Notices

View Poll Results: Can science use evidence of evidence?

Voters
2. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    1 50.00%
  • no

    1 50.00%
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Can science use evidence of evidence?

  1. #1 Can science use evidence of evidence? 
    Forum Junior grandi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    202
    Do you think the correct philosophy of science allows using evidence of evidence to support hypotheses?

    This is actually the case with the gravity models:
    1. they are falsified by direct observations (flat rotation curves of galaxies)
    2. they are supported by the dark matter hypothesis to falsify the observations (!) hypothesis as evidence for another hypothesis

    Seems to me that mainstream science has wandered off to pseudoscience.
    How do you interpret the scientific method?
    Is using evidence of evidence to support an hypothesis good science?


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by grandi View Post
    Do you think the correct philosophy of science allows using evidence of evidence to support hypotheses?

    This is actually the case with the gravity models:
    1. they are falsified by direct observations (flat rotation curves of galaxies)
    2. they are supported by the dark matter hypothesis to falsify the observations (!) hypothesis as evidence for another hypothesis

    Seems to me that mainstream science has wandered off to pseudoscience.
    How do you interpret the scientific method?
    Is using evidence of evidence to support an hypothesis good science?
    IMO, as long as it is a hypothesis, there is no reason why inference cannot be used. Of course it cannot be used in Scientific Theory.

    wiki
    A hypothesis (from Ancient Greek ὑπόθεσις, from Greek ὑποτιθέναι – hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose,"[1] plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.[1]
    Science does not forbid imagination. It forbids untested, premature conclusions as proof.


    Last edited by Write4U; September 20th, 2012 at 03:51 PM.
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Junior grandi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grandi View Post
    Do you think the correct philosophy of science allows using evidence of evidence to support hypotheses?

    This is actually the case with the gravity models:
    1. they are falsified by direct observations (flat rotation curves of galaxies)
    2. they are supported by the dark matter hypothesis to falsify the observations (!) hypothesis as evidence for another hypothesis

    Seems to me that mainstream science has wandered off to pseudoscience.
    How do you interpret the scientific method?
    Is using evidence of evidence to support an hypothesis good science?
    IMO, as long as it is a hypothesis, there is no reason why inference cannot be used. Of course it cannot be used in Scientific Theory.

    wiki
    A hypothesis (from Ancient Greek ὑπόθεσις, from Greek ὑποτιθέναι – hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose,"[1] plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.[1]
    Science does not forbid imagination. It forbids untested, premature conclusions as proof.
    So is your view that because direct observations contradict the Newtonian model and the Theory of Relativity, they are now only to be considered as working hypotheses because they use other falsifiable hypotheses as evidence? That would make the Theory of Relativity the Working Hypothesis of Relativity
     

  5. #4  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,677
    What does "evidence of evidence" mean? It makes no sense to me.

    The anomalous rotation curves of galaxies have not (yet) falsified GR. A number of hypotheses have been formed to explain this, all under the banner "dark matter".

    It is possible that "dark matter" is actually matter of some sort. It is also possible that it requires some change to out theories of gravity. There are several different modified gravity models being worked on. All of these, as far as I can tell, are just as ad-hoc as the addition of dark matter (1). Also, the best of them are not fully able to explain the observations and so would require at least some dark matter.

    However, other lines of evidence, tend to support the "dark matter is stuff" hypothesis. So, currently that is looking good. And it doesn't require arbitrary modifications to GR which is otherwise a very well-tested theory.

    (1) Or, in some cases, complete crackpot pseudoscience.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by grandi View Post
    Do you think the correct philosophy of science allows using evidence of evidence to support hypotheses?

    This is actually the case with the gravity models:
    1. they are falsified by direct observations (flat rotation curves of galaxies)
    2. they are supported by the dark matter hypothesis to falsify the observations (!) hypothesis as evidence for another hypothesis

    Seems to me that mainstream science has wandered off to pseudoscience.
    How do you interpret the scientific method?
    Is using evidence of evidence to support an hypothesis good science?
    I guess you must have a better idea. Are you another push gravity crank, or what?
     

  7. #6  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    grandi,
    So is your view that because direct observations contradict the Newtonian model and the Theory of Relativity, they are now only to be considered as working hypotheses because they use other falsifiable hypotheses as evidence? That would make the Theory of Relativity the Working Hypothesis of Relativity
    As I understand it the Newtonian model IS a working model, i.e. functional for specific purpose. It does not contradict GR on a local scale.
    The Theory of Relativity does not forbid the Newtonian Model, it extends it.

    wiki
    General Relativity generalises special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime
     

  8. #7  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    I am locking ths thread since it's a rehash of an ongoing discussion in the Trash Can.
     

Similar Threads

  1. What is evidence in science?
    By Pacho in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: January 2nd, 2012, 02:01 PM
  2. Evidence
    By thyristor in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: October 2nd, 2008, 12:15 PM
  3. Objective evidence vs Anecdotal evidence
    By arkofnoah in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 21st, 2008, 10:39 AM
  4. Forensic Science-Impression Evidence-Positives-negatives etc
    By mrsmelisamarie in forum Criminology and Forensic Science
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: April 14th, 2008, 10:17 PM
  5. No evidence
    By Thamnophis in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: January 3rd, 2006, 06:56 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •