Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Toney Barton

Hypothesis = Assumption

31 posts in this topic

This is what you stated Lens

 

so in other words, because he doesn't use the word "hypothesis", he's doing something wrong?

 

a hypothesis, which is how these experiments begin and is normally the first part of the report, is a guess

 

so why is calling it an assumption wrong. if they're guessing, and they think their guess is right, it's an assumption until proven

 

 

This is what Justin said

 

Even in engineering/aero stuff, assumptions are made and HAVE to be taken as fact

 

 

Lens, since when did a hypothesis have to be taken as fact?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mate these dargs dont know what an assumption is 

 

leave it it's not worth it 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mate these dargs dont know what an assumption is 

 

leave it it's not worth it 

 

Lol

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL @ taking science for 100% fact. Tony, being in the position I am in and what I have studied, I am in a very strong position to say what I said. You are not a scientist or engineer so relax.

 

 

/

 

 

To add some lols to the thread:

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Straight edge is right on this one

 

I study engineering and a significant part of it is assumptions

 

Most of the formulas are based on assumptions to simplify the problem

 

So yes even though you're stating it's an assumptions when calculating you're writting it down as a fact

 

For example when calculating heat transfer through a wall you assume that the thermal conductivity of the wall is identical throughout

 

This is obviously not the case in real life but to stop you from calculating the thermal conductivity of the wall for every square cm you assume that this is irrelevant

 

So in your calculation it becomes a fact that the thermal conductivity is the same throughout the wall

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justin I have a scientific background.

 

Pro wouldn't that be conjectures, which is more of a working hypothesis.

 

My problem is all science does not operate like that which is what Justin is alluding to.

 

Nobody said science was 100% fact but it is the endeavor of trying to get as close to fact as possible, why would anybody question it's validity in favour of comments based on no knowledge at all?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pro wouldn't that be conjectures, which is more of a working hypothesis.

no, because if it was a working hypothesis, You would attempt to prove it instead of deciding that You're going to use it as fact during Your experiment

 

Pro said You take the conductivity as constant throughout, with no attempt to prove or disprove it, so it's not part of the hypothesis

/

 

This is obviously not the case in real life but to stop you from calculating the thermal conductivity of the wall for every square cubic cm you assume that this is irrelevant

fixed

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lens you are getting confused on wording.

 

A working hypothesis would be used in Pros example to give him an estimate of how much heat could be transferred through a wall.

 

The working hypothesis doesn't have to be proven, it is there purely as a basis for his calculations, for him to make an estimate.

 

 

End of the day Science is not made up of working hypotheses as was insinuated.

 

There are also laws and theories in Science.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither is science fact as was insinuated.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The science I posted in that thread is based on years of research, observation and data.

 

It holds more weight than the "Homo's are mentally ill" or "Homo is a choice" brigade which is based on nothing but ignorance.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok fine

 

Took me literally 30 seconds to find this article

Many researchers taking a different view of pedophilia. Pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a deep-rooted predisposition that does not change

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115
Your thoughts?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I steered well clear of that thread.

 

But now it's been derailed into an off-shoot thread on hypothetical thermal conductivity?

 

Only on VIP2!

 

*Opens page 1*

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok fine

 

Took me literally 30 seconds to find this article

 

Many researchers taking a different view of pedophilia. Pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a deep-rooted predisposition that does not change

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115

 

Your thoughts?

Of course you're going to find that if you search google. You can find what ever you want. Find an article published in an academic journal not the LA times.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok fine
 
Took me literally 30 seconds to find this article

 

Many researchers taking a different view of pedophilia. Pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a deep-rooted predisposition that does not change
 
Your thoughts?
 
I didn't make a comment in that thread regarding the cause of Paedophilia for a reason.
 
Regardless of the cause, there is always a victim.
 
