Hooray New York Times. Explains science well.

[hgc]

In this article, reporter Nicholas Wade succintly explains, almost as an aside, what a hypothesis is, and how it is distinguished from non-scientific speculations.

The Utah researchers describe their proposal as a hypothesis. Unlike many speculations, it makes a testable prediction: that people who carry one of the sphingolipid or other Ashkenazic disease mutations should do better than average on I.Q. tests.

I sure wish this simple concept would become common knowledge. But then if Britney Spears ain't spouting it, don't count on it.

Now, the subject of the article is worthy of a thread all its own.

 

[LostAngeles]

I believe it does, if you scroll down a bit more.

 

[jmercer]

Hey, LA - where ya been? And what's going on with your test?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Here's a funny thing. I was trying to write a piece about how "theory" meant both "speculation, conjecture" and "set of natural laws describing some phenomenon", and the reason why it meant both, and how it couldn't mean both at once --- and to illustrate the first point I looked it up in my dictionary (the one-volume Oxford English Dictionary) and do you know what? --- the incorrect colloquial usage wasn't in there. Just the technical usage.

Next time a fundie tries Argument By Dictionary...

 

[69dodge]

Originally posted by hgc
But then if Britney Spears ain't spouting it, don't count on it.

Britney Spears at your service.

 

[LostAngeles]

Hey, LA - where ya been? And what's going on with your test?

I've totally been around. You've missed me getting called names by crimresearch I take it. (Don't go look. You'll hurt from the dumb.)

I'm finishing up finals and then I'm sending out an e-mail to Kramer and such about doing a test about mid-summer. But right now, these other tests, take priority.