| Pages:
1
2 |
Yttrium2
Perpetual Question Machine
Posts: 1104
Registered: 7-2-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
Valid hypothesis
Is suspecting something without "evidence" what forms a hypothesis?
If so how can it be tested?
Also,
How can I get access to the Whimsy sub forum, I wanted to post there.
|
|
|
Zombie
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
If it can not be tested it is Theory. If you develop a method to test it... It is a hypothesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
Hypothesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Hypothesis (disambiguation).
"Hypothetical" redirects here. For the 2001 progressive metal album, see Hypothetical (album).
Andreas Cellarius hypothesis, demonstrating the planetary motions in eccentric and epicyclical orbits
A hypothesis (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]
A different meaning of the term hypothesis is used in formal logic, to denote the antecedent of a proposition; thus in the proposition "If P, then Q",
P denotes the hypothesis (or antecedent); Q can be called a consequent. P is the assumption in a (possibly counterfactual) What If question.
The adjective hypothetical, meaning "having the nature of a hypothesis", or "being assumed to exist as an immediate consequence of a hypothesis", can
refer to any of these meanings of the term "hypothesis".
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
Yttrium2
Perpetual Question Machine
Posts: 1104
Registered: 7-2-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
I thought theories were true hypothesis, followed by laws
Where does it say theories are not/cannot be tested?
[Edited on 21-2-2015 by Yttrium2]
[Edited on 21-2-2015 by Yttrium2]
|
|
|
Nicodem
Super Moderator
Posts: 4230
Registered: 28-12-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Not at all! If a hypothesis was tested, then it can become part of a theory. A theory is an explanation supported by experimental data. In its
essence, a theory is the summary of numerous experiments. It is not possible to have a theory without doing any experimental work (unlike in street
slang where the word "theoretical" is erroneously used instead of "hypothetical").
A hypothesis is an assumption based on current knowledge aimed at designing an experiment that will be able to (dis)prove it. So, suspecting something
without "evidence" is not considered a hypothesis (it might just as well be a delusion). You need to check how your assumption fits against the
current theories (references) and most importantly how you will be able to experimentally evaluate it (experimental design). Only then can it be
considered a hypothesis.
27 posts and you still did not read the subtitle of the Whimsy section?
| Quote: |
Whimsy
Everything under the sun. If you want access, please contact Polverone or woelen. |
…there is a human touch of the cultist “believer” in every theorist that he must struggle against as being
unworthy of the scientist. Some of the greatest men of science have publicly repudiated a theory which earlier they hotly defended. In this lies their
scientific temper, not in the scientific defense of the theory. - Weston La Barre (Ghost Dance, 1972)
Read the The ScienceMadness Guidelines!
|
|
|
Molecular Manipulations
Hazard to Others
Posts: 447
Registered: 17-12-2014
Location: The Garden of Eden
Member Is Offline
Mood: High on forbidden fruit
|
|
Like Nicodem said, theories are backed by numerous experiments.
The scientific method goes like this: make an observation, formulate a hypothesis which must be tested by yourself and your peers before it becomes
either a theory (unlikely) or a mistake (more likely).
You know how the earth goes around the sun? Or that everything is made of atoms? Those are theories. A theory is not a suspicion or a guess, it's the
product of lots of experiments. I hate it when people say things like "well it's just a theory".
-The manipulator
We are all here on earth to help others; what on earth the others are here for I don't know. -W. H. Auden
|
|
|
Yttrium2
Perpetual Question Machine
Posts: 1104
Registered: 7-2-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
So as far as worrying about chemtrails, if there is no way to test it, it would be neither hypothesis nor theory??
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
We can make Assumptions about chemtrails, yet without any proposed method to test any idea we have about them, they remain vague wonderings.
There are ways to test things at high altitudes, so what in particular would you like to know or have explained about chemtrails ?
|
|
|
Yttrium2
Perpetual Question Machine
Posts: 1104
Registered: 7-2-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
So as far as worrying about chemtrails, if there is no way to test it, it would be neither hypothesis nor theory??
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Correct.
It's just vague wondering about something with absolutely no basis in fact at all.
First off, the Volume and Height of the contrails left by planes has a massive impact on the position, and dosage that would be experienced on the
ground, if they were, in fact so-called 'chemtrails'.
