It then becomes a theory, thus is no longer simply a hypothesis
Anyway, as I said before we will have to agree to disagree as you are getting more vitriolic by the post for no apparent reason and it is making the debate rather pointless.
human teleportation
- Thread starter cm1179
- Start date
It then becomes a theory, thus is no longer simply a hypothesis
Anyway, as I said before we will have to agree to disagree as you are getting more vitriolic by the post for no apparent reason and it is making the debate rather pointless.
It was written by Anne Helmenstine Phd.
http://chemistry.about.com/bio/Anne-Marie-Helmenstine-Ph-D-7815.htm
OMG the ignorance!
You START from a theory, then you form a testable Hypothesis, then you form a method to carry out that test, then you obtain results, and finally conclude whether the hypothesis was true or not.
Seriously, you are making so many mistakes it is unbelievable that you can even think you are right.
A THEORY turns into a HYPOTHESIS once there is enough evidence and observation to allow it, NOT the other way around!
Show me the original article, because she is definitely wrong just as you are. Obviously people can still have a Phd and be completely wrong about the basics of Science, and then people who dont know any better will believe them regardless.
A NULL hypothesis is one that states that the idea behind the hypothesis is not real or that there is no link between what is being tested. A normal hypothesis is written to assume that the hypothesis is real and testable to provide evidence for the idea.
Last edited:
Seriously? So things like mavity, or evolution, haven't even gotten to the hypothesis stage yet? A scientific concept has to undergo rigorous proofing before it can be classed as a theory. As Castiel said, you're getting more bilious with your responses as it becomes increasingly apparent that you're the only one on your side. I don't think the debate's going to reach any kind of conclusion here.
A theory will generally begin as an hypothesis. A scientist will make educated guesses based on observable phenomenon. The scientist will then attempt to disprove or prove their hypothesis, if the hypothesis comes through the applied methods of science then the hypothesis takes on the significance of a Theory.
The more the hypothesis holds up to testing and peer review the more accepted it becomes as a Theory.
Now move on.
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 1,249
I've ALWAYS gone Aim > Theory > Hypothesis > Method at GCSE, A level and Degree QQ
Im sure, I'm looking for some of my old papers but cant find them
In the dissertation, we had to write our THEORIES in the first term before doing the hypothesis / method in the second.
I wrote out my 500-1000 word theory first, submitted it to the board, and then it got validated, but I didnt do the rest because I were too lazy and unmotivated.
You then base a testable hypothesis on the theory that you already have before it, you cant base a testable hypothesis with no theory.
Im sure, I'm looking for some of my old papers but cant find them
In the dissertation, we had to write our THEORIES in the first term before doing the hypothesis / method in the second.
I wrote out my 500-1000 word theory first, submitted it to the board, and then it got validated, but I didnt do the rest because I were too lazy and unmotivated.
You then base a testable hypothesis on the theory that you already have before it, you cant base a testable hypothesis with no theory.
Last edited:
I've ALWAYS gone Aim > Theory > Hypothesis > Method at GCSE, A level and Degree QQ
Im sure, I'm looking for some of my old papers but cant find them
In the dissertation, we had to write our THEORIES in the first term before doing the hypothesis / method in the second.
I wrote out my 500-1000 word theory first, submitted it to the board, and then it got validated, but I didnt do the rest because I were too lazy and unmotivated.
Nope, I already graduated and have my certificate thanks.
........
Im sure that that is what we always called the 'Aim'?
Aim > Theory > Hypothesis > Method > Results > Conclusion.
Thats how its always been:
Ask Question = Aim
Background Research = THEORY
Hypothesis = what to test
Method = Test
Results = What you found out
Conclusion = Hypothesis true or false
I am right. This is how it is taught at GCSE, A level, and Degree. Hypothesis goes right before the method, and theory goes before that.
The Theory however, can be based on other peoples hypothesis that have already been tested, but in those cases, they too would have had a theory before their hypothesis.
There are also plenty of Theories that have been formulated without any hypothesis, ad then a hypothesis would be used to test that theory.
You cannot write your hypothesis without first writing out the theory, this is incorrect, and your grade would be penalized if you did.
Antoher one showing the same thing:
http://merlincentral.com/troop18/resources/Sci method.gif
The Research' is what you title as 'Theory', that comes after the Aim, and BEFORE the hypothesis.
Last edited:
The research is simply that.
