You're too kind. As for that middling e in judgement, most sources, from Samuel Johnson to modern-day lexicographers, say it's perfectly fine. I'd leave the spelling to the writer's judgment.
Isn't it fun to nerd out on spelling? The Oxford English Dictionary, that most English (and authoritative) authority on English (orthographic debates are necessarily tautological), puts the spelling both ways without any mention of continents. Someday you and I can argue further over a whiskey. Or a whisky if you prefer.
Wonderful and mind-expanding as always. I was not familiar with those Aristotelian components to inductive reasoning. I also especially liked the phonetic play on Flesh and Bone. On a related topic, in Neil Gaiman's American Gods, Social Media is a god, or at least something close to one.
That said, on one point, I don't mean to be pedantic..., well, OK, I do, but isn't that the point here? :-)
You used "theory" where, at least in scientific parlance, it was merely "hypothesis." ("Feeling more confident about his THEORY, he says..."). Or is this a key defining feature of inductive reasoning -- the evidence leads to a "theory" (regardless of how flimsy the evidence may be or the ultimate validity of the theory), where it's only via deductive reasoning that you start with a hypothesis and, after successful testing, it may mature into a theory?
In my original field, we would call any untested potential explanation like that a hypothesis (or conjecture for more abstract concepts like math). Something only advances to a theory after it has been tested via subsequent deductive reasoning and demonstrated to predict future outcomes (e.g., the Pythagorean Theorem). I think using theory where hypothesis is intended is what fosters confusion over the confidence we hold in the theory of gravity and theory of evolution.
We might still THEORIZE a hypothesis (or hypothesize), so as a verb, I believe that applies in either case. But the noun, theory, would not.
So, does the proper usage of "theory" vary between inductive and deductive reasoning or was the hopeful alien hunter really articulating his hypothesis rather than his theory?
In my understanding (and the OED's), a theory is an explanation, a summary of understanding that comes from inductive reasoning. A hypothesis (from Greek, literally "before the affirmation") is an untested assumption. But even scientists seem to confuse these two kissing cousins.
To your point, I see one of the definitions of theory in my Chambers dictionary is "An idea or explanation that has not yet been proved, a conjecture," which is literally the opposite of how the scientific method uses the word. That reminds me that some dictionaries (Merriam Webster in this case) now list a definition of literally as "used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true." And your recent post last summer about the "Five Lost Words" whose meanings have transformed and lost or reversed their original connotations.
Love you mucho. Please have good judgment about spelling "judgment" correctly. (There's no judge in judgment.) Happy New Year!
You're too kind. As for that middling e in judgement, most sources, from Samuel Johnson to modern-day lexicographers, say it's perfectly fine. I'd leave the spelling to the writer's judgment.
It's fine if you're English. Or even British.
Isn't it fun to nerd out on spelling? The Oxford English Dictionary, that most English (and authoritative) authority on English (orthographic debates are necessarily tautological), puts the spelling both ways without any mention of continents. Someday you and I can argue further over a whiskey. Or a whisky if you prefer.
You mean, a cancer cocktail?
Induction also works with cooking, which proves that it's effective.
Good logic is always magnetic.
And requires a new set of pots and pans.
Wonderful and mind-expanding as always. I was not familiar with those Aristotelian components to inductive reasoning. I also especially liked the phonetic play on Flesh and Bone. On a related topic, in Neil Gaiman's American Gods, Social Media is a god, or at least something close to one.
That said, on one point, I don't mean to be pedantic..., well, OK, I do, but isn't that the point here? :-)
You used "theory" where, at least in scientific parlance, it was merely "hypothesis." ("Feeling more confident about his THEORY, he says..."). Or is this a key defining feature of inductive reasoning -- the evidence leads to a "theory" (regardless of how flimsy the evidence may be or the ultimate validity of the theory), where it's only via deductive reasoning that you start with a hypothesis and, after successful testing, it may mature into a theory?
In my original field, we would call any untested potential explanation like that a hypothesis (or conjecture for more abstract concepts like math). Something only advances to a theory after it has been tested via subsequent deductive reasoning and demonstrated to predict future outcomes (e.g., the Pythagorean Theorem). I think using theory where hypothesis is intended is what fosters confusion over the confidence we hold in the theory of gravity and theory of evolution.
We might still THEORIZE a hypothesis (or hypothesize), so as a verb, I believe that applies in either case. But the noun, theory, would not.
So, does the proper usage of "theory" vary between inductive and deductive reasoning or was the hopeful alien hunter really articulating his hypothesis rather than his theory?
In my understanding (and the OED's), a theory is an explanation, a summary of understanding that comes from inductive reasoning. A hypothesis (from Greek, literally "before the affirmation") is an untested assumption. But even scientists seem to confuse these two kissing cousins.
To your point, I see one of the definitions of theory in my Chambers dictionary is "An idea or explanation that has not yet been proved, a conjecture," which is literally the opposite of how the scientific method uses the word. That reminds me that some dictionaries (Merriam Webster in this case) now list a definition of literally as "used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true." And your recent post last summer about the "Five Lost Words" whose meanings have transformed and lost or reversed their original connotations.
Ah, words...