Guassian Plume Dispersion Theory was developed around 1936 to model what happens to the smoke from factory chimneys :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_dispersion_modeling
From the equations given, you can predict where the 'stuff' goes in an atomospheric system, although large weather events make all that random.
The sheer height at which any 'chemicals' were dropped would cause the effects at ground level to be close to zero at any one given point, unless
several thousand tonnes were dropped all at once.
Not that your government is not out to get you, it'd just be cheaper and more effective to add stuff to your water supply, coke
drinks, burgers, gasoline etc.
Planes do burn fuel, so they do dump chemical waste products into the air, just 5 miles up, and in such relatively small quantities that the winds
disperse them almost instantly.
Chemtrails are a myth, a pretty feeble conspiracy 'theory', and best ignored altogether.
[Edited on 21-2-2015 by aga]
|
|
|
Bert
Super Administrator
Posts: 2821
Registered: 12-3-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: " I think we are all going to die. I think that love is an illusion. We are flawed, my darling".
|
|
Yttrium2, you now have access to whimsy.
Rapopart’s Rules for critical commentary:
1. Attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it
that way.”
2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. Mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
Anatol Rapoport was a Russian-born American mathematical psychologist (1911-2007).
|
|
|
Zombie
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Nicodem  |
Not at all! If a hypothesis was tested, then it can become part of a theory. A theory is an explanation supported by experimental data. In its
essence, a theory is the summary of numerous experiments. It is not possible to have a theory without doing any experimental work (unlike in street
slang where the word "theoretical" is erroneously used instead of "hypothetical").
A hypothesis is an assumption based on current knowledge aimed at designing an experiment that will be able to (dis)prove it. So, suspecting something
without "evidence" is not considered a hypothesis (it might just as well be a delusion). You need to check how your assumption fits against the
current theories (references) and most importantly how you will be able to experimentally evaluate it (experimental design). Only then can it be
considered a hypothesis.
27 posts and you still did not read the subtitle of the Whimsy section?
| Quote: |
Whimsy
Everything under the sun. If you want access, please contact Polverone or woelen. |
|
Respectfully Mr. Nicodem,
I read the definition in the exact opposite terms as you stated.
You form a theory that the sun is hot but it remains theory until a hypothesis is created with some manor of experiment to either prove or disprove
the theory.
That is at least the way I interpret it.
"A hypothesis (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."
In context, and in the order of the definition.
"Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific
theories."
[Edited on 2-21-2015 by Zombie]
[Edited on 2-21-2015 by Zombie]
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
Molecular Manipulations
Hazard to Others
Posts: 447
Registered: 17-12-2014
Location: The Garden of Eden
Member Is Offline
Mood: High on forbidden fruit
|
|
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly
confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. -Wikipedia
You interpreted it wrong.
| Quote: |
"Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific
theories."
|
What this means is that if you discover a new piece of evidence that does not fit the current theory, you then formulate a new hypothesis. After much
testing, if your new hypothesis fits the data, it can become the new theory. This is how the scientific method works. Nothing is set in stone, because
new data is constantly discovered, so theories constantly change.
[Edited on 21-2-2015 by Molecular Manipulations]
-The manipulator
We are all here on earth to help others; what on earth the others are here for I don't know. -W. H. Auden
|
|
|
Zombie
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by aga | Correct.
It's just vague wondering about something with absolutely no basis in fact at all.
First off, the Volume and Height of the contrails left by planes has a massive impact on the position, and dosage that would be experienced on the
ground, if they were, in fact so-called 'chemtrails'.
Guassian Plume Dispersion Theory was developed around 1936 to model what happens to the smoke from factory chimneys :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_dispersion_modeling
From the equations given, you can predict where the 'stuff' goes in an atomospheric system, although large weather events make all that random.
The sheer height at which any 'chemicals' were dropped would cause the effects at ground level to be close to zero at any one given point, unless
several thousand tonnes were dropped all at once.
Not that your government is not out to get you, it'd just be cheaper and more effective to add stuff to your water supply, coke
drinks, burgers, gasoline etc.
