When to Advance an Hypothesis?
Naftali
In the comment thread to this post, I made the following claim: Limited evidence, has never stopped any thinking man from advancing an hypothesis.
Though I hedged, saying: Nothing wrong with that as long as the thinker properly qualifies his view, the claim, in my view, is flat wrong.
A thoughtful person withholds "advancing" hypotheses all the time. A simple example of this can be found in the assessment of motivations: thoughtful people often remind themselves not to ascribe motivations to certain actors, for lack of evidence.
Obviously, then, there are times that reason compels one to withhold advancing an hypothesis, even with qualification.
Do you agree?
Also, I would like to form a coherent explanation as to when one should, reasonably, advance a tentative hypothesis and when one should not. I have just begun to think about it, and would love the input of this notably thoughtful community.
UPDATE.....
I hedged a little in limiting the query to the very vague "Advancement" of an hypothesis. Perhaps, if we reformulate it, more precisely, to "Formation" of an hypothesis the subject will be easier to deal with.
Accordingly, it is possible that 'thinking man', by definition, forms a hypothetical explanation for any empirical data he comes upon. And intellectual discretion starts with an analysis as to how much 'weight' to accord his current understanding (hypothesis) and where to go from there.
If so, what follows should be a quest for a coherent explanation as to how to evaluate hypotheses relative to the quantity and quality of their respective underlying evidence.(Something that I believe Dave touches on in the first comment to this post.)
Related Posts (on one page):
- Martin's Hypothesis
- When to Advance an Hypothesis?
Basically, you advance hypotheses when you have to in order to deal with a situation, based on the information you can gather with a reasonable amount of time and effort relative to the parameters involved.
Really, the only time you have to actively withhold making hypotheses is when you catch yourself making them on the basis of little or no evidence, when evidence is available but you haven't examined it yet. That's how most pundits/journalists get into trouble.
For instance, CNN said it was presenting "undecided voters" when many were actually Dem activists, which they could easily have discovered through a simple Google search. They overstated that hypothesis by announcing it as fact, when they not only did not know they were undecided but had contradictory information readily available.
I don't understand consciously making (or not) an assumption based on context as hypothesizing:
And stating something as a fact is not making an hypothesis:
"Theory" and "hypothesis" are almost interchangeable, and CNN was not stating a theory.
As to political hypotheses, that's another matter. Such hypotheses can be injurious to considered debate. For example, I consider hypotheses assigning megalomania to Mr. Bush to be unworthy of consideration. Indeed, I think that any discussion of the personality attributes of those with whom you disagree is very dangerous, as it can easily lead to a callous dismissal of worthy ideas. Tthe thread about the mental health of Republicans and Democrats is a good example of this. Gee, if Democrats are mentally ill, then you don't have to take their ideas seriously -- and that means only that you get trounced in the next election. There really is no fundamental difference between this and painting moustaches on Hillary Clinton campaign posters.
If I hypothesize that Jane Doe will sleep with me if I cough up a dozen roses and a pricey dinner, the consequences may have more or less import to her or me, but not much to you (unless you're somehow involves with either of us). My publishing my hypothesis serves to perhaps damage Jane's reputation; perhaps confirm my identity as a jerk; and maybe push up the price of roses.
If I hypothesize that Jane, due to her race, is unfit to live on the planet and broadcast it, there are likely to be some severe consequences, the least of which is confirming me as a racist. It could result in harm to Jane; it could result in harm to me. It could also result in harm to members of either/both Jane's and my races.
Publicly hypothesizing politics is more like my second example than my first. This is because it's moved out of the realm of the individual and into an area where more people become liable to actual harm. The hypothesizer has responsibility of understanding the likely consequences of his words, and cannot utterly ignore the more far-flung consequences--e.g. some nutcase is going to take action based on the hypothesis.
The point to consider here is whether or not I'm responsible for someone else's actions. As soon as you start making what I say cause what someone else does, we deny free will and the nonsense never ends, because maybe I got the idea from someone else, so it's their fault, ad infinitum.
Ryan
This was once perhaps thought true. But since W.V.O Quine's biting critique of logical positivism, the boundary between fact and theory has been productively blurred.
Here's an example of a rather different sort. Let's say I am a scientist. Generally, I make a living from publishing empirical studies. One night I arrive at a brilliant idea in my sleep. It's a hypothesis about social relations, which, while based on many observations I have made, is not yet tested in a scientific manner. Do I broadcast it to many? Probably not; someone else could easily test it and get the credit before me.
