Quotes About Hypothesis

Those who reject the archetypal hypothesis remain unimpressed by the discovery of parallel themes in myths derived from different parts of the world,

Philosophy, like science, is only a collection of hypotheses, introduced for the usefulness of the ensemble, or for economy of thought.

It is a test of true theories not only to account for but to predict phenomena.

You make observations, write theories to fit them, try experiments to disprove the theories and, if you can't, you've got something.

You have to test your hypothesis against other theories. Certainty in the face of complex situations is very dangerous.

A good scientific theory is one which is falsifiable, which has not been falsified.

When the basic status of a theory is clear, and all that needs to be cleared are details, you can collaborate. But if the main structure of a hypothesis isn't established, and you want to change the paradigm - like it was the case in the 1960s - it's better to work alone.

No matter how beautiful the theory, one irritating fact can dismiss the entire formulism, so it has to be proven.

Don't confuse hypothesis and theory. The former is a possible explanation; the latter, the correct one. The establishment of theory is the very purpose of science.

Moreover, in the experimental sciences, the scientific fraternity must test a new theory to destruction, if possible.

A theory can be proved by experiment; but no path leads from experiment to the birth of a theory.

To me, what makes physics physics is that experiment is intimately connected to theory. It's one whole.

Indeed, this epistemological theory of the relation between theory and experiment differs sharply from the epistemological theory of naive falsificationism.

There can be theory but, you know, the problem is you've got to be able to test it. So theories are one thing, testing is another.

I can assure you that no string theorist would be interested in working on string theory if it were somehow permanently beyond testability. That would no longer be doing science.

Falsifiability for a theory is great, but a theory can still be respectable even if it is not falsifiable, as long as it is verifiable.

Very much, string theory is simply a work in progress. What we are inching toward every day are predictions that within the realm of current technology we hope to test. It's not like we're working on a theory that is permanently beyond experiment. That would be philosophy.

The hypothesis of matter's being at first evenly spread through the heavens is, in my opinion, inconsistent with the hypothesis of innate gravity without a supernatural power to reconcile them, and therefore, it infers a deity.

The proper method for inquiring after the properties of things is to deduce them from experiments.

Is evolution a theory, a system, or an hypothesis? It is much more: it is a general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must bow and which they must satisfy henceforward if they are to be thinkable and true.

The dark areas, the 'mare' plains of the moon, are so incredibly smooth that the English astronomer Thomas Gold has suggested that they might really be depressions filled to the brim with dust. A rocket hit would show whether they are that or not.

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right a single experiment can prove me wrong.

It is the theory which decided what can be observed.

As Dennis Lindley had argued, if someone attaches a prior probability of zero the hypothesis that the moon is made of green cheese, then the whole armies of astronauts coming back bearing green cheese cannot convince him.