The whole history of science is about lurching
from failed hypothesis to the next, hopefully improving understanding with each iteration.
Not exact matches
Unlike some of the promising treatments that have
failed in 2017 that deal with the so - called «amyloid
hypothesis» (the treatments target amyloid beta deposits in the brain that accumulate in people with Alzheimer's disease), approaches that try to prevent nerve cells
from dying wouldn't have any impact on that buildup.
For one, Merck's now -
failed BACE inhibitor was also acting on the amyloid
hypothesis to prevent the protein
from forming and keep the disease
from progressing.
Vic Stenger in his book God: The
Failed Hypothesis, quotes a private communication with Martin Wagner in which he points out that: «In fact, the whole argument
from fine - tuning ultimately makes no sense.
Though the film
fails to mould the assortment of clichés that drive both assumptions into a coherent whole, it does so with determination, never faltering
from its evident
hypothesis.
The only «necessity» prompting the introduction of the aerosol pollution
hypothesis is the necessity of rescuing a
failing theory
from falsification
When we expect the null
hypothesis will not be rejected even if it's wrong, what conclusions can be drawn
from a result which
fails to reject the null?
The same is true of «we're just recovering
from the LIA» and «It's planetary cycles»
hypotheses — each
fails to explain critical components of how the Earth's climate is changing.
We tested the
hypothesis of bias in climate change publications stemming
from the under - reporting of non-significant results (Rosenthal 1979) using
fail - safe sample sizes, funnel plots, and diagnostic patterns of variability in effect sizes (Begg and Mazumdar 1994; Palmer 1999, 2000; Rosenberg 2005).
These were: the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW)
hypothesis is invalid
from a scientific viewpoint because it
fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable data, the draft TSD was seriously dated and the updates made to an abortive 2007 version of the draft TSD used to prepare it were inadequate, and EPA should conduct an independent analysis of the science of global warming rather than adopting the conclusions of outside groups such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and U.S. Government reports based on IPCC's reports.
Which is wrong: the scientist will
fail to reject the null
hypothesis, which is subtly different
from rejecting the causal claim.
What is fatal for their
hypothesis is that even despite the higher temperature
from latent heat release the dry air parcel still
fails to achieve the buoyancy that was previously achieved by the water vapour laden air parcel.
Graybill and Isdo proposed a
hypothesis, or rather, refined one
from LaMarche et al 1984, but
failed to prove it.
[F] or each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there is always an infinite number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden
failing explanations with ad hoc
hypotheses to prevent them
from being falsified...
But once again Occam's Razor presents a barrier: ``... [F] or each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there is always an infinite number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden
failing explanations with ad hoc
hypotheses to prevent them
from being falsified... Put another way, any new, and even more complex, theory can still possibly be true.
The
hypotheses derive
from the proposition that behaviors and expectations learned in childhood will continue into marriage unless they
fail to be reinforced early in the marriage.