From: Torsten
Message: 65292
Date: 2009-10-24
>They are in everyday usage, where they indicate progressively greater distance from the communis opinio. People who use them in science at the same time introduce a bias towards the communis opinio.
> At 5:46:39 AM on Tuesday, October 20, 2009, Torsten wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, johnvertical@ wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>>>> I am not your errand boy. If you want to know what I
> >>>>> mean, read what I wrote.
>
> >>>> I'm reading it. And then you tell me I read it wrong,
> >>>> since you rarely if ever mention if you are writing
> >>>> something as wild speculation / working hypothesis /
> >>>> part of your theory.
>
> >>> That's exactly what it is.
>
> >> Um, those are three different things.
>
> > No.
>
> Of course they are, both in everyday usage and specifically
> in science.
> If you really don't distinguish them, it's noYes, that is what most of those people feel who want to elevate the communis opinio to a special status.
> wonder that discussion with you is generally a waste of
> time.
> This would also explain your annoying habit ofErh?
> presenting your ideas in the language of working hypothesis
> or even theory but failing to make any sort of coherent case
> for them
> and scurrying for the cover of wild speculationAh, you want to do ad hominem?
> when pressed for (or with) real evidence.
> [...]Erh, what intent? And obvious?
>
> >> Or, from a more pragmatical viewpoint...
>
> >> Wild speculation: "I'll be tossing out some thoughts.
> >> Interrupt me if you hear anything that makes sense."
>
> >> Working hypothesis: "I can explain this as well as that
> >> by assuming B. Can you add anything in support of or in
> >> opposition to B?"
>
> >> Theory: "We have establish'd from plenty of evidence that
> >> this is how it goes, and counterarguments have been
> >> rebuked thus far."
>
> > Wrong. You can't establish anything from evidence. Popper.
>
> You're dodging the obvious intent by quibbling about a
> careless expression of the idea.
> Replace the first clauseI don't think you should be bitter, Brian. You have many talents, and I know that one day you will present one of your own ideas in this forum. For instance, what do you say you present here your own theory of correct scientific methodology, specifically about how evidence validates a theory? If all else fails, I know you will one day make someone very happy as his secretary.
> by 'We have plenty of evidence that validates this
> theoretical framework'.