3 ms·

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

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

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.