I read your long rant anyway. It made me think of nuclear physics, where the degree of plausibility can be quantified by using the branch of mathematics known as Statistics. There are phenomena in theoretical physics that cannot be disproven, but the consequences conflict with results that have been observed in particle colliders.
In empirical science, at least, theoretical possibilities often suggest hypotheses that can be tested. But, the quantification of plausibility (standard deviations, et all) is needed to drive the experimental research effort on the most likely plausiblities first. My personal interpretation of Hitchen's caveat is that he was arguing for procedural rigor in research methods.
What you have said makes quite a bit of sense. However, so many people use that quote to dismiss things as false that could be true, which is incredibly unscientific. I agree that research should be spent trying to either prove or disprove the most likely option first, but that does not mean that people should totally dismiss the "less likely" options as false until they are proven to be true.
Religion is frustrating
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I read your long rant anyway. It made me think of nuclear physics, where the degree of plausibility can be quantified by using the branch of mathematics known as Statistics. There are phenomena in theoretical physics that cannot be disproven, but the consequences conflict with results that have been observed in particle colliders.
In empirical science, at least, theoretical possibilities often suggest hypotheses that can be tested. But, the quantification of plausibility (standard deviations, et all) is needed to drive the experimental research effort on the most likely plausiblities first. My personal interpretation of Hitchen's caveat is that he was arguing for procedural rigor in research methods.
--
Clunk42
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
What you have said makes quite a bit of sense. However, so many people use that quote to dismiss things as false that could be true, which is incredibly unscientific. I agree that research should be spent trying to either prove or disprove the most likely option first, but that does not mean that people should totally dismiss the "less likely" options as false until they are proven to be true.
--
dude_Jones
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Exactly.