Comments on: Hypothesis Investigation – overview

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 07:42:45 +0000

Hi, nice job! Like the lack of jargon :)

Hope my comment does not lead you the other direction, but you may want to take a look at the literature on “abduction,” a term coined by philosopher Charles Pierce, if you have not already.

Abduction is defined by most as the process of generating hypotheses or generating and evaluating hypotheses.

There is a diverse set of academic literature that touches on abduction, including philosophy, the history of science (e.g., scientific discovery), management (e.g., product development), and healthcare (e.g., medical diagnosis).

I dug into this pretty deep so if you have any follow up questions, pls feel free to ping me.

Regards, Michael

By: Greg

Greg — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:07:34 +0000

I would argue for a activity between 2 and 3 above – “hypothesis framing”, in which the hypothesis is expressed in such a way that it can be tested.

By: RdR

RdR — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 10:01:46 +0000

It’s only peripherally related, but you might be interested in this latest twist on second-guessing yourself.

I like the title too: “You know more than you think” http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=you-know-more-than-you-think

cheers,
RdR

By: Lorenzo

Lorenzo — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 00:44:55 +0000

The point
there is misplaced or excessive confidence in a hypothesis (even if it happens to be correct)
could do with a little extra explication–why is excessive confidence in a correct hypothesis a problem?

‘evidence’ is misspelled.

There are some words missing from
We find it easier to stick with our current opinion than to upend things and take Further,

But it seems nice and clear otherwise.