This explains the method of forwarding an hypothesis. Once you have the conclusion then if the hypothesis was found to be acceptable then you progress to creating a Theory based upon those hypotheses.
You are confusing the context of the word theory. A scientific theory comes after a scientific hypothesis on which to build.
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html
The reason a hypothesis can not be proved true is because all other antitheses must be disproven and as we would have no way to know whether every possible antithesis has been considered we can never indisputably prove an hypothesis. Much the same as a theory. A proven theory or hypothesis is by it's very nature no longer either it is a Fact.
Basically if experiment and observation suggest that your hypothesis is acceptable then we progress to the theory stage of the methodology, thus technically it is no longer a hypothesis.
You are confusing the Theory with the Question. First ask the Question, then create a Hypothesis, test the Hypothesis and then create a Theory/Law if the Hypothesis bears out under testing.
You can have no scientific theory without first having a hypothesis or group of hypotheses.
Last edited:
A hypothesis can be proven true, a hypothesis which is written not to sound true is called a null hypothesis.
Not all scientific hypothesis, if proven true lead to the formulation of a 'Scientific Theory'.
I'm going to write a hypothesis - Broccoli contains antioxidants. Now I'm going to carry out a method - chop and boil the brocolli, examine the water afterwards to see if it has any antioxidants. After observing the water, compared to a sample of the water that I had from before, I find anitioxidants in the water.
I conclude that my hypothesis was true and broccoli conains antioxidants. This does not form a new scientific theory stating that broccoli contains antioxidants, it just simply proves that the broccoli had antioxidants, and nothing more.
The scientific theory that this experiment was based on was descried and explained in the 'Theory' before the Hypothesis, which would have been a thorough write up on the science behind antioxidants. Simple as that.
Big Bang says Hi! I dont think there has ever been a testable hypothesis to prove that Humans and Chimpanzees shared the same common ancestor either, but the theory of Evolution exists.
Not all scientific hypothesis, if proven true lead to the formulation of a 'Scientific Theory'.
I'm going to write a hypothesis - Broccoli contains antioxidants. Now I'm going to carry out a method - chop and boil the brocolli, examine the water afterwards to see if it has any antioxidants. After observing the water, compared to a sample of the water that I had from before, I find anitioxidants in the water.
I conclude that my hypothesis was true and broccoli conains antioxidants. This does not form a new scientific theory stating that broccoli contains antioxidants, it just simply proves that the broccoli had antioxidants, and nothing more.
The scientific theory that this experiment was based on was descried and explained in the 'Theory' before the Hypothesis, which would have been a thorough write up on the science behind antioxidants. Simple as that.
Big Bang says Hi! I dont think there has ever been a testable hypothesis to prove that Humans and Chimpanzees shared the same common ancestor either, but the theory of Evolution exists.
Last edited:
This
Presumably it isn't instantaneous either - they will effectively destroy you and make a copy of you in another place however some time will have passed in between doing this - in effect it would be posible to put in a very large delay - say 100 years - so you could teleport not just to a place but also to some time point in the future.
What happens if you decide to make two copies or more etc..
If you can make a copy of yourself in another place what does that say about the existence of a 'soul' - should all this teleporting malarkey become possible the god botherers will have some explaining to do.
Problem is that if we accept that hypothesis as true across the board and not only for that particular piece of broccoli, it is no longer a Hypothesis but a Fact. The very proving of a hypothetical question changes the nature of the hypothesis, so it is no longer a hypothesis, hence you cannot prove a hypothesis.
But I see no point in further explaining that scientific hypotheses precede a scientific theory as you are obviously never going to accept that you are indeed mistaken.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_Theory
Evolution is not only about the similarities between Humans and Chimpanzees, but as you asked the question:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...71d4840e52c83299d5793053043&ie=/sdarticle.pdf
And this is but one paper among hundreds that test the hypothesis that Humans and Chimps may share a common ancestor.
I think you need to look up some of these terms you are bandying about.
So I say again I agree to disagree and lets leave it at that. Ok?
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 1,430
You have merely proven that the piece of broccoli you tested had antioxidants. Whilst you could generalise your results and show that it is likely that all broccoli contains antioxidants, you can never prove that every single piece of broccoli contains antioxidants. The only way you can truly prove a hypothesis is if you forfeit the ability to generalise, i.e, 'this piece of broccoli contains antioxidants'.