Let's go.........RANDOM!

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.
User avatar
shinygerbil
level5
level5
Posts: 4667
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Out, finding my own food. Also, doing the shinyBonsai Manoeuvre(tm)
Contact:

Postby shinygerbil » Sat May 04, 2013 1:05 am

and we're on page 1111.

yay
Here is my signature. Make of it what you will.
Image
User avatar
DTNC Vicious
Site Admin
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:48 am
Location: North of the Wall
Contact:

Postby DTNC Vicious » Sat May 04, 2013 7:48 am

Onward!!!!
-Vic
User avatar
rus|Mike
level5
level5
Posts: 2750
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:52 pm
Location: Russia, St. Petersburg

Postby rus|Mike » Sun May 05, 2013 12:10 am

So there's a massively referenced-to definition of "scientific theory" on National Academy of Sciences' website:
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

What would you say "well-substantiated" means in this context? Is it a synonym of thoroughly tested? Do they imply that not only hypothesis that theory incorporates should be tested, but also a theory as a whole, i.e. the logic that connects them?
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Sun May 05, 2013 12:35 am

rus|Mike wrote:What would you say "well-substantiated" means in this context? Is it a synonym of thoroughly tested?

Sort of. I'm not quite sure I like the way they defined it (mostly because it's fairly vague and ambiguous), but I would described it more as "supported by all known (reliable) evidence" than "thoroughly tested", though there's certainly a lot of that going on.

Not quite sure what you mean about your second point. Generally speaking, if multiple hypothesis within a theory aren't consistent with each other, then either some of your hypothesis are wrong, or your theory is.
User avatar
rus|Mike
level5
level5
Posts: 2750
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:52 pm
Location: Russia, St. Petersburg

Postby rus|Mike » Sun May 05, 2013 1:00 am

Well, they say that sc. theory is an explanation <...> that incorporates tested hypothesis and so on. Which makes me think of it as of logical glue that ties multiple tested hypothesis/facts/laws/etc together and creates an "explanation" itself. What I wanted to know is if you have to firstly test that explanation to call the whole thing "scientific theory" or is the fact that explanation is based on already tested hypothesis is good enough.

For example, I have a bunch of well-tested hypothesis. I came up with a way to logically tie them together into a scientific "explanation" of something. Do I already have a scientific theory or should I firstly test my explanation?
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Sun May 05, 2013 1:23 am

Well, if we go back a bit to the Hypothesis definition:
Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

So, in a way, you are correct, but I REALLY do not like the way that they put it, mostly because they treat hypothesis, laws, and theories as distinct things.

See, the way I was taught the idea was that you started with an hypothesis, once you accumulated enough evidence it became a theory, and once it became completely proven, it became a law.
Even if we treat this as the oversimplification that it is, it kind of shows the problem I have with their explanation and your interpretation of it.

So:
rus|Mike wrote:Do I already have a scientific theory or should I firstly test my explanation?

Both can be correct, depending of where you started.

If you came up with your "theory" after testing the hypotheses, then you don't have a theory, you have a new hypothesis, which you must then test.

If the hypotheses were logical extensions of a previous hypothesis (i.e. you came up with an hypothesis, and then created new hypotheses to explore the ramifications and consequences of the first hypothesis) then the original hypothesis, possibly after some fine-tuning to account for the results of testing, becomes a theory.
User avatar
Ghost Division
level2
level2
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 3:53 pm
Location: La la land.

Postby Ghost Division » Sun May 05, 2013 1:27 am

Image
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Mon May 06, 2013 2:33 pm

Sicilian Hound wrote:Cheech and Chong's Up in Smoke Movie


I saw a picture of a guy wearing a shirt for that movie protesting outside the NRA convention.
User avatar
jelco
level5
level5
Posts: 6018
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:45 am
Location: Cygnus X-1
Contact:

Postby jelco » Mon May 06, 2013 6:51 pm

Spent last week in Istanbul. Lovely city, lovely food, lovely people. I am curious what is going to happen with the elections next year; we witnessed some rallies and even a slightly-too-close-up view of the riot police in lieu of the May 1st demonstrations at Taksim Square, and it feels a bit...turbulent.

In the meantime the lazy folks at the Uni administration have finally decided to process my BSc, which apparently I'm now retroactively since February 1st. Curious system, but yay. :)

Jelco
"The ships hung in the sky much the same way that bricks don't."
- Douglas Adams
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Tue May 07, 2013 9:56 pm

You were there for the Justin Beiber concert, weren't you?
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Sat May 11, 2013 11:08 pm

GeoGuessr is rather brilliant.

Also, personal high-score 11508 \o/
User avatar
Laika
level5
level5
Posts: 1497
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:16 pm
Location: Moscow

Postby Laika » Sat May 11, 2013 11:26 pm

It gave me a panorama view on coastal waters with a glance at faraway beach. Turned out to be in Australia. Another shot from a desert with drought trees, meh.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Sat May 11, 2013 11:44 pm

It's surprising how often you can narrow down to the country just from those though, which is what makes it so interesting.
User avatar
Laika
level5
level5
Posts: 1497
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:16 pm
Location: Moscow

Postby Laika » Sun May 12, 2013 12:26 am

It is fun to search for clues in suburban panoramas - side of road driving, flora, company labels on sattelite dishes and whatever you pay attention to. 18283 :o
microchip08
level5
level5
Posts: 1186
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:37 pm
Contact:

Postby microchip08 » Sun May 12, 2013 12:59 am

Xocrates wrote:GeoGuessr is rather brilliant.

Also, personal high-score 11508 \o/


20,533! I was pretty lucky to get "big plaza with Taiwanese flags", that lead me to Tapei and 2km out; "mediterranean but with Eastern European road signs" to Croatia; as well as a huge sign declaring "Great Ocean Road" with signs to Melbourne.

Edit 0330UTC 12 May: 21351! A lucky duplicate, and a sign with "Trafalgar" helped immensely.
Last edited by microchip08 on Sun May 12, 2013 4:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests