What effect would no new hypothesis and focusing ONLY on increased and improved testing and re-verification have on science and technology?

[RandomPoster]

If the entire scientific community imposed a standard that no new hypothesis would be entertained for the next 20 years and that all efforts would be directed towards further testing and improving the re-testing of existing hypothesis, theories, and laws, I'm wondering what effect would it have on science and technology.

I don't see it leading to any danger of getting stuck in old ideas. In fact, it would be the constant re-examination of old ideas, as opposed to simply accepting them. This concept of repeated and varied testing and re-verification of traditional ideas would be pursued to the exclusion of all else, with one possible exception. Someone could try to sneak new ideas in under the guise that he was trying to improve testing in an attempt to circumvent the temporary ban on new ideas. However, that should probably be interpreted as a rule violation.

Let's say literally nothing happened in science over the next 20 years except a few misguided theories and a large number of bogus hypotheses got discarded and it even turned out that a few theories had been previously unfairly discarded. Would that quality filtering increase the rate of advancement in science and technology or slow it down?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

If the entire scientific community imposed a standard that no new hypothesis would be entertained for the next 20 years and that all efforts would be directed towards further testing and improving the re-testing of existing hypothesis, theories, and laws, I'm wondering what effect would it have on science and technology.

I don't see it leading to any danger of getting stuck in old ideas. In fact, it would be the constant re-examination of old ideas, as opposed to simply accepting them. This concept of repeated and varied testing and re-verification of traditional ideas would be pursued to the exclusion of all else, with one possible exception. Someone could try to sneak new ideas in under the guise that he was trying to improve testing in an attempt to circumvent the temporary ban on new ideas. However, that should probably be interpreted as a rule violation.

Let's say literally nothing happened in science over the next 20 years except a few misguided theories and a large number of bogus hypotheses got discarded and it even turned out that a few theories had been previously unfairly discarded. Would that quality filtering increase the rate of advancement in science and technology or slow it down?

It would definately put a damper on the Progressive movement as most of their science isnt based on "FACTS".

 

[night_son]

If the entire scientific community imposed a standard that no new hypothesis would be entertained for the next 20 years and that all efforts would be directed towards further testing and improving the re-testing of existing hypothesis, theories, and laws, I'm wondering what effect would it have on science and technology.

I don't see it leading to any danger of getting stuck in old ideas. In fact, it would be the constant re-examination of old ideas, as opposed to simply accepting them. This concept of repeated and varied testing and re-verification of traditional ideas would be pursued to the exclusion of all else, with one possible exception. Someone could try to sneak new ideas in under the guise that he was trying to improve testing in an attempt to circumvent the temporary ban on new ideas. However, that should probably be interpreted as a rule violation.

Let's say literally nothing happened in science over the next 20 years except a few misguided theories and a large number of bogus hypotheses got discarded and it even turned out that a few theories had been previously unfairly discarded. Would that quality filtering increase the rate of advancement in science and technology or slow it down?

To impose such a state of scientific stagnation, globally, would require some kind of planetwide totalitarian effort of great and terrible scale. Even basement amateur scientists form countless new hypotheses like literally every hour on the hour. While not a scientist myself I am a horror and science fiction writer. This profession leads me to hypothesize all manner of insane scientific fiction pretty much 24 hours a day, or at least whenever I am not sleeping. I for one cannot imagine a world without fresh and crazy and even frothing mad new scientific ideas.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

If the entire scientific community imposed a standard that no new hypothesis would be entertained for the next 20 years and that all efforts would be directed towards further testing and improving the re-testing of existing hypothesis, theories, and laws, I'm wondering what effect would it have on science and technology.

I don't see it leading to any danger of getting stuck in old ideas. In fact, it would be the constant re-examination of old ideas, as opposed to simply accepting them. This concept of repeated and varied testing and re-verification of traditional ideas would be pursued to the exclusion of all else, with one possible exception. Someone could try to sneak new ideas in under the guise that he was trying to improve testing in an attempt to circumvent the temporary ban on new ideas. However, that should probably be interpreted as a rule violation.

Let's say literally nothing happened in science over the next 20 years except a few misguided theories and a large number of bogus hypotheses got discarded and it even turned out that a few theories had been previously unfairly discarded. Would that quality filtering increase the rate of advancement in science and technology or slow it down?

