Hypothesis Testing (relevant to Evolution vs. Creation)

[Taraz]

I don't think many people understand how hypothesis testing actually works in science. You can never prove that a hypothesis is true. All you can really say is that either a hypothesis is false and we should reject it, or that the evidence we have isn't sufficient to reject. A good hypothesis must be testable, falsifiable, and must let you make predictions about the world. If we test it repeatedly, it makes useful predictions, and we don't have enough evidence to reject it, it eventually gets accepted as a theory.

You never really get proof that a hypothesis is true. You can just test it more and more and lower the statistical probability that it is false. Eventually the likelihood that a theory is false becomes incredibly low, but you haven't proven it to be true. It is simply the best explanation so far for your observations.

In terms of evolution, it is an ever-changing theory. Parts get thrown out, new hypotheses are made and tested, etc. Creationism on the other hand is not testable and does not make any predictions. It is not even a scientific hypothesis. With that said neither theory can be "proven" to be true.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think many people understand how hypothesis testing actually works in science. You can never prove that a hypothesis is true. All you can really say is that either a hypothesis is false and we should reject it, or that the evidence we have isn't sufficient to reject. A good hypothesis must be testable, falsifiable, and must let you make predictions about the world. If we test it repeatedly, it makes useful predictions, and we don't have enough evidence to reject it, it eventually gets accepted as a theory.

You never really get proof that a hypothesis is true. You can just test it more and more and lower the statistical probability that it is false. Eventually the likelihood that a theory is false becomes incredibly low, but you haven't proven it to be true. It is simply the best explanation so far for your observations.

In terms of evolution, it is an ever-changing theory. Parts get thrown out, new hypotheses are made and tested, etc. Creationism on the other hand is not testable and does not make any predictions. It is not even a scientific hypothesis. With that said neither theory can be "proven" to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Creationism in the guise of Intelligent design, can be as testable as you want it to be. The problem is, that any falsifiable hypothesis you create, is soon falsified.


[ QUOTE ]
My scientific version of ID predicts that creatures were designed intelligently, and therefore we will find no instances of stupid design in nature.
For example, the fish that live in dark caves will not have vestigial, non-functional eyes. That would be stupid.
Also, humans will not have muscles attached to the coccyx that, in other primates, are used to flex the tail but (since the human tail bones are all fused together) would be non-functional in humans. That would be stupid as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

Link

[Drag]

@ Taraz

IMO you should put more emphasize on the predictions made by the hypothesis/theory. All the good scientific hypothesis/theories make testable predictions. If there is none, it is pseudoscience. Surely, the explanatory side is also important, but it is the predictions that make the killing. All the major theories became widely accepted only after their predictions were tested.

Creationism can provide explanation, but it can’t make any testable predictions, so its value is very low from scientific point of view. We can formulate it even more broadly, that it has no practical value.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

Creationism in the guise of Intelligent design, can be as testable as you want it to be. The problem is, that any falsifiable hypothesis you create, is soon falsified.


[ QUOTE ]
My scientific version of ID predicts that creatures were designed intelligently, and therefore we will find no instances of stupid design in nature.
For example, the fish that live in dark caves will not have vestigial, non-functional eyes. That would be stupid.
Also, humans will not have muscles attached to the coccyx that, in other primates, are used to flex the tail but (since the human tail bones are all fused together) would be non-functional in humans. That would be stupid as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

Link

[/ QUOTE ]
I like your examples, but I'm not sure why you linked that blog entry, which was from a (debatable) legal perspective that ignored the scientific issues.

If some version of Intelligent Design is discovered which is backed by evidence and appears to have even 1/100 of the predictive power of the standard theory of evolution, then it might be appropriate to study it in a science classroom, regardless of the motives of the people who brought it up. However, so far, ID has no scientific merit, and has no more place in a science classroom than the idea that the sun shines because I'm happy.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
I like your examples, but I'm not sure why you linked that blog entry, which was from a (debatable) legal perspective that ignored the scientific issues.



[/ QUOTE ] If you read the whole blog, you would see that these lawyers and scientists were indeed debating the scientific issues. The specific quote I provided that you said, "I like your examples" was from the blog and it was very scientific. I gave these examples because I remembered them when studying the court case, and I didn't wish to plagerize from this blog.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I like your examples, but I'm not sure why you linked that blog entry, which was from a (debatable) legal perspective that ignored the scientific issues.



[/ QUOTE ] If you read the whole blog, you would see that these lawyers and scientists were indeed debating the scientific issues. The specific quote I provided that you said, "I like your examples" was from the blog and it was very scientific. I gave these examples because I remembered them when studying the court case, and I didn't wish to plagerize from this blog.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, you are referring to the pages and pages of comments on that blog entry as "the whole blog." Normally, "blog" refers to what the person wrote in that entry and others, not the spam or comments refuting what the blog's author wrote. Many of those comments were not made by lawyers or scientists, by the way.

I don't believe the blog's author read the entire judgement, or understands the science, and most of the comments were worthless.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
@ Taraz

IMO you should put more emphasize on the predictions made by the hypothesis/theory. All the good scientific hypothesis/theories make testable predictions. If there is none, it is pseudoscience. Surely, the explanatory side is also important, but it is the predictions that make the killing. All the major theories became widely accepted only after their predictions were tested.

Creationism can provide explanation, but it can’t make any testable predictions, so its value is very low from scientific point of view. We can formulate it even more broadly, that it has no practical value.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're probably right. I mentioned it, but perhaps I didn't make clear how what you are testing is the predictions that the hypothesis makes.

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think many people understand how hypothesis testing actually works in science. You can never prove that a hypothesis is true. All you can really say is that either a hypothesis is false and we should reject it, or that the evidence we have isn't sufficient to reject.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some philosophers also think that no individual hypothesis or theory is falsifiable either. I do think that Popper's description of scientists as being in the business of falsifying theories is misleading.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe the blog's author read the entire judgement, or understands the science, and most of the comments were worthless.



[/ QUOTE ] I completely agree with you here. I did read the entire case one day when I was bored, and agree with the court.

I confused the issue with my link. I got so caught up reading all the disputes, that I didn't realize I was on like page 50 of the section where people were arguing against the blogger. I ran across those two neat examples that seemed relevant to what Taraz was saying, and didn't want to take credit for them myself, so I attempted my laughable link.