In article , Laurence Payne
NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 16:41:57 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:
Usually, conclusions follow evidence, not pre-assume it! :-)
Isn't the basis of scientific method to suspect a conclusion then design
experiments to disprove it?
It is usual to 'challenge' a *hypothesis* by trying to carry out
experiments whose results might either turn out to agree with, or conflict
with, that hypothesis. A 'conclusion' is what you would draw from the
evidence you already have at a given point. You may then use this to
construct a hypothesis, which can then be tested.
If experiments fail to demolish the conclusion, it stands until
successfully challanged.
s/conclusion/hypothesis
Afraid my classics aren't much cop, but someone who knows about dead
languages can probably deduce this from the 'hypo' and 'thesis' parts of
the word. :-)
So a given experiment might show that a set of test subjects could not tell
which amp was being used when some music was played to them in a given set
of condition. That is the conclusion drawn from the experiment.
One possible hypothesis is that this is because no-one could, as any
differences caused by changing amp are inaudible. An alternative hypothesis
would be that the choice of musical items affects this, so some other items
*would* allow a distinction. You could then design an experiment to test if
these hypotheses stood up to further test, as well as seeing if they are
consistent with any other evidence from other work. A common method is
to take two 'competing' hypotheses and run an experiment whose outcome
can be expected to conflict with one if it supports the other.
It was in the above sense that I commented that the conclusions should
*follow* the evidence. :-)
Of course, we can put forward all kinds of hypotheses, but then have to
see if they tie in with all the relevant evidence we have, are consistent
with other related ideas which have survived testing, etc, etc. Simply
dismissing evidence you don't like and insisting that your own ideas
must be right and the evidence will appear one day would not be 'science'
but a form of faith.
You can suspect that give ideas which seem reliable now may turn out
to need changing later. But you only discard them for good reason, not
for reasons of faith or wishful thinking.
Slainte,
Jim
--
Electronics
http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc
http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio
http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
Linear Mode