In general, scientific journals don't publish untested hypotheses, because of the likelihood they are incorrect, and the chances that readers will take the untested hypotheses as reliable theory. Then it makes sense to hold off on broadcasting until one has reasonable confidence in the truth of the hypothesis, which one only gains by putting the hypothesis to scientific tests.
On the other hand, hypotheses are refined, and tests are developed, by sharing hypotheses with one's peers. Perhaps one needs to make an informed decision about who one is discussing the hypothesis with: 1) is the person a member of the same or similar scientific community, and thus likely to help refine the hypothesis or devise a test for it? 2) what is the likelihood the person will steal the idea? and 3) what is the likelihood the person I broadcast the idea to will mistake the untested hypothesis for one that has been tested or cause some similar sort of misunderstanding?
I know see you have differentiated between "advancement" and "formation" of hypothesis and stated your desire to focus more on the latter.
My above post, on the other hand, generally addressed the former, as many of the costs of hypothesizing come in terms of the broadcasting them publicly.
I believe, at least for highly intuitive types of people, there is no stopping the flow of hypotheses through the mind. What weight to place on them is a different matter, and one I'll have to give more thought to.
I'm currently brain-dead until I recover from a 7 hour lecture, I attended today.
There's one thing I remember from it, the lecturer said:
"The absence of proof, is not the proof of absence."
Everyone (with the obvious exceptions) is responsible for his/her own acts. But if I know that X will not understand what I say and will react in a manner dangerous to himself or others, then I've a moral obligation to avoid that.
Sort of like the mother who recently gas-lighted her daughter's sometime-friend into killing herself.
Similarly, unless it is my idea to provoke, I should attempt to avoid unnecessary provocation.
Being morally righteous and physically dead doesn't seem like a useful stand to take, especially when it's about little stuff.
Thus, I'll avoid most parts of DC when wearing a T-shirt that deprecates Blacks, say, with the N-word. Equally, I won't wear the T-shirt with a pig named Mohammed when I go to Pakistan. I've a right to free speech, it's only those intolerant a-holes who don't get it, after all. But knowing what the likely reaction is, I don't have to make it happen. I also have the freedom to keep my mouth shut.
Dean's World Rocks!
Now, I argue when I think I have enough enough evidence to support a particular contention.
And somethimes I argue just to sound cute to myself.
The rest of the time, I just keep my damned mouth shut, or skip on to the next topic on the Web.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Heh.
"What weight to place on them is a different matter, and one I'll have to give more thought to."
If you ever decide to write your thoughts down, E-mail it to me and I will post it here (if you want).
And though I was taught that rule, it's not so clear. The real rule is 'an' before vowel sounds, including silent 'h'; 'a' before consonant sounds, including voiced 'h'. (This gets more complex as you move from region to region, because silent 'h' vs. hard 'h' sometimes varies by dialect.)
What's interesting to me is that the more uncommon or academic the 'h' word, the more we accept 'an' as correct. No one balks at "a hat", "a horse", "a house". But to many ears, "an hypothesis" and "an historical event" sound proper.
I have no formal Grammar training.
I cannot tell you how appreciative I am of grammatical corrections\suggestions.
Thank you,
I"ll look at the links.
I would've titled the post exactly as you did. My formal grammar training is decades back and very rusty, but I know I had an instructor teach me that "rule". And I've used the construction "an historical event" many times.
But when I read your title aloud in my head (yes, I know that's a contradiction, but I always "hear" what I'm reading), I just stumbled over it.
And then I remembered some grammarian -- probably Geoffrey Nunberg, since he's my favorite, but I can't find the link right now -- saying this was wrong. So I did the search. I didn't find his comments, but I found plenty of others.
The best rule of English grammar is to listen to the way people actually speak, and emulate them. Or if you want to get pissy about it, go to a half-price book store (or even a full-price Barnes &Noble) and get a copy of William Strunk Jr's "Elements of Style". First published in 1918, it's almost biblical as a guide to English language usage.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
...so useful...
...and so small...
...and so inexpensive...
...that when I find myself away from my library and in need of it, I just go buy another copy.
But sadly, it's not exactly biblical. With certain editors, yes (and one of them turned me onto it); but others lean toward MLA or Chicago, both of which differ in some nitpicky details that inevitably turn into religious wars. I've learned to ask the editor at the start of a big project, to save myself grief; and I cringe when the answer is MLA or Chicago. I find MLA tends to drain the life out of your prose, and Chicago is big and bulky and unreadable. (Strunk and White you can actually read for pleasure!) But Chicago is pretty good for reference and citation styles.
Thank you.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.