Oh, sorry. As a layperson, when I said that I wasn’t thinking about the actual processes involved in formulating and testing hypothesis. I simply meant to say that, in light of accurate predictions having been made by past theories that are now no longer accepted, it seems predictions may be somewhat, but not very substantial indications of confirmation. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
The subjective inferences would generally be the theoretical aspects, and the objective evidences, i.e., empirical, mathematical, mechanical, etc., which the inferences are drawn from would generally be the other aspects.
I’m sorry if you got that impression. That was not at all my intention. I’m simply trying to understand what’s going on as best I can. Sometimes I don’t express what I’m trying to say as clearly as I should. Again, I apologize.
This is more or less what I’m getting at. I don’t see how it can be the most important because of the fact that incorrect theories can make accurate predictions.
Again, I don’t see how predictions provide any substantial amount of an advantage, particularly when it comes to inferences, which is the issue I’m concerned with. There may be particular cases in that regard where a prediction might give science an advantage over other fields of study.
But that, I think, would largely depend on how the prediction was formulated, and how much the prediction is directed towards the theoretical aspect of a theory. But even then, if the theory is faulty that doesn’t preclude predictions being made from it that are accurate. So taking those things into consideration, it seems like predictions would not lend much of an advantage generally speaking.
Aren’t judgments, scientific or otherwise, based on subjective reasoning? I agree that questioning the objective scientific aspects require doing science. But aren’t judgments in any field of study for the most part a philosophically centered endeavor?
OK. Although to make that statement a bit more precise I would clarify that it’s the scientists who make the predictions.
Here’s what I found on Wikipedia about hypothesis and predictions. Does it generally sound ok to you?
Though diverse models for the scientific method are available, there is in general a continuous process that includes observations about the natural world. People are naturally inquisitive, so they often come up with questions about things they see or hear, and they often develop ideas or hypotheses about why things are the way they are. The best hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested in various ways. The most conclusive testing of hypotheses comes from reasoning based on carefully controlled experimental data. Depending on how well additional tests match the predictions, the original hypothesis may require refinement, alteration, expansion or even rejection. If a particular hypothesis becomes very well supported, a general theory may be developed.
Any useful hypothesis will enable predictions, by reasoning including deductive reasoning. It might predict the outcome of an experiment in a laboratory setting or the observation of a phenomenon in nature…
It is essential that the outcome of testing such a prediction be currently unknown. Only in this case does a successful outcome increase the probability that the hypothesis is true. If the outcome is already known, it is called a consequence and should have already been considered while formulating the hypothesis…
I would say after several decades of research that not only doesn’t come up with anything, but keeps uncovering more difficulties and making a natural explanation more and more improbable, that’s a pretty good indication that it’s time to at least start considering alternative explanations.
Also when evidence makes a compelling case for it. For example, in the case of a natural cause of the universe, since all the available evidence points to a beginning, that would be a strong indication that the initial cause would not be natural.
Not sure what you are wanting to say when you say you don’t make such arguments. But let me give an example of what I’m talking about. As far as I know, change from one kind of animal into another is not an empirically accessible event, since it happens over millions of years.
Therefore it seems it isn’t a humanly possible observation to make in the sense of seeing it in the present, nor does it seem possible to be reproduced in an experiment. This would also seem to be the case for other past events like the beginning of the universe.
If such is the case, and inferences are made for such events based on relevant, howbeit indirect evidence, then it seems it would be fair game to argue for the supernatural in a similar fashion.
