Hypothesis - definition of hypothesis by The Free …
What is the calculated value suitable for testing the above hypothesis?
How to Plan and Write a Testable Hypothesis - wikiHow
The Achilles’ heel of the concept of panspermia is the need to explain the migration of self-reproducing biomolecules or other carriers of life through the interplanetary and even more so through interstellar space. The cosmos is not too hospitable for complex organics, it has too many fast particles and hard radiations. For interstellar travel, carriers of life must remain viable for millions of years. It is hardly possible without reliable vehicles – but where to get them? On this score, there are many ideas, and they are all burdened with one or another of the shortcomings.
Hypothesis Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. You can see this hypothesis can be disproven if a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying a thousand detergents, there might be one you haven't tried that could be different.
Explain the Concept of Irreducible Complexity
The solution LOTH offers for what I called the problem of thinking,above, is connected to the argument here because the two phenomena areconnected in a deep way. Thinking requires that the logico-semanticproperties of a particular thought process be somehowcausally implicated in the process (say, inferring that Johnis happy from knowing that if John is at the beach then John is happyand coming to realize that John is indeed at the beach). The systematicity of inferentialthought processes then is based on the observation that if the agentis capable of making that particular inference, then she iscapable of making many other somehow similarly organizedinferences. But the idea of similar organization in this context seemsto demand some sort of classification of thoughts independently oftheir particular content. But what can the basis of such aclassification be? The only basis seems to be the logico-syntacticproperties of thoughts, their form. Although it feels a little uneasyto talk about syntactic properties of thoughts common-sensicallyunderstood, it seems that they are forced upon us by the very attemptto understand their semantic properties: how, for instance, could weexplain the semantic content of the thought that if John is at thebeach then he is happy without somehow appealing to its being aconditional? This is the point of contact between the twophenomena. Especially when the demands of naturalism are added to thispicture, inferring a LOT (= a representational system satisfying B)realized in the brain becomes almost irresistible. Indeed Rey (1995)doesn't resist and claims that, given the above observations, LOTH canbe established on the basis of arguments that are not “merelyempirical”. I leave it to the reader to evaluate whether mere criticalreflection on our concepts of thought and thinking (along with certain mundane empirical observations about them) can be sufficient to establish LOTH.
These arguments rely on the explanations offered by LOTH defenders forcertain aspects of natural languages. In particular, many LOTtheorists advert to LOTH to explain (1) how natural languages arelearned, (2) how natural languages are understood, or (3) how theutterances in such languages can be meaningful. For instance,according to Fodor (1975), natural languages are learned by formingand confirming hypotheses about the translation of natural languagesentences into Mentalese such as: ‘Snow is white’ is truein English if and only if P, where ‘P’is a sentence in one's LOT. But to be able to do that, one needs arepresentational medium in which to form and confirm hypotheses—at least to represent the truth-conditions of natural language sentences. TheLOT is such a medium. Again, natural languages are understood because,roughly, such an understanding consists in translating their sentencesinto one's Mentalese. Similarly, natural language utterances aremeaningful in virtue of the meanings of corresponding Mentalesesentences.
How do you explain your hypothesis? | Yahoo Answers
The overall strength of a scientific theory hinges on its ability to explain diverse phenomena. What makes a theory so different from a mere guess or hunch is that a theory is testable. As new evidence and research is added, a theory may then be refine, modified, or even rejected if it does not fit with the latest scientific findings.
Developmental theories provide a set of guiding principles and concepts that describe and explain human development. Some developmental theories focus on the formation of a particular quality, such as . Other developmental theories focus on growth that happens throughout the lifespan, such as .
How Would You Explain the Concept of P-Value to a …
How Would You Explain the Concept of P-Value to a ..
Generating A Research Hypothesis
hypothesis synonyms, hypothesis pronunciation, hypothesis translation, English dictionary definition of hypothesis
The scientific method attempts to explain the natural occurrences ..
In science, a hypothesis is an idea or explanation that you then test through study and experimentation
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis | Define Sapir-Whorf hypothesis …
As we have seen, the explanation LOTH offers depends on theexploitation of the notion of logical form or syntactic structuredetermined by the combinatorial syntax postulated for therepresentational system. The combinatorial syntax not only gives us acriterion of well-formedness for mental expressions, but it alsodefines the logical form or syntactic structure for each well-formedexpression. The classical solution to inferential systematicity is tomake the mental operations on representations sensitive to their formor structure, i.e., to insist on (B2). Since, from a syntactic viewpoint, similarly formed expressions will have similar forms, it ispossible to define a single operation which will apply to only certainexpressions that have a certain form, say, only to conjunctions, orconditionals. This allows the LOT theorist to give homogeneousexplanations of what appear to be homogeneous classes of inferentialcapacities. This is one of the greatest virtues of LOTH, henceprovides an argument for it.
Another obvious example to explain about Sapri-Whorf Hypothesis is ..
From here, according to Fodor and Pylyshyn, establishing thesystematicity of thought as a nomological fact is one step away. If itis a law that the ability to understand a sentence is systematicallyconnected to the ability to understand many others, then it issimilarly a law that the ability to think a thought is systematicallyconnected to the ability to think many others. For to understand asentence is just to think the thought/proposition it expresses. Since,according to RTM, to think a certain thought is just to token arepresentation in the head that expresses the relevant proposition,the ability to token certain representations is systematicallyconnected to the ability to token certain others. But then, this factneeds an adequate explanation too. The classical explanation LOTHoffers is to postulate a system of representations with combinatorialsyntax exactly as in the case of the explanation of the linguisticsystematicity. This is what (B1) offers. This seems to be the only explanation that does not make thesystematicity of thought a miracle, and thus argues for the LOThypothesis.
Explaining the Racial Threat Hypothesis – Life Sentences …
Systematicity of thought consists in the empirical fact that theability to entertain certain thoughts is intrinsically connected tothe ability to entertain certain others. Which ones? Thoughts that arerelated in a certain way. In what way? There is a certain initialdifficulty in answering such questions. I think, partly because ofthis, Fodor (1987) and Fodor and Pylyshyn (1988), who are the originaldefenders of this kind of argument, first argue for the systematicityof language production and understanding: the ability toproduce/understand certain sentences is intrinsically connected to theability to produce/understand certain others. Given that a maturespeaker is able to produce/understand a certain sentence in her nativelanguage, by psychological law, there always appear to be a cluster ofother sentences that she is able to produce/understand. For instance,we don't find speakers who know how to express in their nativelanguage the fact that John loves the girl but not the fact that thegirl loves John. This is apparently so, moreover, for expressions ofany n-place relation.
"I have always been impressed by the quick turnaround and your thoroughness. Easily the most professional essay writing service on the web."
"Your assistance and the first class service is much appreciated. My essay reads so well and without your help I'm sure I would have been marked down again on grammar and syntax."
"Thanks again for your excellent work with my assignments. No doubts you're true experts at what you do and very approachable."
"Very professional, cheap and friendly service. Thanks for writing two important essays for me, I wouldn't have written it myself because of the tight deadline."
"Thanks for your cautious eye, attention to detail and overall superb service. Thanks to you, now I am confident that I can submit my term paper on time."
"Thank you for the GREAT work you have done. Just wanted to tell that I'm very happy with my essay and will get back with more assignments soon."