>From:    alphachi <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: EL, BK, and alphachi, together at last: My only words on
>         "predatory ferrets".
>All I can say is being a scientist/practitioner, and not playing one on
>the net, let me correct you that indeed theory *is* hypothesis.
 
as bill is the family scientist he'll handle this section and its argument
'ad hominem'.  This does go a bit a field of ferrets directly but we'll
bring it right back before the end.
 
No its not.  I'm a scientist too.  Computer science in particular with a
good background in physics, mathematics and a few other sciences too a
lesser degree.  A theory is far more than a hypothesis.  You start with a
hypothesis and develop tests to "prove" or "evaluate" that hypothesis.  As
tests show that a hypothesis is indeed likely to be correct it becomes a
theory.  If tests disprove the hypothesis it is dropped.  This is called the
"scientific method".  The term "theory" has a completely different meaning
in another field with which I am particularly well versed.  Music theory has
nothing to do with a hypothesis that has been tested.  Music theory is a
analysis of composition primarily rooted in the statistical analysis of the
works of J S Bach.  This use of "theory" is not directly relatable to the
term "hypothesis" in any way I can fathom.
 
Citing Bob Church from FML 2243
>>The difference between a hypothesis and a theory is that an hypothesis
>>is an idea while a theory is an idea that has not been disproved by
>>rigorous testing.
 
From 2255
>>If I tested that hypothesis and could not make it fail, then it might
>>become a theory.
 
Alphachi, what science do you work in that defines these terms differently?
We are truly curious.
 
>Admittedly, it doesn't require 100k in student loans, a simple $20
>dictionary  will suffice.
 
A $20 dollar dictionary will not contain all the jargon of these specialized
fields.  Within "science" the term "theory is not a synomyn for the term
"hypothesis".  In more generalized usage they are more interchangeable but
if we are to discuss this in a scientific light than we must use the jargon
of science.
 
We were discussing whether Ed Lipinski's hypothesis that ferrets are "far
closer to wild than we suspect and able to go feral easily based on a
hunting instinct displayed when a baby cries".  This is far from a theory.
No testing has been performed or even proposed by its proponent.  However a
discrediting has been proffered by perhaps the FML's most eminent scientist
Bob Church in the FML(s) cited above.  A hypothesis should be proposed that
fits all collected data.  If collected data with no further testing
contraindicates a hypothesis it should be summarily discarded.  Speaking of
a probably disproven hypothesis as if it is worthy of the appelation
"theory" is anathema to true scientists.  It is more akin to contemplating
the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin than a true
exploration of whether ferrets could go feral in the United States.  If
ferrets could despite all the evidence as worthily described by Mr Church
and others it would be astounding.  If ferrets were truly devolved into
dervishes on a blood lust by the mere cry of a baby one would truly expect
far far more serious injuries and deaths attributable to ferrets of human
infants.  There are at least thousands of ferrets living in close proximity
to infants but only one questionable attribution of a human death is
normally creditted to mustella putorius furo.  There is no long record of
baby killing ferrets in the three hundred years of ferrets in these United
States.  That alone makes the above mentioned hypothesis untenable.  There
is no record - long or short - of succesful feral colonies of ferrets
anywhere in North America that too makes the hypothesis discardable.  There
was nothing wrong with proposing the hypothesis as it spurred a deeper
investigation.
 
If an argument as to why the data does NOT contraindicate the hypothesis is
offered I would certainly read it.  Lets not use arguments 'ad hominem' nor
'ad populum'.  Lets debate the hypothesis of ferrets as baby hunters that
can go feral and the data that supports or contradicts that hypothesis not
fall into chasing a red herring by arguing such side points as what a cheap
dictionary says.
 
Apologies are offered to those forced against there will to search their
dictionaries for an understanding of this posting.  There has seemed to be a
preference for more arcane terminology by some in this discussion.  No
thesaurus was injured or consulted in the writing of this missive.  <grin>
 
bill killian
zen and the art of ferrets
http://www.zenferret.com/
mailto:[log in to unmask]
[Posted in FML issue 2269]