A place to ask questions and add to probative and informative discussions associated with the various aspects of the field of fire investigation. -- FORUM RULES---BE CIVIL AND NO NAME CALLING, NO BELITTLING, NO BERATING, NO DENIGRATING others. Postings in violation of these rules can be removed or editted to remove the offending remarks at the discretion of the moderators and/or site administrator.
Re: Back to basics – testing your hypothesis.
Posted by:
Jim Mazerat (IP Logged)
Date: January 22, 2007 06:12PM
Gerald
You may be exactly right about a hypothesis being proven, it is just everything I read states the opposite. What do you use to support your hypothesis of the fact that a hypothesis can be tested and it validity proven? I am using the peer documents from others in support of my hypothesis, but admit that those findings do not prove it is incorrect.
As to the difference between math and science, I was trying to say there are no absolutes when it comes to science. It is my belief all testing of a hypothesis is done with the intention of disproving the hypothesis. You may test the hypothesis 50 times and never disprove it, but what about the 51 time. A single test, if confirmed, may disprove a hypothesis but it cannot prove it to be correct. A given series of tests may corroborate the hypothesis, but subsequent experiments under different conditions may disprove it. If this is truly possible, then there is no absolute knowledge in science. There is only progress, which is optimistically a progression towards a more complete and accurate understanding of the event. But, from our past we have seen many times that any time current scientific opinion may be overthrown by new observations, by better theories. If this is possible would it not mean that the testing that was conducted, and the proved the hypothesis was correct was really flawed and had insufficient date to properly relate to the hypothesis being tested. I am willing to say Some hypotheses offer such strong predictions and withstand testing for such a long period of time that they become generally accepted, first as "theories" and then as "laws of science." However, even these are not "absolute." A scientific law is just a "very strongly supported inference." We do not know that it will survive in light of new data or technology.
This is one of the times there is no way for me to prove my hypothesis is correct, but only say the documentation used to test it has failed to disprove it.