Planes do burn fuel, so they do dump chemical waste products into the air, just 5 miles up, and in such relatively small quantities that the winds
disperse them almost instantly.
Chemtrails are a myth, a pretty feeble conspiracy 'theory', and best ignored altogether.
[Edited on 21-2-2015 by aga] |
As far as I understand "Chemtrails", the purpose is to shift climates. Creating drought over a continent is a bit larger scale.
http://climateviewer.com/geoengineering/
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/atmospheric-geoengineering-weat...
I'm not 100% up to speed on this but it appears to be the main "Theory"? 
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Chemtrails are wild nonsense, so please don't start Thumping on about them.
A few bits of glass from ebay will show real data on Thumpers = do-able.
To prove/disprove Chemtrails i'd have to order a World Engine from ebay.alpha.centurii.com, which would cost literally the Earth, and take decades to
arrive 2nd class stellar post.
http://dccinematicuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/World_Engine
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Zombie |
Respectfully Mr. Nicodem,
I read the definition in the exact opposite terms as you stated.
You form a theory that the sun is hot but it remains theory until a hypothesis is created with some manor of experiment to either prove or disprove
the theory.
That is at least the way I interpret it.
|
You are WILDLY misreading and need to study the subject much more to understand it.
For one, I think you mistake 'theory' with 'truth'. Theory, although usually based on BOTH verified experiments AND pure Reason, remains based on
certain basic axioms that have to be accepted.
A theory thus provides a Reason and Empiricism based explanation of certain phenomena. But not ABSOLUTE truth, which in all likelihood doesn't exist
or cannot be obtained.
A hypothesis, e.g. x = 14.0 m, is an assumption or something someone postulates. Usually experiments are used to confirm or infirm the
hypothesis.
It's very important you understand this whole bit.
[Edited on 21-2-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
Zombie
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Molecular Manipulations | A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly
confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. -Wikipedia
You interpreted it wrong.
| Quote: |
"Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific
theories."
|
What this means is that if you discover a new piece of evidence that does not fit the current theory, you then formulate a new hypothesis. After much
testing, if your new hypothesis fits the data, it can become the new theory. This is how the scientific method works. Nothing is set in stone, because
new data is constantly discovered, so theories constantly change.
[Edited on 21-2-2015 by Molecular Manipulations] |
Ok, so you need an existing theory in order to create a new hypothesis that in turn may or may not lead to a new theroy?
I wish I never saw this thread!
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
Zombie
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by aga | Chemtrails are wild nonsense, so please don't start Thumping on about them.
A few bits of glass from ebay will show real data on Thumpers = do-able.
To prove/disprove Chemtrails i'd have to order a World Engine from ebay.alpha.centurii.com, which would cost literally the Earth, and take decades to
arrive 2nd class stellar post.
http://dccinematicuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/World_Engine |
I'm following you big guy. No worries here.
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
Zombie
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25 | | Quote: Originally posted by Zombie |
Respectfully Mr. Nicodem,
I read the definition in the exact opposite terms as you stated.
You form a theory that the sun is hot but it remains theory until a hypothesis is created with some manor of experiment to either prove or disprove
the theory.
That is at least the way I interpret it.
|
You are WILDLY misreading and need to study the subject much more to understand it.
For one, I think you mistake 'theory' with 'truth'. Theory, although usually based on BOTH verified experiments AND pure Reason, remains based on
certain basic axioms that have to be accepted.
A theory thus provides a Reason and Empiricism based explanation of certain phenomena. But not ABSOLUTE truth, which in all likelihood doesn't exist
or cannot be obtained.
A hypothesis, e.g. x = 14.0 m, is an assumption or something someone postulates. Usually experiments are used to confirm or infirm the
hypothesis.
It's very important you understand this whole bit.
[Edited on 21-2-2015 by blogfast25] |
The way you explained it I do understand. The part I was unsure of was, I thought Theory had no proof behind it.
So without proof or at least partial evidence it is not theory but instead just a belief or conception.
Then as Mr MM stated the cycle builds off of that.
Whew!
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Zombie |
Ok, so you need an existing theory in order to create a new hypothesis that in turn may or may not lead to a new theroy?
|
A hypothesis may be in the framework of an existing theory or may be the basis of a new one.
