>From:    alphachi <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Alph's only word on hypotheses and cross-cultural ferrets
>I have always enjoyed when a laymen
 
So where's the layman?  I gave credentials.  Professional work has been in
spectroscopy, information/communications theory, and rocket science (okay
satellite design).  Some in applications of hard math such as data
compression and error detection and correction.
 
>Both words, hypothesis and theory are essentially interchangeable with
>the exception of "journalspeak"
 
Nope.  Hypothesis is first based on gathering data.  Theory is after
testing.  Law is even more thoroughly proven and even then can be later
proven wrong.  For example from physics (one of my areas) some of Newton's
laws of motion are now viewed as only approximations after work in quantum
mechanics proved that despite earlier testing proving the laws at a finer
resolution they are incorrect as eveything exists and moves in quantum steps
rather than continuous values.  Its not "journalspeak".  Its the ways things
"are".  It ill serves the "layperson" to further confuse them by diluting
the term theory just to be argumentative on a mail list.
 
>Some hypotheses are in reality more complex than some theories.
 
When given a choice between two possible solutions the simpler is more
likely to be correct.  Complexity has nothing to do with the meanings of the
terms "theory" or "hypothesis".
 
>As I said before, EL's proposal is not guilty of your charge of linguistic
>abuse by any stretch in the eyes of those who do not play scientist wanna-be's,
>and is in essence, quite tolerable to all those not prone to concrete thinking.
 
And please what area of science do you work in?  It doesn't appear to be one
of the natural sciences such as biology or physics.  We believe we've read
it was one of the soft sciences such as psychology which is not particularly
"concrete".  Do you really not distinguish between theory and hypothesis?
Perhaps when the study further matures.
 
Ed Lipinski proposed a hypothesis.  Bob Church scientifically (and
sarcastically <gri>) disproved it.  Let it go.  Reanalyze the data and
propose a new hypothesis if you wish.
 
But the hypothesis that ferrets are not very well domesticated because
they attack human infants after hearing their cries is dead.
 
bill and diane killian
zen and the art of ferrets
http://www.zenferret.com/
mailto:[log in to unmask]
[Posted in FML issue 2271]