Dear list members,
My comments on (scientific) hypothesis testing have been based on the
following definition of hypothesis:
A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon.
Clearly, any published article that mention the word "hypothesis" not
necessarily was testing a true scientific hypothesis. Is it common to read:
We tested the hypothesis that survival rate of male mountain lions was
greater than female mountain lions in Yellowstone National Park. That
is not a true hypothesis, there is no explanation involved.
My questions now are (in the good spirit of a positive discussion):
How much we know about what an hypothesis is?
How much training on philosophy of science ecologists have?
I am sending the link of an article where the authors propose to abandon
the idea of testing hypothesis
(http://www.cell.com/abstract/S0092-8674(08)00953-7). One of the author
is a professor in the Department of Philosophy at Harvard University.
The title of the article: A Brief History of the Hypothesis.
They propose to work on questions and models.
"We propose that building hypotheses should be abandoned in favor of
posing a straightforward question of a system and then receiving an
answer, using that answer to model reality, and then testing the
reproducibility and predictive power of the model, modifying it as
necessary."
"It is better to see science as a quest for good questions to try to
answer, rather than a quest for bold hypotheses to try to refute."
Interestingly, in the article they mention that even Newton was not a
follower of working with hypothesis.
Best,
Manuel
--
*Manuel Spínola, Ph.D.*
Instituto Internacional en Conservación y Manejo de Vida Silvestre
Universidad Nacional
Apartado 1350-3000
Heredia
COSTA RICA
mspin...@una.ac.cr
mspinol...@gmail.com
Teléfono: (506) 2277-3598
Fax: (506) 2237-7036
Personal website: Lobito de río
<https://sites.google.com/site/lobitoderio/>
Institutional website: ICOMVIS <http://www.icomvis.una.ac.cr/>
