain characters will be found dating from certain times and in 
certain places, though from Dr. Brochu's description of recovered results I'm 
beginning to wonder just how essential an animal's missing 
ancestors/intermediate forms might be.  (He said,' The time axis is secondary 
to the network and imparts a sort of "directionality" that we can interpret 
as the result of evolution.'  Sounds like basal/derived is part of the 
secondary analysis, so primarily there's not an evolutionary progression at 
all.  No direction, no need for an ancestor.  Sorry to mix discussions.)
In any case, though the event itself might not be directly testable, the 
search for predicted evidence might itself be considered a testing process.

<<Or, another approach might be to call it "accepted", recognizing that 
acceptance of an hypothesis is tentative.  If we keep on only finding white 
swans, then that does seem to be the way to go.  Furthermore, the statement 
"all known swans are white"
would be true, at least for now.  (This is in the hypothetical when non-white 
swans are not known).>>

Assuming that something not immediately testable is a hypothesis, there can 
be a long wait before the prediction is tested by new data.  During that 
time, 'accepted' seems a good word, referring back to consensus as a reason 
for regarding a hypothesis as the best available.  (Remember that old 
discussion about consensus?)  
Once new data becomes available, an apparent black swan (to use the analogy 
previously discussed) might not lead to immediate rejection of the hypothesis 
because of difficulty with the quality of the data, so I guess even 
refutations are tentative.  By the way, would 'all known swans are white' be 
a hypothesis or an observation?  Doesn't a hypothesis involve a conclusion 
drawn from the data (or sometimes the lack of data, as with that thing in 
Scotland)?
As often happens, simple concepts examined closely become complicated.  When 
they become complicated enough they're called philosophy.  Remember Kant's 
Prolegomena...?  Supposedly a quick summary, Monarch Notes of the day.  Going 
in search of Karl Popper; if you don't see me for a while please send 
popularizers...