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
If you observe something, such as an Apple always falls Down and not Up, then you have an Observation.
If you then make the connection, and think that that the Apple always falls Down due to the huge mass of the Earth compared to the mass of the Apple,
then you're half way to a Hypothesis.
Work out that if you take an Apple into Space, and it might Not fall down, or even sideways, then you're at a Hypothesis.
Test it a lot, working out how it seems to work, collecting hard Data and you're into Theory territory.
The key point is that it is Tested, and seems to be as the Hypothesis and experimental data shows.
It does not mean Fact, Absolute or Permanent : someone may well discover a flaw, and devlop a better Theory in the same way.
|
|
|
mayko
International Hazard
Posts: 1218
Registered: 17-1-2013
Location: Carrboro, NC
Member Is Offline
Mood: anomalous (Euclid class)
|
|
This is how 'The Scientific Method' is often taught in school, but it's not like laws are grown-up hypotheses, and theories are teenagers. As has been
said, a hypothesis is an informed attempt to edit- PREDICT an observation.
H1: Ethyl salicylate will smell similar to wintergreen.
Note that in order to be well-informed, hypotheses are generated in the context of a lot of background information. H1 hasn't been picked out of the
air like "Et-Sal smells like skunks" or "Et-Sal will kill in minuscule quantities". It it based on what I know of methyl salicylate, chemical
reactivity, the nature of smell, etc: this is accounted for by by a broad theory called chemistry.
Theories are interpretive frameworks which explain observations in their domain and make predictions. They are often informed by hypotheses which have
been repeatedly tested. Their domain of explanation. These domains are often broad, since the goal of a theory is generally to find unifying
principles behind a diverse range of phenomena. For example:
The Theory of Gravity handles phenomena like
The nature of falling bricks, in regards to whether they're tied together
the trajectories of bottle rockets
the motion of celestial bodies
The Theory of Evolution looks at questions like
Quantum Theory:
Laws are succinct statements, usually expressed mathematically.
L1: F=m*a (Newton's 2nd)
L2: V=IR (Ohm's)
Although they're good rules of thumb, they're not 'super-true', like the Physics Police will come beat up anyone caught breaking them. Classical
understanding of L1, in which mass is independent of velocity, is incompatible with relativistic speeds. L2 doesn't hold for graphite rods or zener
diodes. What do we call such items? Non-Ohmic resistors. This actually raises an interesting point: We can divide the world into L-ic and non-L-ic
cases regardless of the nature of the proposed law L! What's so special about L2 that we feel comfortable going around saying "L2, except when L2
doesn't hold"?
They can! But, the questions asked, experiment design, and the interpretation of the results takes place in the context of other, interlinked theories. Thus, the pattern detection involved in coming to solid conclusions can be non-trivial.
As far as chemtrails, they exist! When airplaines burn jet fuel and oxygen, they produce carbon dioxide and water vapor, two chemicals if I ever saw
them.
'Chemtrails' is a 'conspiracy theory', meaning that its central hypothesis is the planning and organization of a scheme by multiple covert agents.
Conspiracy theories range a great deal in their legitimacy. On the one hand, Carl Sagan relates this account:
| Quote: |
"In paranoid thinking a person believes he has detected a conspiracy- that is, a hidden (and malevolent) pattern in the behavior of friends,
associates or governments- where in fact no such pattern exists. If there is such a conspiracy, the subject may be profoundly anxious, but his
thinking is not necessarily paranoid. A famous case involves James Forrestal, the first U.S. Secretary of Defense. At the end of World War II,
Forrestal was convinced that Israeli secret agents were following him everywhere. His physicians, equally convinced of the absurdity of this idee
fixe, diagnosed him as paranoid and confined him to an upper story of Walter Reed Army Hospital, from which he plunged to his death, partly because of
inadequate supervision by hospital personnel, overly deferential to one of his exalted rank. Later it was discovered that Forrestal was indeed being
followed by Israeli agents who were worried that he might reach a secret understanding with representatives of Arab nations. Forrestal had other
problems, but having his valid perception labeled paranoid did not help his condition. In times of rapid social change there are bound to be
conspiracies, both by those in favor of change and by those defending the status quo, the latter more than the former in recent American political
history. Detecting conspiracies when there are no conspiracies is a symptom of paranoia; detecting them when they exist is a sign of metal health. An
acquaintance of mine says, 'In America today, if you're not a little paranoid you're out of your mind.' The remark, however, has global
applicability." |
(The Dragons of Eden. Carl Sagan. Ballantine Publishing Group. 1977 p.190)
On the other extreme, 'conspiracy theories' often take on a nihilism about knowledge remarkably similar to Omphalos Creationism. My roommate, for example, sincerely believes that all media are under constant, man-in-the-middle attack by "them'. There
were no planes crashing into the World Trade Center, for example - that was holograms, explosives, and on-the-fly CGI. 
