Thread: Can science use evidence of evidence?

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?

Originally Posted by grandi

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.

Originally Posted by Write4U

Originally Posted by grandi

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

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.

Originally Posted by grandi

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?

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

I am locking ths thread since it's a rehash of an ongoing discussion in the Trash Can.