question to stir discussion

[jinx]

hi all new here.i have a question

i have a theory "process x" once happened. "process x" has never been seen/observed (no eye witness testimony, therefore no men or anyone with instruments to document/record it) and this "x" is alleged to have both started and stopped happening with no eyewitness/no eyes to see/nor instruments to observe/record it.

hypothesis is "x" happened.

how do i "test" his theory/hypothesis? ( i assume science goes hypothesis-test-more testing/repeating/conclusions/predictions)?

[SpheresOfBalance]

hi all new here.i have a question

i have a theory "process x" once happened. "process x" has never been seen/observed (no eye witness testimony, therefore no men or anyone with instruments to document/record it) and this "x" is alleged to have both started and stopped happening with no eyewitness/no eyes to see/nor instruments to observe/record it.

hypothesis is "x" happened.

how do i "test" his theory/hypothesis? ( i assume science goes hypothesis-test-more testing/repeating/conclusions/predictions)?

If no one observed 'x' you can't ask this question. Which has nothing to do with it's existence, but rather knowing of it's existence. OK, I know of 'x,' find 'x' so you can test it.

[jinx]

hi thanks for the reply,

i figured it would be around those terms but wasnt exactly sure,

ie so "x" must first be "inferred" (ok i get what your saying, it first must be actually detected (and its in the past so it cant) so that it can then proceed to the actual next step of "testing"? whatabout like somehow loosely implied, (which makes absolutely no sense given its in the past, never been observed? so we have fundemental failure right there? just want exact clarification)

and given that it is in the past/wasnt observed then this "theory" exist only in the mind of the person who thinks it? ie every person could have a different process they assign to this "x" and it has absolutely no bearing on reality whatsoever i assume?

thanks

[tillingborn]

Hi jinx (High jinks?)

Science usually starts with something that needs explaining, so your characterisation would go phenomenon, hypothesis-test-more testing/repeating/conclusions/predictions, and as such it's a pretty good guide.
There are things that scientists think happened even though nobody saw them. The Big Bang for instance, but then the phenomenon is the universe. If someone has a theory about something for which there is no evidence, like a god that doesn't intervene, it might be true, but there isn't any science you can do to prove it.

[jinx]

"Hi jinx (High jinks?)

Science usually starts with something that needs explaining, so your characterisation would go phenomenon, hypothesis-test-more testing/repeating/conclusions/predictions, and as such it's a pretty good guide.
There are things that scientists think happened even though nobody saw them. The Big Bang for instance, but then the phenomenon is the universe. If someone has a theory about something for which there is no evidence, like a god that doesn't intervene, it might be true, but there isn't any science you can do to prove it."

lolies hijinx

thanks for the clarification, yes i want to assign this process "x" as being in the past and never been observed, so i have to assume based on previous comments because it fails to be "testable" it fails from the time it takes me to go from coming up with this process "x" to me realising it cant be tested (ie around 11 seconds or so lol) is this correct?

thanks

[tillingborn]

Hi jinx

In a sense, a scientific hypothesis is story telling; you have something that happens and you create a story to account for it. So I might tell my children that the reason there are chocolate eggs around the house is that the Easter Bunny put them there. They can perform a simple test to see if it's true or they can accept the story. If you cannot test process "x", it fails as a scientific hypothesis, but it might be a good story.

[Wyatt Debble]

hi all new here.i have a question i have a theory "process x" once happened. "process x" has never been seen/observed (no eye witness testimony, therefore no men or anyone with instruments to document/record it) and this "x" is alleged to have both started and stopped happening with no eyewitness/no eyes to see/nor instruments to observe/record it. hypothesis is "x" happened. how do i "test" his theory/hypothesis? ( i assume science goes hypothesis-test-more testing/repeating/conclusions/predictions)?

Sequences of events that transpired in nature or intruded anomalously upon the natural order would accordingly leave their effects within the realm. But it might be impossible, especially in some minor cases of disturbance, for humans or alternative sapient agencies to recover/discern information concerning it. As well as the latter incapacity providing no stimulation for being aware in the first place, to provoke investigation (your formulating a hypothesis would be a purely arbitrary act, triggered without puzzlement or the needs of physical sciences). For instance, if self-replicating molecules or primitive cells developed and survived briefly on another planet, yet left no fossil evidence whatsoever of this fledgling biotic process, then it's a past "fact" that would remain unknown, untestable, etc. One might say that the overall environment alone could attest to its trivial influence on that world or the cosmos, but the latter (in general) is without consciousness, understanding, and purposeful memory to be a such a useful witness.

[jinx]

"Sequences of events that transpired in nature or intruded anomalously upon the natural order would accordingly leave their effects within the realm. But it might be impossible, especially in some minor cases of disturbance, for humans or alternative sapient agencies to recover/discern information concerning it. As well as the latter incapacity providing no stimulation for being aware of it in the first place, to provoke investigation (your formulating a hypothesis would be a purely arbitrary act, triggered without puzzlement or the needs of physical sciences). For instance, if self-replicating molecules or primitive cells developed and survived briefly on another planet, yet left no fossil evidence whatsoever of this fledgling biotic process, then it's a past "fact" that would remain unknown, untestable, etc. One might say that the overall environment alone could attest to its trivial influence on that world or the cosmos, but the latter is without consciousness, understanding, and purposeful memory to be a such a useful witness."

hi thanks for the reply

"your formulating a hypothesis would be a purely arbitrary act, triggered without puzzlement or the needs of physical sciences"

thats what im getting at, no "effect" has been observed for this "x". I am looking to assign this once functioning now stopped process a level of certainty of that of gravity. based on the earlier premise (once was, now no longer is) is it correct in thinking this hypothesis/theory gets no further than my own mind? ie fails the most fundemental level of science? (no observation,)

"For instance, if self-replicating molecules or primitive cells developed and survived briefly on another planet, yet left no fossil evidence whatsoever of this fledgling biotic process, then it's a past "fact" that would remain unknown, untestable, etc."

so your metaphor is fundementally the same as my process "x" just with some story telling involved (no observation)? also i assert with absolute confidence and certainty my process "x" (which is now no longer happening) actually did once happen (based on no observation) and i throw in some scientific terms (highly technical) to describe the "how" of this once unobserved, leaving no effect "x" happened. am i right in thinking because this "concept" never leaves my own mind? (i am trying to get it into the conclusion stage (based on absolutely nothing)


"One might say that the overall environment alone could attest to its trivial influence on that world or the cosmos, but the latter is without consciousness, understanding, and purposeful memory to be a such a useful witness."

wouldnt leaving nothing at all and being completely undetectable still have the same result on the whole thing (fails testability?)? ie the claim that its still happening but just cant be detected still yeilds the same amount of fail on the scale of things?

thanks for your thought provoking answers

[jinx]

"In a sense, a scientific hypothesis is story telling; you have something that happens and you create a story to account for it. So I might tell my children that the reason there are chocolate eggs around the house is that the Easter Bunny put them there. They can perform a simple test to see if it's true or they can accept the story. If you cannot test process "x", it fails as a scientific hypothesis, but it might be a good story."

haha thank you, then i understand this very easily then, wether or not i link an "effect" to this event (like the eggs being the "effect" of the bunny (cause) in the story) (the link would also be based on nothing but my own linking of them) has no bearing on this "x" right? neither the "x" nor the effect are testable therefore utter failure (lol)?