In the middle are most conspiracy theories, which are often characterized by fixating on perceived anomalies. The theory may work well relative to
this dataset, but it also is extremely prone to confirmation bias and overfitting.
'Chemtrails' are in this last category. Once your attention is called to persistent contrails, you notice them more, you remember them when you didn't
in the past...
I firmly believe this is the central process. Once it begins, other facts start to line up: A news report about anomalously high metal concentrations,
right after a session of long-lasting contrails. But- not all 'facts' are facts. Not all newscasters know the difference between milligrams and
micrograms.
The science of contrails is actually pretty interesting, and once you look at it, things make more sense in general, not just in regards to airplanes.
Here's a great general resource:
Contrail Science.
Coincidentally, Ken Caldeira, a scientist whose research specialty is the geoengineering alleged by conspiracists, had an article on the subject on
his blog this morning:
Conspiracy trails...
[Edited on 21-2-2015 by mayko]
al-khemie is not a terrorist organization
"Chemicals, chemicals... I need chemicals!" - George Hayduke
"Wubbalubba dub-dub!" - Rick Sanchez
|
|
|
morganbw
National Hazard
Posts: 561
Registered: 23-11-2014
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Damn it guys, you make the definition of a simple hypothesis seem so complex.
Some of us are mortals, keep it simple enough to understand please.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by morganbw | Damn it guys, you make the definition of a simple hypothesis seem so complex.
Some of us are mortals, keep it simple enough to understand please. |
I don't think that definition is complex but if you think so, please don't blame the messenger! He's a mere mortal too.
|
|
|
Zombie
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by mayko |
This is how 'The Scientific Method' is often taught in school, but it's not like laws are grown-up hypotheses, and theories are teenagers. As has been
said, a hypothesis is an informed attempt to edit- PREDICT an observation.
H1: Ethyl salicylate will smell similar to wintergreen.
Note that in order to be well-informed, hypotheses are generated in the context of a lot of background information. H1 hasn't been picked out of the
air like "Et-Sal smells like skunks" or "Et-Sal will kill in minuscule quantities". It it based on what I know of methyl salicylate, chemical
reactivity, the nature of smell, etc: this is accounted for by by a broad theory called chemistry.
Theories are interpretive frameworks which explain observations in their domain and make predictions. They are often informed by hypotheses which have
been repeatedly tested. Their domain of explanation. These domains are often broad, since the goal of a theory is generally to find unifying
principles behind a diverse range of phenomena. For example:
The Theory of Gravity handles phenomena like
The nature of falling bricks, in regards to whether they're tied together
the trajectories of bottle rockets
the motion of celestial bodies
The Theory of Evolution looks at questions like
Quantum Theory:
Laws are succinct statements, usually expressed mathematically.
L1: F=m*a (Newton's 2nd)
L2: V=IR (Ohm's)
Although they're good rules of thumb, they're not 'super-true', like the Physics Police will come beat up anyone caught breaking them. Classical
understanding of L1, in which mass is independent of velocity, is incompatible with relativistic speeds. L2 doesn't hold for graphite rods or zener
diodes. What do we call such items? Non-Ohmic resistors. This actually raises an interesting point: We can divide the world into L-ic and non-L-ic
cases regardless of the nature of the proposed law L! What's so special about L2 that we feel comfortable going around saying "L2, except when L2
doesn't hold"?
They can! But, the questions asked, experiment design, and the interpretation of the results takes place in the context of other, interlinked theories. Thus, the pattern detection involved in coming to solid conclusions can be non-trivial.
