Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: Coyoteman
The definition of theory is alright, but it is missing the fact that it is in itself a tested hypothesis. That's why it can include them

"Who knows, it might grow up to be a theory some day!"

In that case, one is modelling a test for a hypothesis. The model won't beocme theory, the hypothesis will. In general, models are based on both theory and law.

536 posted on 01/26/2006 9:20:30 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies ]


To: spunkets
In that case, one is modelling a test for a hypothesis. The model won't beocme theory, the hypothesis will. In general, models are based on both theory and law.

Interesting discussion. I see models as less formal than hypotheses, so your suggestion of modeling a test for a hypothesis could certainly fit. You could probably come up with multiple models.

I see models as based on most anything; they are often vastly simplified (oversimplified) so they can work with subsets of data and provide some kind of test. They can stem from laws and theories, but are generally much simplified. If, when tested, they are supported it does not prove anything of course, but may lead to more robust, focused, or precise models, and you can build up from there.

I did modeling in my dissertation, and worked with simplified models from about five diverse fields--and they all pointed in the same direction!

Well over 20 years later we are working with better data and have refined a lot of the hypotheses, but we are still pointed in the same direction! Lots of fun.

541 posted on 01/26/2006 9:45:24 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 536 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson