Richard Feynman pointed out many years ago that invalid hypotheses should be discarded and replaced
by valid hypotheses based on their correspondence to observed reality.
Not exact matches
If, as many seem to think, neo-Darwinism serves as a
valid «design - defeating
hypothesis» at the level of human reason but is rescued from any ultimately improper conclusions only
by the intervention of theology, then it seems that my expansive definition is fully vindicated.
This means that the Creation
hypothesis is at least as
valid as a suggestion that the Universe came into existence all
by itself from nothing.
Whether this
hypothesis is
valid or not, I'm nonetheless fascinated
by how Narratives affect us — and also how they might be better employed as communication tools in marketing, psychology, and politics (to name just a few obvious areas).
We have shown our
hypothesis to be
valid,
by demonstrating that there are considerable cytogenomic changes shared
by numerous forms of cancer that affect both human and dog.
-- which
by the way is an argument for why the Ruddiman
hypothesis for an «expected» ice age is not
valid - we should be «expecting» a 40,000 year warm period similar to what was recently discovered at Vostok for the time ~ 400,000 years ago when we were last at this point in the eccentricity cycle!)
So far the
hypothesis of CAGW is not yet been shown to be repeatable
by others, the models have yet to produce any
valid predictions, and there are many areas of investigation into the workings of the climate system that have been ignored.
Surely it would be a reasonable and
valid approach to test such a
hypothesis by collecting data, then fitting the curves, and then testing to evaluate the predictive power of imperically derived function.