As far as chemtrails, they exist! When airplaines burn jet fuel and oxygen, they produce carbon dioxide and water vapor, two chemicals if I ever saw
them.
'Chemtrails' is a 'conspiracy theory', meaning that its central hypothesis is the planning and organization of a scheme by multiple covert agents.
Conspiracy theories range a great deal in their legitimacy. On the one hand, Carl Sagan relates this account:
| Quote: |
"In paranoid thinking a person believes he has detected a conspiracy- that is, a hidden (and malevolent) pattern in the behavior of friends,
associates or governments- where in fact no such pattern exists. If there is such a conspiracy, the subject may be profoundly anxious, but his
thinking is not necessarily paranoid. A famous case involves James Forrestal, the first U.S. Secretary of Defense. At the end of World War II,
Forrestal was convinced that Israeli secret agents were following him everywhere. His physicians, equally convinced of the absurdity of this idee
fixe, diagnosed him as paranoid and confined him to an upper story of Walter Reed Army Hospital, from which he plunged to his death, partly because of
inadequate supervision by hospital personnel, overly deferential to one of his exalted rank. Later it was discovered that Forrestal was indeed being
followed by Israeli agents who were worried that he might reach a secret understanding with representatives of Arab nations. Forrestal had other
problems, but having his valid perception labeled paranoid did not help his condition. In times of rapid social change there are bound to be
conspiracies, both by those in favor of change and by those defending the status quo, the latter more than the former in recent American political
history. Detecting conspiracies when there are no conspiracies is a symptom of paranoia; detecting them when they exist is a sign of metal health. An
acquaintance of mine says, 'In America today, if you're not a little paranoid you're out of your mind.' The remark, however, has global
applicability." |
(The Dragons of Eden. Carl Sagan. Ballantine Publishing Group. 1977 p.190)
On the other extreme, 'conspiracy theories' often take on a nihilism about knowledge remarkably similar to Omphalos Creationism. My roommate, for example, sincerely believes that all media are under constant, man-in-the-middle attack by "them'. There
were no planes crashing into the World Trade Center, for example - that was holograms, explosives, and on-the-fly CGI.
In the middle are most conspiracy theories, which are often characterized by fixating on perceived anomalies. The theory may work well relative to
this dataset, but it also is extremely prone to confirmation bias and overfitting.
'Chemtrails' are in this last category. Once your attention is called to persistent contrails, you notice them more, you remember them when you didn't
in the past...
I firmly believe this is the central process. Once it begins, other facts start to line up: A news report about anomalously high metal concentrations,
right after a session of long-lasting contrails. But- not all 'facts' are facts. Not all newscasters know the difference between milligrams and
micrograms.
The science of contrails is actually pretty interesting, and once you look at it, things make more sense in general, not just in regards to airplanes.
Here's a great general resource:
Contrail Science.
Coincidentally, Ken Caldeira, a scientist whose research specialty is the geoengineering alleged by conspiracists, had an article on the subject on
his blog this morning:
Conspiracy trails...
[Edited on 21-2-2015 by mayko] |
That is Too convincing.
You're one of "them", aren't you?
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
Zyklon-A
International Hazard
Posts: 1547
Registered: 26-11-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fluorine radical
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Zombie | | Quote: Originally posted by mayko |
This is how 'The Scientific Method' is often taught in school, but it's not like laws are grown-up hypotheses, and theories are teenagers. As has been
said, a hypothesis is an informed attempt to edit- PREDICT an observation.
H1: Ethyl salicylate will smell similar to wintergreen.
Note that in order to be well-informed, hypotheses are generated in the context of a lot of background information. H1 hasn't been picked out of the
air like "Et-Sal smells like skunks" or "Et-Sal will kill in minuscule quantities". It it based on what I know of methyl salicylate, chemical
reactivity, the nature of smell, etc: this is accounted for by by a broad theory called chemistry.
Theories are interpretive frameworks which explain observations in their domain and make predictions. They are often informed by hypotheses which have
been repeatedly tested. Their domain of explanation. These domains are often broad, since the goal of a theory is generally to find unifying
principles behind a diverse range of phenomena. For example:
The Theory of Gravity handles phenomena like
The nature of falling bricks, in regards to whether they're tied together
the trajectories of bottle rockets
the motion of celestial bodies
The Theory of Evolution looks at questions like
Quantum Theory:
Laws are succinct statements, usually expressed mathematically.
