John Wood, Paul Barford,
Is there a difference between fitting the evidence to the hypothesis and
(the opposite), fitting the hypothesis to the evidence? The essential point
is whether or not the predictions of the hypothesis compare with the known
conditions - whether or not the requirements of the hypothesis are confirmed
by the conditions that are known to exist. Does it matter which is
determined first? Usually, the hypothesis is formulated on the basis of
some knowledge and proposes a model including that knowledge and predicts
further conditions/requirements that may be confirmed by further
investigation. The probability that the hypothesis is correct may be
estimated only on the basis of its confirmed predictions. The more numerous
and the more rigorous its confirmed predictions are the more probable it is
that the hypothesis is correct. The hypothesis is not proved to be correct.
It may be shown only to be probable. It may be disproved by being shown to
be impossible (i.e., by showing that any of its predictions is impossible).
Can we be more scientific than that? How else can it be determined what the
evidence represents? Or is this thinking not correct?
At Sun, 18 May 2003 18:21:34 +0200
>Paul Barford wrote:
>> Thank you for sharing this idea with us, (snip) In order to be accepted
you >>need to demonstrate that this model explains the evidence better than
the >>current interpretations. It seems to me that it does not.
Wed, 21 May 2003 16:39:57 +0100
John Wood wrote:
>I have to agree with Paul.
>The hypothesis is a novel one and who knows there may be an element of
>reality to this subject. However I feel it seems more a case of fitting the
>evidence to the hypothesis rather than the opposite which is how scientific
>research and interpretation should be carried out.