uwot wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 11:00 am
Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 10:12 amTo me, a 'hypothesis' is; just a GUESS or an ASSUMPTION about what could be true, or in other words; just a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation, or; a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth, among other things.
Well done Age, that's exactly what it is.
WHAT?
That is NOT EXACTLY what a 'hypothesis' is. That is what a 'hypothesis' is, to me, and IF "others" agree with and accept this definition, for a time being, then so be it, But that is very reason WHY I CLEARLY stated and wrote, 'To me, a 'hypothesis' is; ...'.
See, what a 'thing' ACTUALLY is, is all depended on 'agreement' AND 'acceptance'. A thing is NOT necessarily, and I repeat NOT necessarily, EXACTLY what one person says 'it' is, Just like what you did above here.
That 'we' just happen to 'agree with' and 'accept' a definition, then this does NOT make 'it' EXACTLY what 'it' is. Is this FULLY understood?
If no, then again, and it, hopefully, is ALREADY KNOWN and CLEAR, by now, just ask some CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, until 'it' IS.
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 11:00 am
Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 10:12 amWhereas, to me, 'evidence' is; the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid, or; is 'that' what backs up and supports thee ACTUAL Truth of thing or just a view of things.
Here's where you lose the plot.
If you say and BELIEVE so, then 'it' MUST BE SO, correct?
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 11:00 am
Evidence does not only support "thee ACTUAL Truth", it supports
any hypothesis that is consistent with that evidence.
I KNOW, and that is WHY I said what I ACTUALLY DID.
But you may have just MISSED or MISREAD what I said.
What I ACTUALLY SAID was; Evidence supports 'thee ACTUAL Truth of things', OR, just a view of things. And, OBVIOUSLY, a 'hypothesis' is just 'a view' of things. Therefore, 'evidence' supports ANY view, or ANY hypothesis, that is consistent with that evidence. The two go "hand-in-hand", as they say,
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 11:00 am
Where you have competing hypotheses, you do "further investigation" to find out if you can eliminate one or other hypothesis.
I suggest if ANY one MAKES UP ANY 'hypothesis' AT ALL, then FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS NEEDED. BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY the 'hypothesis' is NOT a reflection of the ACTUAL Truth of things, YET.
Also, what you said here might help in explaining WHY you do NOT see ANY REASON for ANY 'further investigation' into the 'view' that, 'the Universe is expanding' hypothesis?
Do you KNOW of ANY other 'competing hypothesis'?
If no, then is this WHY you are happy to just keep BELIEVING that the Universe is ACTUALLY expanding?
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 11:00 am
Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 10:12 amAlso, you do not appear to know the difference between proof and evidence.
That'll be you Age. Proof has little to do with science, being restricted to mathematics and logic: a proof is basically a tautology, 2+2=4 for example.
And what has 'science' REALLY got to do with what is ACTUALLY True? Obviously, 'science' has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Truth. 'Science' only LOOKS AT that is NOT YET KNOWN.
In case you WERE UNAWARE, I have been talking about thee ACTUAL Truth of things here.
I have also ALREADY INFORMED 'you', people, that I do NOT do GUESSES/ASSUMPTIONS/BELIEFS/THEORIES NOR HYPOTHESIS, and this is because of the VERY FACT that they are NOT necessarily about thee ACTUAL Truth of things AT ALL.
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 11:00 am
You can prove that the things either side of the equals sign are equivalent. Because of the problem of induction, you cannot prove any scientific hypothesis; the go to example being white swans, no number of which will prove the hypothesis 'All swans are white'.
And this is a PRIME EXAMPLE of WHY I NEVER do 'hypothesis's'. They do NOT LOOK AT thee ACTUAL Truth of things.
For ANY human being to MAKE UP the HYPOTHESIS, or to MAKE the CLAIM, that "all swans are white", just SHOWS and PROVES WHY it is ALWAYS BETTER to NEVER GUESS absolutely ANY thing, BEFORE MAKING CLARIFICATION, FIRST.
Also, and according to your logic here, there is NOTHING that can PROVE the hypothesis, "The Universe is expanding".
However, there is ACTUAL PROOF that thee Universe, Itself, is NOT expanding, and did NOT begin. Which is 'what' I LOOK AT and DISCUSS.
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 11:00 am
If you follow Popper, and face it Age, you have no idea who I'm talking about, you will accept his assertion that hypotheses can be falsified, and indeed must be vulnerable to qualify as scientific. '
ONCE AGAIN, ANOTHER PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE REASON WHY TO NEVER MAKE UP a 'hypothesis', AT ALL.
And, I do NOT 'follow' ANY human being, no matter what name they have been given or have.
Also, would it make ANY REAL DIFFERENCE if I KNEW who you were talking about or not?
That person just said some 'thing', which they ASSERT IS TRUE, which is just like ASSERTING "All swans are white" IS TRUE, but which OBVIOUS does NOT necessarily have ANY REAL reflection of what IS ACTUALLY True, Right, and Correct.
All swans are white' in this limited sense thus qualifies as a scientific statement, because one black swan will falsify it.
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 11:00 am
Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 10:12 amTelling us that "these galaxies are, so called, "local" are being pulled together by GRAVITY", or that "those galaxies are in another cluster, which all of them are heading towards earth" is NOT saying what blue shift is evidence for.
AND, telling us that "this is part of the, so called, "general turbulence" of the Universe, as far as SOME can tell" is NOT saying what blue shift is evidence for.
Earth to Age: Yes it is.
So, to you, red shift is 'evidence' that the Universe IS EXPANDING, and, blue shift is 'evidence' that the Universe IS CONTRACTING and is being pulled together and heading towards earth, of ALL places, correct?
If this is NOT correct, then what is blue shift 'evidence' for, EXACTLY, to you?
To you;
Is blue shift 'evidence' for GRAVITY?
Is blue shift 'evidence' for GRAVITY in just a part of the Universe near earth, or for GRAVITY for ALL of the Universe?
Is blue shift 'evidence' that ALL galaxies in a particular part of the Universe are heading towards earth?
Or is blue shift 'evidence' for some 'thing' else?
And if it is, then WHAT, EXACTLY?