L1: F=m*a (Newton's 2nd)
L2: V=IR (Ohm's)
Although they're good rules of thumb, they're not 'super-true', like the Physics Police will come beat up anyone caught breaking them. Classical
understanding of L1, in which mass is independent of velocity, is incompatible with relativistic speeds. L2 doesn't hold for graphite rods or zener
diodes. What do we call such items? Non-Ohmic resistors. This actually raises an interesting point: We can divide the world into L-ic and non-L-ic
cases regardless of the nature of the proposed law L! What's so special about L2 that we feel comfortable going around saying "L2, except when L2
doesn't hold"?
They can! But, the questions asked, experiment design, and the interpretation of the results takes place in the context of other, interlinked theories. Thus, the pattern detection involved in coming to solid conclusions can be non-trivial.
As far as chemtrails, they exist! When airplaines burn jet fuel and oxygen, they produce carbon dioxide and water vapor, two chemicals if I ever saw
them.
'Chemtrails' is a 'conspiracy theory', meaning that its central hypothesis is the planning and organization of a scheme by multiple covert agents.
Conspiracy theories range a great deal in their legitimacy. On the one hand, Carl Sagan relates this account:
| Quote: |
"In paranoid thinking a person believes he has detected a conspiracy- that is, a hidden (and malevolent) pattern in the behavior of friends,
associates or governments- where in fact no such pattern exists. If there is such a conspiracy, the subject may be profoundly anxious, but his
thinking is not necessarily paranoid. A famous case involves James Forrestal, the first U.S. Secretary of Defense. At the end of World War II,
Forrestal was convinced that Israeli secret agents were following him everywhere. His physicians, equally convinced of the absurdity of this idee
fixe, diagnosed him as paranoid and confined him to an upper story of Walter Reed Army Hospital, from which he plunged to his death, partly because of
inadequate supervision by hospital personnel, overly deferential to one of his exalted rank. Later it was discovered that Forrestal was indeed being
followed by Israeli agents who were worried that he might reach a secret understanding with representatives of Arab nations. Forrestal had other
problems, but having his valid perception labeled paranoid did not help his condition. In times of rapid social change there are bound to be
conspiracies, both by those in favor of change and by those defending the status quo, the latter more than the former in recent American political
history. Detecting conspiracies when there are no conspiracies is a symptom of paranoia; detecting them when they exist is a sign of metal health. An
acquaintance of mine says, 'In America today, if you're not a little paranoid you're out of your mind.' The remark, however, has global
applicability." |
(The Dragons of Eden. Carl Sagan. Ballantine Publishing Group. 1977 p.190)
On the other extreme, 'conspiracy theories' often take on a nihilism about knowledge remarkably similar to Omphalos Creationism. My roommate, for example, sincerely believes that all media are under constant, man-in-the-middle attack by "them'. There
were no planes crashing into the World Trade Center, for example - that was holograms, explosives, and on-the-fly CGI.
In the middle are most conspiracy theories, which are often characterized by fixating on perceived anomalies. The theory may work well relative to
this dataset, but it also is extremely prone to confirmation bias and overfitting.
'Chemtrails' are in this last category. Once your attention is called to persistent contrails, you notice them more, you remember them when you didn't
in the past...
I firmly believe this is the central process. Once it begins, other facts start to line up: A news report about anomalously high metal concentrations,
right after a session of long-lasting contrails. But- not all 'facts' are facts. Not all newscasters know the difference between milligrams and
micrograms.
The science of contrails is actually pretty interesting, and once you look at it, things make more sense in general, not just in regards to airplanes.
Here's a great general resource:
Contrail Science.
Coincidentally, Ken Caldeira, a scientist whose research specialty is the geoengineering alleged by conspiracists, had an article on the subject on
his blog this morning:
Conspiracy trails...
[Edited on 21-2-2015 by mayko] |
That is Too convincing.
You're one of "them", aren't you? |
Did you really have to quote that entire post just to say that? That's very hypocritical of you.
Thanks for that mayko, very interesting.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
