4 ms·
You always depend on an untested hypotheses at some point. They are absolutely unavoidable. Here's a very simple example: - How much testing is sufficient? Fo
by smallnamespace 8y ago
You always depend on an untested hypotheses at some point. They are absolutely unavoidable.
Here's a very simple example:
- How much testing is sufficient? For example, as far as we can tell the laws of physics don't vary over time scales that we can directly observe. This has been true as far as we can tell.
- So far so good: the hypothesis that 'the laws of physics don't change' has been 'tested'. Next question: is that amount of testing sufficient?
- Well, that seems to be an untestable proposition; it's always philosophically possible that things get pulled out from under your feet, and no amount of testing up to time T lets you know with complete certainty what happens for t > T.
Go even one or two steps deeper, and you quickly find yourself resting on either unfounded, untested, or untestable assumptions.
- IncRnd 8y agoThat's diverging from what was being discussed and creating a strawman that you are now debunking. The context is the use of method-less science that uses assumptions based upon indicators as working hypothesis - not that there are always base assumptions but that the refutation of testing while holding assumptions up as tested is something that is bad science.
- vertexFarm 8y agoI thought what was being discussed was: "The real sciense[sic] should contain ONLY the things which are proved with real proofs!" As in mathematical proofs. You can't prove most things the way you can in mathematics, which is rock-solid through tautologies and self-consistent abstract models. When you are observing actual reality you have to make some assumptions.
- IncRnd 8y agoWhat was being discussed was the reply in the context of my comment that had been replied to. I was not the original GP poster. Sorry, if I didn't make that clear.