|
Post by Tamrin on Apr 25, 2012 8:47:43 GMT 10
Special Pleading in science might include a Pseudo-scientist claiming exemption from Occam's Razor and from Popper's Falsification. With the real reason being that if applied they would discredit his pet theory. Yes *coughRHcough*Yes *coughBAScough*
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Apr 25, 2012 19:33:52 GMT 10
Not even wrong en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong An argument that appears to be scientific is said to be "not even wrong" if it cannot be falsified (i.e., tested with the possibility of being rejected) by experiment or cannot be used to make predictions about the natural world. The phrase was coined by theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who was known for his colorful objections to incorrect or sloppy thinking.[1] Rudolf Peierls writes that "a friend showed Pauli the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli's views. Pauli remarked sadly, 'It is not even wrong.' "[2] The phrase implies that even a wrong argument would have been better than the argument proposed, because an argument can only be found wrong after meeting the criteria for a scientific hypothesis. Arguments that are not even wrong do not meet these criteria. The phrase "not even wrong" is often used to describe pseudoscience or bad science and is considered derogatory.[3] "Not even wrong" has also been used, notably by Peter Woit, to mean proposed scientific theories that are well-meaning and based on current scientific knowledge, but can neither be used for prediction nor falsified. He has applied the phrase to aspects of the super string theory of physics on the grounds that, although mathematically elegant, it does not currently provide predictions or tests.[4]
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Apr 26, 2012 14:25:22 GMT 10
www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/science//item/what_is_a_null_hypothesis"What Is A Null Hypothesis? For this to work you’re going to have to imagine that you are a scientist. Are you in character? Good. Now in order to get that Nobel Prize you’re gonna have to come up with something pretty damn brilliant. So let’s say you have some rather exciting ideas about why you seem to lose socks at an astonishing rate. Maybe, you hypothesise, aliens are beaming down to steal one sock out of every pair you own. * Hypothesis: the loss of my socks is due to alien burglary. In order to test whether your hypothesis is true or not, you have to carry out some research to see if you can back it up. So you set up a hi-tech alien detection system and record whether times of alien activity are correlated with when your socks go missing. However, when you get your results, it’s possible that any relationship that appears in your data was produced by random chance. In order to back up your hypothesis you need to compare the results against the opposite situation: that the loss of socks is not due to alien burglary. This is your null hypothesis – the assertion that the things you were testing (i.e. rates of alien activity and sock loss) are not related and your results are the product of random chance events."
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Apr 26, 2012 19:17:31 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Dec 24, 2012 12:21:22 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 2, 2013 13:01:07 GMT 10
|
|