J-D

Many people consider that the scientific approach should be applied to the study of history as far as possible. In any case, the restriction of the first sense of 'hypothesis' to the sciences (even if the expression 'the sciences' is taken to exclude history) is not made by other dictionaries:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypothesis

The specifics of what McCullagh says about hypotheses fit with sense 1 of 'hypothesis' and not with sense 2.

Toto

I did.

You are wrong. He is not discussing postulates - he is discussing theories.

Theories are models that are tested against the evidence. They are not axioms. You assume an axiom, but you never test it.

I don't see a diagram in post 1, so I don't know what this is about. There are some instances where the word hypothesis and postulate would have similar meanings, but the two words are not identical.

I am having difficulty following your references to previous parts of this thread, so I will not continue in this vein for now.

Both would deny it. Both claim to be doing standard historical research, and to be testing their theories against the evidence using generally applicable historical principles.

This is mostly word salad. If you think that the important point is that there is very little evidence, most people would agree with you. But you can still draw probabilistic conclusions from any amount of evidence.

mountainman

But how is this relevant? This does not change the fact that McCullagh is writing about the historical method.


All dictionaries agree on the general use of the term.
And it is precisely this general definition - applicable to the historical method - that MCCullagh writes about.


The generalities of what McCullagh says about hypotheses fit both with sense 1 of 'hypothesis' (the specific scientific sense) and with sense 2. Your interpretation attempts to preclude McCullagh saying anything about the general sense of the word as it is applied in the historical method, Needless to say I disagree with your interpretation.

Doug Shaver

The absolute number is irrelevant. What matters is that when we compare competing theories, the one with fewer postulates is, in general and ceteris paribus, to be preferred over those with more postulates.

J-D

Here's the difference.

You began this thread (see above) by suggesting that people start from postulates, work forward from there, and stick to their postulates unless they are refuted.

McCullagh suggests that different hypotheses should be compared with each other, and the best one chosen.

Following your method, you adopt a postulate and insist on adhering to it unless it is refuted.

If you followed McCullagh's method, you would compare your hypothesis with others and choose the best one, which might mean not sticking to your original postulate.

Following your method, you can ignore alternative postulates to your own.

Following McCullagh's method, not only can you not ignore alternative hypotheses, but you must actively seek them out and study them.

mountainman

You cant count. He is discussing hypotheses.
He mentions "hypothesis" 8 times and "theories" zero times.


Within a theory there will exist (either impicitly or explicitly) a series of hypotheses, and each of these hypotheses may be tested against the evidence. As a result of these hypotheses being tested against the evidence, in some cases the hypotheses must be given up, or modified. New hypotheses may be received at any time, and similarly tested. The theory or model is in a certain sense defined by its constituent hypotheses.


Sorry the diagram was at post # 16

Toto

He uses the term hypothesis in the sense of theory, not in the sense of axiom or postulate. An axiom by definition is accepted and not tested against evidence.


This is a description of how theories are tested and modified.

This is just a pictorial representation of your confusion.

J-D

The substantive point you are missing, still, is that hypotheses are tested not only against the evidence but also against alternative hypotheses.

mountainman

You repeatedly ask aa5874, and not K, about their first language .... was your primary university education in the humanities or the sciences?

Would you mind addressing the OP in the diagram?

J-D

The point about your diagram is the same as the point I’ve already made twice before and which you haven’t responded to. Your diagram does not make clear that part of the process is the abandonment of postulates whenever competing postulates produce better theories.