Quotes About Hypothesis

What's so seductive about the efficient markets hypothesis is that it applies nine years out of ten. A lot of the time it works. But when it stops working, you blow up.

I really do think that science has an internal structure, and it makes sense, and we can test it.

There is no justifiable prediction about how the hypothesis will hold up in the future; its degree of corroboration simply is a historical statement describing how severely the hypothesis has been tested in the past.

The fact that we don't keep repeating tests in the same arena is not because the probability of the hypothesis showing its falsity in other arenas goes up after it has passed tests in one arena.

This experiment demonstrated unequivocally that there was a real electric current flowing along the salamander's foreleg, and it virtually proved that the current was semiconducting. In fact, the half-dozen tests I'd performed supported every point of my hypothesis.

we deceive ourselves in order to deceive others better. This hypothesis was tossed out during the mid-1970s by both Richard Alexander and Robert Trivers.

I cannot stress often enough that what science is all about is not proving things to be true but proving them to be false.

Look ... first and foremost, I'm a scientist. That means it's my responsibility to make observations and gather evidence before forming a hypothesis, not vice versa.

anything that's repeatable is science.

Let me explain, let me go into what we in the mathematics business like to call one big ole fucking goddamn shit-eating hypothesis

We physicists know that a beautiful postulate is more likely to be correct than an ugly one. Why not adopt this Postulate of Eternal Life, at least as a working hypothesis?

Observations always involve theory.

Never trust an experimental result until it has been confirmed by theory

In order to shake a hypothesis, it is sometimes not necessary to do anything more than push it as far as it will go.

Când crezi în anumite cuvinte, crezi în argumentele lor ascunse. Când crezi c? un lucru este corect sau greÈ™it, adev?rat sau fals, crezi în ipotezele conÈ›inute în cuvintele care exprim? argumentele. Asemenea ipoteze sunt deseori pline de lacune, îns? ele au preÈ›ioasa calitate de a fi conving?toare.

When all is said and done, science actually takes hard work and a willingness to sometimes find out that your most cherished hypothesis is wrong.

I long ago suggested the hypothesis, that in the basin of the Thames there are indications of a meeting in the Pleistocene period of a northern and southern fauna.

All testing, all confirmation and disconfirmation of a hypothesis takes place already within a system. And this system is not a more or less arbitrary and doubtful point of departure for all our arguments: no, it belongs to the essence of what we call an argument. The system is not so much as the point of departure, as the element in which arguments have their life.

Theories might inspire you, but experiments will advance you.

Karl Popper famously suggested the criterion of "falsifiability": A theory is scientific if it makes clear predictions that can be unambiguously falsified.

Since string theorists have failed to propose any way to confirm string theory experimentally, string theory should be retired

It is characteristic of science that the full explanations are often seized in their essence by the percipient scientist long in advance of any possible proof.

if a proposition cannot be falsified, it is not scientific.

A fact is a simple statement that everyone believes. It is innocent unless found guilty. A hypothesis is a novel suggestion that no one wants to believe. It is guilty until found effective.