4 ms·

As a hypothesis, the evidence presented by the article seems to give some support to it. What's the alternative hypothesis?

by mbrock 11y ago

pegasus 11y ago
Exactly. Can one really "prove" a hypothesis that doesn't have an alternative? Is this really science we're talking about?
- Capt-RogerOver 11y ago
  Science is not about proving, it's about disproving hypothesis. If we can disprove it, this gives us a lot of certain knowledge about the world, and expands our thinking to new hypothesis. If we can't disprove it yet, we just use it as the current understanding of how things work, and try to build new things using that knowledge. This is how all of the technology was created. And yes, this is science. What is your alternative? Just say "must be the almighty" and do nothing? Because doing that is surely more scientific?
  - tomhoward 11y ago
    Hey there, I feel the need to point out this is a topic where it's especially important for people to be civil and charitable, as it's a controversial topic that triggers a lot of strong emotions in people, which can cause a potentially really interesting discussion to go off the rails. In that spirit, you'll help things a lot by avoiding making combative, straw-man comments like 'What is your alternative? Just say "must be the almighty" and do nothing? Because doing that is surely more scientific?' That is best practice on HN at all times, but even more so on hot-button topics like this.
  - pegasus 11y ago
    That's just the problem. How would you even go about disproving this hypothesis? If there's no alternative it means the hypothesis is not falsifiable, right? And if there's nothing to prove or disprove, what's the point of the investigation? edit: I guess I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here to expose the circularity in some arguments that arise when considering these kind of deeply fundamental questions. In fact, my feeling is these kind of more or less subtle logical traps cannot be avoided in this areas of thought.
    - Capt-RogerOver 11y ago
      > If there's no alternative it means the hypothesis is not falsifiable, right? Well, not really. For example, we don't understand how some brain function works. For some reason we might get a hypothesis that it is governed by a production of a certain neurotransmitter (very simplified here). At that time we have no other version of how the function might work at all. Then we do experiments where we mess with the said neurotransmitter, or a brain region, etc. If the results show that there is no measurable effect on the brain function, then that hypothesis becomes disproven (or at least a certain specific way of understanding that hypothesis). If there is no alternative that might just mean that we haven't found it yet. Or that the current framework we're using is not suitable to the question. But even then working on existing hypothesis might give a lot of information on what framework might actually work.
tomhoward 11y ago
Note that the goal of the study was not to determine IF brain structure produces attract thought, but HOW. The point I think the commenter was making is that the statement "The goal was to understand how abstract thought arises from brain structure" suggests there may be some begging the question in the study design. If you start with the assumption that that brain structure produces abstract thought, your evidence will support it, because you already believed it in the first place. The main challenge to any hypothesis about the nature of thought or consciousness is that our fundamental tool for contemplating the topic is our consciousness - which is precisely what we're trying to understand. On that basis, the argument goes, it's impossible to objectively determine what consciousness really is, because we have no way of separating the consciousness we're studying from the consciousness we're using to study it. Alternative theories to the one that says the brain produces consciousness are that the brain is a carrier or receiver of consciousness, which somehow originates elsewhere. Various forms of such theories have been proposed by reputable scientists including Roger Penrose[1], John Eccles[2] and - somewhat ironically - Karl Popper[3]. I personally don't have any strong opinions about the validity of these theories; it's enough for me to know that they exist and to keep an open mind until someone can develop a truly testable and falsifiable hypothesis. Until then, it's all pretty much philosophy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose#Physics_and_consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose#Physics_and_cons... [2] http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/science/prat-bra.htm http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/science/prat-bra.htm [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem#Popper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem#Popp...
- throwupper247 11y ago
  Is it also impossible to research matter, because we can't seperate the matter we study ... ? Am I missing the analogy?
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    Do you think things are possible just because you want them to be?

As a hypothesis, the evidence presented by the article seems to give some support to it. What's the alternative hypothesis?

by mbrock 11y ago

As a hypothesis, the evidence presented by the article seems to give some support to it. What's the alternative hypothesis?

pegasus 11y ago

Exactly. Can one really "prove" a hypothesis that doesn't have an alternative? Is this really science we're talking about?

Capt-RogerOver 11y ago
Science is not about proving, it's about disproving hypothesis. If we can disprove it, this gives us a lot of certain knowledge about the world, and expands our thinking to new hypothesis. If we can't disprove it yet, we just use it as the current understanding of how things work, and try to build new things using that knowledge. This is how all of the technology was created. And yes, this is science. What is your alternative? Just say "must be the almighty" and do nothing? Because doing that is surely more scientific?
- tomhoward 11y ago
  Hey there, I feel the need to point out this is a topic where it's especially important for people to be civil and charitable, as it's a controversial topic that triggers a lot of strong emotions in people, which can cause a potentially really interesting discussion to go off the rails. In that spirit, you'll help things a lot by avoiding making combative, straw-man comments like 'What is your alternative? Just say "must be the almighty" and do nothing? Because doing that is surely more scientific?' That is best practice on HN at all times, but even more so on hot-button topics like this.
- pegasus 11y ago
  That's just the problem. How would you even go about disproving this hypothesis? If there's no alternative it means the hypothesis is not falsifiable, right? And if there's nothing to prove or disprove, what's the point of the investigation? edit: I guess I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here to expose the circularity in some arguments that arise when considering these kind of deeply fundamental questions. In fact, my feeling is these kind of more or less subtle logical traps cannot be avoided in this areas of thought.
  - Capt-RogerOver 11y ago
    > If there's no alternative it means the hypothesis is not falsifiable, right? Well, not really. For example, we don't understand how some brain function works. For some reason we might get a hypothesis that it is governed by a production of a certain neurotransmitter (very simplified here). At that time we have no other version of how the function might work at all. Then we do experiments where we mess with the said neurotransmitter, or a brain region, etc. If the results show that there is no measurable effect on the brain function, then that hypothesis becomes disproven (or at least a certain specific way of understanding that hypothesis). If there is no alternative that might just mean that we haven't found it yet. Or that the current framework we're using is not suitable to the question. But even then working on existing hypothesis might give a lot of information on what framework might actually work.

tomhoward 11y ago

Note that the goal of the study was not to determine IF brain structure produces attract thought, but HOW. The point I think the commenter was making is that the statement "The goal was to understand how abstract thought arises from brain structure" suggests there may be some begging the question in the study design. If you start with the assumption that that brain structure produces abstract thought, your evidence will support it, because you already believed it in the first place. The main challenge to any hypothesis about the nature of thought or consciousness is that our fundamental tool for contemplating the topic is our consciousness - which is precisely what we're trying to understand. On that basis, the argument goes, it's impossible to objectively determine what consciousness really is, because we have no way of separating the consciousness we're studying from the consciousness we're using to study it. Alternative theories to the one that says the brain produces consciousness are that the brain is a carrier or receiver of consciousness, which somehow originates elsewhere. Various forms of such theories have been proposed by reputable scientists including Roger Penrose[1], John Eccles[2] and - somewhat ironically - Karl Popper[3]. I personally don't have any strong opinions about the validity of these theories; it's enough for me to know that they exist and to keep an open mind until someone can develop a truly testable and falsifiable hypothesis. Until then, it's all pretty much philosophy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose#Physics_and_consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose#Physics_and_cons... [2] http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/science/prat-bra.htm http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/science/prat-bra.htm [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem#Popper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem#Popp...

throwupper247 11y ago
Is it also impossible to research matter, because we can't seperate the matter we study ... ? Am I missing the analogy?
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Do you think things are possible just because you want them to be?