I disagree…
Hypothesis is effectively an observation of causality …
Always from anecdotal falsification (otherwise we couldn’t even conceptualize it) - the principle is then expanded to a theory, which is a universalization of the hypothesis. Then the universalization comes into question as people ponder how to falsify universalizations!!
My point, hypothesis comes before theory, not the other way around
There’s a shocker.
Do you formulate a theory based upon a thesis?
Or do you write a thesis concerning a theory?
A hypothesis is a “hypo-thesis”, an underlying thesis concerning a theory.
Are you trying to play etymology games with me??
Language evolves, and so should you.
Hypo means “without”
What on earth does “without thesis” have to do with how we use the term hypothesis?
Maybe someone screwed up, who knows…
This is becoming absurd now.
You didn’t even define hypothesis that way!!!
Fortunately, you haven’t (nor MA) the authority to dictate evolution of language.
And thus the evolution of language …
What about albinos (hypo pigmented )
No pigment
James is a dribbler. The most effective way to dribble is to bury your head in social and mental constructs (such as language.)
Theory is a set of instructions that when followed generate predictions.
That’s it. Nothing to do with evidence, falsified or not.
Theory → prediction → observation
Theories can neither be proven nor disproven. Rather, their truth value, expressed as a set of tested predictions, can change. When people describe them as true or false this is either a simplification of their truth value or a reflection of whether their potential users decided to accept/apply them or reject/discard them, a decision which is based on need and not on something external.
Well, we’ll let that be your lil secret.
Need is not based on something external?
I think you need a few days to clean your mind from the virus of this thread Magnus, and then come back to it.
The reason James came at you the way he did, is because if everything is exactly the same (no external) existence cannot exist, and that’s a contradiction, because, existence does exist.
When I say that an object is 10cm in length I am doing so because of my need and not because the object-in-itself is 10cm.
A different need would require, and thus yield, a different measurement. Say 10.064368cm.
There is external reality but there are no objects-in-themselves.
We arrest the flux.
We must stop the rolling of a dice in order to read its value.
If there’s so much flux, then why is a precise measurement 10.06438… Seems like it could be -7.21?? Right??
In science a testable hypothesis has to be potentially falsifiable. Non testable hypotheses are not valid because they cannot be potentially falsifiable. Even
if they are true. And whilst theory and hypothesis might be interchangeable terms in common vernacular they have very specific and different meanings in
science. A theory is the highest body of work in science incorporating laws and principles to formulate a single unification and so nothing is above a theory
Whereas a hypothesis is at the other end of the spectrum and so is essentially no more than a reasonable guess or estimate based upon existing knowledge
It’s up to you, and not up to me, to prove the existence of objects-in-themselves.
Can you prove that there is an object that has a real, ultimate, length?
How can you when there is no option but to run into the problem of infinity?
No matter how much you zoom into an object, it is always logically possible to zoom into it further.
What is the exact length of an object?
10cm?
10.0cm?
10.06cm?
10.068cm?
10.0685cm?
. . .
Need, and not external reality, decides what measurement is good enough.
Personal, and not universal, boundaries decide what measurement is good enough.
Objects are not “in themselves” they are themselves…
So that’s already a non starter.
I agree with you that desire is the impetus for our knowledge about a universe that also exists out there.
We cannot change that it’s 10 cm, or if we need to calculate further that it’s a complex decimal.
I’ve actually said this many times on the boards…
Without desire, there is no truth to the external…
What is a being without desire?
Such a being doesn’t even exist …
Being is necessary, not contingent …
We are all here
Any object will have a real ultimate length but it may not be possible to measure it with absolute accuracy
What you have to do is to show to me that ultimate reality, such as ultimate dimensions of an object, can be sensed and not merely imagined.
Do you know the difference between sensation and imagination?
When you see, with your own eyes, an apple on a table, that is sensation.
When you imagine in your head an apple on a table, that is imagination.
When you imagine there is an apple on a table, that is projected imagination.
Projected imagination can be a random guess, or a guess based on personal preference, but it can also be an educated guess, which is a guess based on experience.
Whatever its from, imagination can never be anything more than imagination. It can never become sensation.
This is where language can confuse us.
In everyday parlance, the word reality is used to refer to BOTH what is sensed and what is not sensed but is imagined based on experience.
We say “there is a tree in our backyard” both when we are looking at it and when we are not looking at it but can expect it to be there based on our prior observations.
When one and the same word is associated with two distinct concepts, one must be careful not to conflate the concepts.
Senses and intellect are not equal.
Senses are fundamental.
Though predictions must refer to some sensory event in time, theoretical constructs need not. They can be as imaginary as you want them to be.
If you want to believe that every event in the universe is determined by some supreme being, that is fine, so as long you admit that it’s nothing more than imagination (that is not projected and that is thus without implications and beyond testing.)
The problem begins when you confuse theoretical constructs with reality.
When you fail to understand that things such as ultimate objects (or objects-in-themselves), causality, laws, etc are theoretical constructs and not reality itself.
Thinking people use far more than mere sensations.
They use far more sensations. Thanks to their memory.
No can do since there is no such thing as ultimate reality just reality