Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[Peebothuhlu]

No, although you are correct that hypotheses are what you run tests and experiments with, they don't generally become theories thereafter (at least not directly or as a consequence of passing the experiment).

Theories tend to have a different purpose than hypotheses, they have an explanatory role. Take sunrises and sunsets for example, these are observations we can make given our vantage point. A theory can be built to explain these observations, in fact we can even make more than one. My theory might explain the observation by suggesting the earth is stationary and the sun orbits around it, whereas your theory might say the sun in stationary an the earth orbits around it while revolving around its own axis.

From those theories we can begin deducing hypotheses that we can run tests on, and allow us to falsify each theory. For example, given your theory that the earth orbits the sun, we can hypothesis that there is a parallax effect when looking out at the stars. In other words that the distance between them shifts from side to side as the earth moves back and forth, similar to how you see things shift when you close each eye back and forth. My theory wouldn't make such a prediction since a stationary earth doesn't produce a parallax effect, like having just one eye open.

So we can run the experiment, make measures between the stars throughout the year, and see if there's a parallax. If there is, then my theory is falsified. I can either discard it, or modify it to account for the new data.

 Nooo... I definately think you're doing it wrong.

 



  I'll let those of a scientific bent weigh in on the finer points of the matter however.

Now... about those brainless eyed critters and those critters who don't use their eyes to respond to their environment....

Not at work.