A scientist friend once tried to bait me with the accusation of "desperately trying to prove a preconceived hypothesis". To which I responded with a grin that I was "way beyond needing to 'desperately' prove anything", and then diplomatically changed the subject. Not that there ever was any scandal in "trying to prove a preconceived hypothesis" -- because in fact all hypotheses are 'preconceived'.
'Preconception' occurs in a mind with the ability to postulate and hold-open a question for which there seems to be no immediate answer, pending future data inputs that may provide resolution. Simply stated, no set of facts, observations or data ever arranges itself as a coherent explanation for anything. Someone with a 'preconception' for what it is they want to explain must first perceive the facts, observations and data in a way that seems to sensibly answer the held-open question. And this is the very essence of any hypothesis.
Before conceptual unification, the 'preconceived hypothesis' to which my scientist friend was referring did admittedly preexist in my mind as a 'fact' and a 'question':
Before conceptual unification, the 'preconceived hypothesis' to which my scientist friend was referring did admittedly preexist in my mind as a 'fact' and a 'question':
- Fact: If ever there were a set of events that could provide excessive kinetic energy to shape landforms unexpectedly, it was the Missoula Floods.
- Question: No explanation for the process that created Mima Mounds had adequately accounted for the enormous kinetic energy required. Where did it come from?
No comments:
Post a Comment