 
I suspect Paedophilia is more complex than Homosexuality but there is no place for it in a modern world where laws are there to protect children.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is not always a victim toney surely you are intelligent enough to understand every man that is attracted to children doesnt actually act upon those urges.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are going bk into the last topic and that's long.

 

Potential victim/victim if you want to be technical.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justin I have a scientific background.

 

Pro wouldn't that be conjectures, which is more of a working hypothesis.

 

My problem is all science does not operate like that which is what Justin is alluding to.

 

Nobody said science was 100% fact but it is the endeavor of trying to get as close to fact as possible, why would anybody question it's validity in favour of comments based on no knowledge at all?

 

No it wouldn't since with an assumption you don't make an attempt for it to become theory.

 

A Fact is what's seen as the "truth" based on repeated observations however this "truth" is never final and could completley change.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The science I posted in that thread is based on years of research, observation and data.

 

It holds more weight than the "Homo's are mentally ill" or "Homo is a choice" brigade which is based on nothing but ignorance.

 

before any research and observation, they have decided to conduct an experiment, which will have began with an assumption or guess of some kind

 

saying that homosexuality is something people are born with still doesn't state what the condition/ailment is

 

I argued mental illness, as that is my first choice of clarification for the condition/ailment. You haven't provided an alternative

 

I don't see how "they're born with it" or "it's genetic" rules out mental illness. people are born with mental illnesses, as well as diseases, injuries, etc. this homosexuality needs to be classified as a kind of condition/ailment. feel free to suggest one.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences combined

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The science I posted in that thread is based on years of research, observation and data.

 

It holds more weight than the "Homo's are mentally ill" or "Homo is a choice" brigade which is based on nothing but ignorance.

 

before any research and observation, they have decided to conduct an experiment, which will have began with an assumption or guess of some kind

 

saying that homosexuality is something people are born with still doesn't state what the condition/ailment is

 

I argued mental illness, as that is my first choice of clarification for the condition/ailment. You haven't provided an alternative

 

I don't see how "they're born with it" or "it's genetic" rules out mental illness. people are born with mental illnesses, as well as diseases, injuries, etc. this homosexuality needs to be classified as a kind of condition/ailment. feel free to suggest one.

 

What about creeps who piss on chicks in luke warm showers, who tried for years to trap chicks using the fake pull out tekkers in order to impregnate them, or who would be willing to raise a female child who isn't yours in order to "train her to be your son's future wife"???? Are those symptoms of a mental illness??

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, I am mentally ill

 

now my question please?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so you are just as mentally ill as a homo. Probably more cos your acts have victims. thanx bye

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it wouldn't since with an assumption you don't make an attempt for it to become theory.

A Fact is what's seen as the "truth" based on repeated observations however this "truth" is never final and could completley change.

 

 

As I said to Lens a working hypothesis doesn't have to be further researched upon itself.

 

John Dewey used the concept of the working hypothesis as a pivotal feature in his theory of inquiry.

 

In Dewey's view, the working hypothesis is generated, not directly as a testable statement of expectation, but instead in order to "direct inquiry into channels in which new material, factual and conceptual, is disclosed

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it wouldn't since with an assumption you don't make an attempt for it to become theory.

A Fact is what's seen as the "truth" based on repeated observations however this "truth" is never final and could completley change.

 

 

As I said to Lens a working hypothesis doesn't have to be further researched upon itself.

 

>John Dewey used the concept of the working hypothesis as a pivotal feature in his theory of inquiry.

 

In Dewey's view, the working hypothesis is generated, not directly as a testable statement of expectation, but instead in order to "direct inquiry into channels in which new material, factual and conceptual, is disclosed

 

so using a working hypothesis he came up with a theory

 

let me know when it becomes "Dewey's law" :Y:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

saying that homosexuality is something people are born with still doesn't state what the condition/ailment is

 

I argued mental illness, as that is my first choice of clarification for the condition/ailment. You haven't provided an alternative

 

The article I posted refers to it as a congenital condition.

 

I would agree with this.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0