To impose such a state of scientific stagnation, globally, would require some kind of planetwide totalitarian effort of great and terrible scale. Even basement amateur scientists form countless new hypotheses like literally every hour on the hour. While not a scientist myself I am a horror and science fiction writer. This profession leads me to hypothesize all manner of insane scientific fiction pretty much 24 hours a day, or at least whenever I am not sleeping. I for one cannot imagine a world without fresh and crazy and even frothing mad new scientific ideas.

Just think about Star Trek and that attempt on thinking forward in science...Most of that back in the 1960s are just now starting to happen...

 

[night_son]

If the entire scientific community imposed a standard that no new hypothesis would be entertained for the next 20 years and that all efforts would be directed towards further testing and improving the re-testing of existing hypothesis, theories, and laws, I'm wondering what effect would it have on science and technology.

I don't see it leading to any danger of getting stuck in old ideas. In fact, it would be the constant re-examination of old ideas, as opposed to simply accepting them. This concept of repeated and varied testing and re-verification of traditional ideas would be pursued to the exclusion of all else, with one possible exception. Someone could try to sneak new ideas in under the guise that he was trying to improve testing in an attempt to circumvent the temporary ban on new ideas. However, that should probably be interpreted as a rule violation.

Let's say literally nothing happened in science over the next 20 years except a few misguided theories and a large number of bogus hypotheses got discarded and it even turned out that a few theories had been previously unfairly discarded. Would that quality filtering increase the rate of advancement in science and technology or slow it down?

To impose such a state of scientific stagnation, globally, would require some kind of planetwide totalitarian effort of great and terrible scale. Even basement amateur scientists form countless new hypotheses like literally every hour on the hour. While not a scientist myself I am a horror and science fiction writer. This profession leads me to hypothesize all manner of insane scientific fiction pretty much 24 hours a day, or at least whenever I am not sleeping. I for one cannot imagine a world without fresh and crazy and even frothing mad new scientific ideas.

Just think about Star Trek and that attempt on thinking forward in science...Most of that back in the 1960s are just now starting to happen...

The same could be said for much of Philip K. Dick's work.

 

[fncceo]

If the entire scientific community imposed a standard that no new hypothesis would be entertained for the next 20 years and that all efforts would be directed towards further testing and improving the re-testing of existing hypothesis, theories, and laws, I'm wondering what effect would it have on science and technology.

That's not how science works.

Existing hypotheses are constantly being tested by new hypotheses. When an existing hypothesis no longer matches the observed data, it is amended or discarded.

 

[RandomPoster]

If the entire scientific community imposed a standard that no new hypothesis would be entertained for the next 20 years and that all efforts would be directed towards further testing and improving the re-testing of existing hypothesis, theories, and laws, I'm wondering what effect would it have on science and technology.

That's not how science works.

Existing hypotheses are constantly being tested by new hypotheses. When an existing hypothesis no longer matches the observed data, it is amended or discarded.

A hypothesis can only be tested by a new hypothesis? So, let's say I propose a hypothesis that chemotherapy cures some disease with no known cure. Researchers, with no alternative theory of their own, test my hypothesis and come to the conclusion that I am full of shit, as there was no difference in survivability among the group receiving chemotherapy and those in the placebo group. Must we continue subjecting patients who have tested positive for the disease to chemotherapy, since only a "better theory" can replace my invalid theory or simply say we have no cure as of yet?

I don't see how the lack of an alternative hypothesis (and a null hypothesis is not a hypothesis of any type) prevents the rejection of a hypothesis. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work.

 

[RandomPoster]

If the entire scientific community imposed a standard that no new hypothesis would be entertained for the next 20 years and that all efforts would be directed towards further testing and improving the re-testing of existing hypothesis, theories, and laws, I'm wondering what effect would it have on science and technology.

I don't see it leading to any danger of getting stuck in old ideas. In fact, it would be the constant re-examination of old ideas, as opposed to simply accepting them. This concept of repeated and varied testing and re-verification of traditional ideas would be pursued to the exclusion of all else, with one possible exception. Someone could try to sneak new ideas in under the guise that he was trying to improve testing in an attempt to circumvent the temporary ban on new ideas. However, that should probably be interpreted as a rule violation.

Let's say literally nothing happened in science over the next 20 years except a few misguided theories and a large number of bogus hypotheses got discarded and it even turned out that a few theories had been previously unfairly discarded. Would that quality filtering increase the rate of advancement in science and technology or slow it down?

To impose such a state of scientific stagnation, globally, would require some kind of planetwide totalitarian effort of great and terrible scale. Even basement amateur scientists form countless new hypotheses like literally every hour on the hour. While not a scientist myself I am a horror and science fiction writer. This profession leads me to hypothesize all manner of insane scientific fiction pretty much 24 hours a day, or at least whenever I am not sleeping. I for one cannot imagine a world without fresh and crazy and even frothing mad new scientific ideas.

