Grimm's Law and Predictability (ex Re: The Neolithic Hypothesis)

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 4/20/99 1:44:51 AM, whiting at cc.helsinki.fi wrote:

<< "Predictable" does not mean "capable of being
hypothesized about >>

Lest any readers be confused about this:
'Predictability' and 'reproducible results' are the two 'traditional'
requisites of scientific methodology.  This is from Dewey and those fellows.

The basic idea is that a hypothesis or premise ought to predict observable
results.  Otherwise it cannot be tested.  "Reproducible results" means that
the premise can also be tested by others.

The predictions of course don't ordinarily confirm the premise in its
entirety.  They are usually designed to create an inference that the premise
is true.  Such inferences are generally subject to probability theory,
sampling and statistical analysis or to logic or sometimes even to common
sense.  (In this way, as phenomenologists and such have often pointed out,
the "laws of physics" and other scientific truths are never directly
observed, but always inferred from limited sets of events.  I.e., we don't
really know "for sure" that the law of gravity will apply tomorrow.  But we
really have no evidence that the law of gravity has ever been suspended.)

Regards,
Steve Long