You started by saying that in science you cannot prove things, only provide evidence, but that in math you can prove things.
Then you made an assertion that a hypothesis "is a statement that can be true or false. That's it."
Now, you're asserting that a hypothesis "is defined by statistics". Never mind that humans did a bunch of science before statistics were developed, this is different than your prior statement ("true or false. That's it."), and you seem extremely confident in it.
You're acting as if you have certainty in a statement, but you did not arrive at it by a proof. You've claimed that only the falsifiability of a statement matter, not its explanatory structure, but your own statements about hypotheses are structural and definitional ("defined by statistics", "at the most technical level", "ignoring all the cultural stuff"). You've asserted that a hypothesis is falsifiable, and intrinsically statistical, but you bring no quantitative data in support of this.
I don't know what activity you're engaged in, but it doesn't seem like a rigorous and principled search for truth. And you seem to be more willing to preach about the importance of falsifiability than to apply that concept critically.
>Then you made an assertion that a hypothesis "is a statement that can be true or false. That's it."
Yeah so? You can make a statement and the actuality of that statement is either true or false. But how you prove that statement to be true is NOT possible. That is my claim. I am also saying it is POSSIBLE to falsify the statement aka disprove it... All statements have this property.
>Now, you're asserting that a hypothesis "is defined by statistics". Never mind that humans did a bunch of science before statistics were developed, this is different than your prior statement ("true or false. That's it."), and you seem extremely confident in it.
Well you're using the "what came first argument" to say that the original scientific definition came before the statistical definition so it's more valid. I disagree.
Language emerges from concepts in attempt to explain things we only have vague understanding of. Concepts like Life and intelligence are ill defined and used for communication on topics we don't completely understand. It's useful to communicate this way but it's useful only because either we don't understand something completely or because we use it as a shortcut. Usually a new word starts off in this fuzzy state and as we understand things better the word takes on a more rigorous definition. Science started out without us understanding statistics, so that's why you have a lot of older definitions attached to it. The technical definition of hypothesis is part of mathematics. That is ultimately the most correct definition but it's not the definition with the most utility. If push comes to shove and we want to categorize a technical concept like computer science, then the technical definition is what matters more.
>You're acting as if you have certainty in a statement, but you did not arrive at it by a proof.
What. I never said this. You are entirely misunderstanding. I said statements can either be true or false. The proof of whether it's actually true or false is a separate issue. My original claim is that proving something true is impossible.
>You've claimed that only the falsifiability of a statement matter, not its explanatory structure, but your own statements about hypotheses are structural and definitional ("defined by statistics", "at the most technical level", "ignoring all the cultural stuff").
I didn't say only the falsifiability of a statement matters. I never said this. I said falsifying a statement is the only thing we logically have the ability to do. It still matters to do correlations and other types of things related to science but at a technical level we aren't proving anything. At a technical level things can only be falsified. This is not to say OTHER things don't matter. They do matter.
>You've asserted that a hypothesis is falsifiable, and intrinsically statistical, but you bring no quantitative data in support of this.
Did I not post a link to a resource stating this? This is Data supporting my point. If you want quantitative data for the English definition a word, I'm sorry but that's just not physically possible. English definitions cannot be quantified into numbers for any meaningful numerical analysis.
I know your question is just sort of rhetorical. Basically you think I'm being too pedantic and you're trying to illustrate a contradiction in my own logic. I don't deny it. In the end I'm using my own personal opinion here. But I share my opinion here because I believe if that the MAJORITY of people completely UNDERSTAND what I'm saying they will AGREE with me. That's all. But again opinion. And either way nothing can really be proven can it? Especially for english definitions.
>I don't know what activity you're engaged in, but it doesn't seem like a rigorous and principled search for truth. And you seem to be more willing to preach about the importance of falsifiability than to apply that concept critically.
What are you trying to say here? This is false. And it approaches the point of accusatory and a lie. I don't preach the importance of falsifiability. I am just saying that is the only possible technical thing we can do in terms of determining if something is true or false. I get technical because we ARE CATEGORIZING technical concepts and definitions so it's appropriate to DO THIS. If we are casually conversing or trying to understand concepts then of course we can revert to the more laid back way of communicating and fuzzy way of defining things.
But what's actually going on here is that we are determining whether or not a technical concept: "Theoretical computer science" is math or not? Such detailed and rigorous categorization REQUIRES the use of detailed and rigorous definitions.
Then you made an assertion that a hypothesis "is a statement that can be true or false. That's it."
Now, you're asserting that a hypothesis "is defined by statistics". Never mind that humans did a bunch of science before statistics were developed, this is different than your prior statement ("true or false. That's it."), and you seem extremely confident in it.
You're acting as if you have certainty in a statement, but you did not arrive at it by a proof. You've claimed that only the falsifiability of a statement matter, not its explanatory structure, but your own statements about hypotheses are structural and definitional ("defined by statistics", "at the most technical level", "ignoring all the cultural stuff"). You've asserted that a hypothesis is falsifiable, and intrinsically statistical, but you bring no quantitative data in support of this.
I don't know what activity you're engaged in, but it doesn't seem like a rigorous and principled search for truth. And you seem to be more willing to preach about the importance of falsifiability than to apply that concept critically.