I am talking about a temporary ban, or dismissive attitude towards new hypothesis, not a permanent ban. It would be more about instilling an aversion of mystical speculation.

 

[fncceo]

A hypothesis can only be tested by a new hypothesis?

No... as I wrote, EVERY hypothesis is tested continuously by the acquisition of new observations.

When the contradictory data is observed, a new hypothesis must be proposed.

 

[RandomPoster]

A hypothesis can only be tested by a new hypothesis?

No... as I wrote, EVERY hypothesis is tested continuously by the acquisition of new observations.

When the contradictory data is observed, a new hypothesis must be proposed.

"Existing hypotheses are constantly being tested by new hypotheses."

So a hypothesis can not be rejected without a new hypothesis to replace it? In the case of my previous example, should patients be subjected to chemotherapy until a "new" hypothesis is proposed and presumably accepted? In the case of our criminal justice system, does a better suspect have to be provided before we can release a wrongfully convicted prisoner once his innocence has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt by DNA evidence? What if it can only proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not commit the crime, except we have no idea who did? Does he have to rot in a cell until someone provides a better suspect?

 

[fncceo]

So a hypothesis can not be rejected without a new hypothesis to replace it?

If you're going to publish data that contradicts an existing published hypothesis, it is expected you will present an alternate hypothesis that explains the contradictory data.

A hypothesis is nothing more than the framework of an explanation that serves as the starting point for further investigation.

No matter how much data we collect on an existing theories and hypotheses, even one we hold as sacrosanct as the "Laws" of Gravity, everything is open to a new explanation when we gain better knowledge.

Gravity is probably the most well defined phenomenon known to science and we can use it to make incredibly accurate predictions of movement across vast time and distance. But, the laws of Gravity become useless on the infinitesimally small distances of the quantum realm.

Additionally, we cannot explain the expansion of The Universe by using gravitational forces without hypothesizing the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy which we cannot measure or observe.

 

[fncceo]

In the case of my previous example, should patients be subjected to chemotherapy until a "new" hypothesis is proposed and presumably accepted?

Not only proposed but tested in a clinical environment.

No one in America is currently undergoing chemo or radiation therapy against their will. They are doing so by consent in consultation with their physician.

So, whichever treatment or treatments they are subjected to, it is by their own free will.

 

[RandomPoster]

In the case of my previous example, should patients be subjected to chemotherapy until a "new" hypothesis is proposed and presumably accepted?

Not only proposed but tested in a clinical environment.

No one in America is currently undergoing chemo or radiation therapy against their will. They are doing so by consent in consultation with their physician.

So, whichever treatment or treatments they are subjected to, it is by their own free will.

So scientists should recommend doctors advise patients pay for and subject themselves to chemotherapy when it has been demonstrated to have no effect at all on their illness (not cancer) simply because no "better hypothesis" has been presented?

 

[fncceo]

when it has been demonstrated to have no effect at all on their illness

Actually, there is quite literally a mountain (if you were to print it all out) of clinical evidence showing the efficacy of current cancer treatments prolonging survival rates in many patients.

Chemo has been proven to be ineffective only in cases where the tumors carry the ERCC1 gene (which repairs DNA). That is about 45% of sampled tumors.

Doctors who are familiar with this fact would most likely not prescribe chemo to these patients.

 

[RandomPoster]

Actually, there is quite literally a mountain (if you were to print it all out) of clinical evidence showing the efficacy of current cancer treatments prolonging survival rates in many patients.

Chemo has been proven to be ineffective only in cases where the tumors carry the ERCC1 gene (which repairs DNA). That is about 45% of sampled tumors.

Doctors who are familiar with this fact would most likely not prescribe chemo to these patients.

I referred to using chemotherapy to treat a hypothetical disease (not cancer) that it has been demonstrated to have no effect on because it "made sense" to people to think that it would at some point and the treatment may have passed initial testing. The question is, must a better hypothesis be presented before abandoning the theory considering that the current treatment has no effect?

 

[fncceo]

I referred to using chemotherapy to treat a hypothetical disease (not cancer) that it has been demonstrated to have no effect on because it "made sense" to people to think that it would at some point and it may have passed an initial test. The question is, must a better hypothesis be presented before abandoning the theory considering that the current treatment has no effect?

The hypothetical you propose doesn't make any sense.

Why would any doctor prescribe a treatment known to have dangerous side effects if there is absolutely no clinical data to show it has any benefit? Or without any theory as to how that treatment may benefit the patient. Any doctor who did so probably wouldn't be a doctor for long.

Consider leeches. They were prescribed for illnesses for a thousand years with no clinical data to support their efficacy. However, people believed they could treat their illnesses based on anecdotal evidence. That is belief, but it isn't science.

If your neighbor said that eating massive amounts of Taco Bell will cure herpes, would you consider yourself safe having unprotected sex if you ate a Taco Supreme before your date?

When we understood the body better, through first creating then proving (or disproving) new hypotheses, we understood what could treat our illnesses and a basic understanding of how they affected the body to do that.

 

[RandomPoster]

I referred to using chemotherapy to treat a hypothetical disease (not cancer) that it has been demonstrated to have no effect on because it "made sense" to people to think that it would at some point and it may have passed an initial test. The question is, must a better hypothesis be presented before abandoning the theory considering that the current treatment has no effect?

The hypothetical you propose doesn't make any sense.

Why would any doctor prescribe a treatment known to have dangerous side effects if there is absolutely no clinical data to show it has any benefit? Or without any theory as to how that treatment may benefit the patient. Any doctor who did so probably wouldn't be a doctor for long.

Consider leeches. They were prescribed for illnesses for a thousand years with no clinical data to support their efficacy. However, people believed they could treat their illnesses based on anecdotal evidence. That is belief, but it isn't science.

If your neighbor said that eating massive amounts of Taco Bell will cure herpes, would you consider yourself safe having unprotected sex if you ate a Taco Supreme before your date?

When we understood the body better, through first creating then proving (or disproving) new hypotheses, we understood what could treat our illnesses and a basic understanding of how they affected the body to do that.

I said the treatment passed initial testing. Maybe they had a small sample size or had other flaws in the initial studies or possibly the companies sponsoring the research manipulated the results. The question is, must a better cure be proposed before we stop using it?

If a theory is wrong, can we discard it without a better theory?

 

[fncceo]

If a theory is wrong, can we discard it without a better theory?

You can't discard a theory without data disproving that theory.

You will also need at least the framework of a theory to explain the existence of the new data.

Take for example, the aforementioned leeches. It was a widely held belief, based on circumstantial data, that letting leeches suck blood out of a sick person removed "bad blood" from them and this had curative powers.

The existing data supported that theory. Almost everyone got the leech treatment if they were ill. A number of those persons got well on their own. Hence, the data supported the theory that leeching blood from a sick patient was a cure.

You couldn't refute that theory without proposing an alternative theory to explain the data. Yes, some people got better when they were leeched, but that was because of their immune system, not the leeches. Natural immunity is the alternative theory.

 

[RandomPoster]

If a theory is wrong, can we discard it without a better theory?

You can't discard a theory without data disproving that theory.

You will also need at least the framework of a theory to explain the existence of the new data.

Take for example, the aforementioned leeches. It was a widely held belief, based on circumstantial data, that letting leeches suck blood out of a sick person removed "bad blood" from them and this had curative powers.

The existing data supported that theory. Almost everyone got the leech treatment if they were ill. A number of those persons got well on their own. Hence, the data supported the theory that leeching blood from a sick patient was a cure.

You couldn't refute that theory without proposing an alternative theory to explain the data. Yes, some people got better when they were leeched, but that was because of their immune system, not the leeches. Natural immunity is the alternative theory.

So, let's say a man is convicted of a crime based on the best evidence available. Later on, DNA evidence clears him, except does not help us identify who actually did commit the crime. Do we need a better theory as to who committed the crime before we can release him from prison?

 

[RandomPoster]

If a theory is wrong, can we discard it without a better theory?

You can't discard a theory without data disproving that theory.

You will also need at least the framework of a theory to explain the existence of the new data.

Take for example, the aforementioned leeches. It was a widely held belief, based on circumstantial data, that letting leeches suck blood out of a sick person removed "bad blood" from them and this had curative powers.

The existing data supported that theory. Almost everyone got the leech treatment if they were ill. A number of those persons got well on their own. Hence, the data supported the theory that leeching blood from a sick patient was a cure.

You couldn't refute that theory without proposing an alternative theory to explain the data. Yes, some people got better when they were leeched, but that was because of their immune system, not the leeches. Natural immunity is the alternative theory.

If people had previously thought that eating human feces cured the flu, I would not eat human feces simply because no better cure had been proposed.