Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Uncle D needs to explain "Hypothosis" and "Theory".

  1. #1
    Bad address email on file Darris Chambless's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    San Angelo, TX 76904
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,459

    Redhot Jumper

    Hello everybody,

    It's your old Uncle D once again, here to splain to ya the interwoven fibers that make up the threads of some words in our vocabulary. Today we will deal with two of these words in particular. The first will be "hypothesis" (since that is the actual working order in which it is technically suppose to appear) And second is the word "theory".

    It seems that in todays world many things can be attached to these words and there are certain aspects of ones social standing that can affect either of them. Is everybody's thinking cap on? Good because here we go :-)

    First "hypothesis": since you must derive a hypothesis in order to move on to the theoretical portion of the equation it is important to understand what the word means. I'm going to put it in extremely simple terms so that we can all stay on the same page during this course which will be called "Concepts in Education 1425" on your class schedule :-)

    To understand the word "hypothesis" one need only look at the word "hypothetical." As in "Hypothetically speaking, what if we were to tie a rocket to the tail of a cat and instead of launching it straight up into the air we launched it horizontally? Would the cat be able to travel farther due to less gravitational resistance than it would as it increased altitude thus increasing the effects of gravity on the projectile?"

    A) Only really sick people would tie a rocket to a cats tail and launch it into orbit. So I've "hypothesized" that there are people that would do such a thing (but we do have proof that there are people that will do these things and in fact most of us grew up with some of these people :-)

    B) I have "hypothesized" that the cat would sit still for such an adventure. Cats just don't like getting things tied to their tails nor do they like getting tape on their feet but that's another story :-)

    C) I have "hypothetically" deduced that because a horizontal trajectory would be dealing more with wind resistance one could almost take gravity out of the equation except for the return to ground level. A vertical ascent would be working against both gravity and wind resistance (friction to those science types out there ;-) thus shortening the distance traveled.

    With these as givens we could also "hypothetically" deduce that monkeys might fly out of my rear end too, but that would be most unlikely. Not impossible, just very unlikely. And not unlike the cat I wouldn't sit still for the implantation process (unless of course there was a lot of money involved :-)

    Now on to the second word and the second step in the process "Theory." Theorys are more scientific and do require a little more thinking, but only to that end that will garner it the distinction of plausibility, viable plausibility.

    A) We know through psychological and psychiatric studies that there are, in fact, sickies out there that will attempt and in some cases succeed in launching a cat into orbit via its tail. There are case studying on this behavior and information on what to read into it (which usually involves oral fixation of some kind and an Oedipithean connotation :-)

    B) We know that with the right type of sedative and the proper means by which to administer said drugs, a cat will in fact sit still long enough to be tied to and launched from a rocket. When kitty is sleepy these thing are both possible and plausible ;-)

    C) We know that wind resistance will slow down a sailboat being pushed by the same. We also know about kinetic energy and energy lost to gravitational effects. We understand weight and the effects of gravity on weight. We have scientific fact to support our hypothesis thereby making it a "theory"

    Technically this is how it is supposed to work (refer back to Algebra and Geometry to Pythagoras(SP?) and his "hypothesis" and "theorem")

    Now, in the real world..:-) Here's what we contend with in this day and time. A person with the prefix "Dr." or the suffix of "Ph.D." wakes up one morning and thinks to themselves "You know, I just don't think I have enough certificates of appreciation or accomplishment on my walls. I have some extra time lately so let's come up with a concept. I can write." They take an idea, as far fetched as some may be, and hypothesize. This is where the lines and protocol are skewed. They don't go past the "hypothesis." What makes their ideas into theory are the profession tags they wear on their name. They don't have to theorize because, after all, "They must know what they're talking about since they're doctors and all."

    This is not to say that scientific study doesn't go into some of these theory's (emphasis on "some") but so many today are complete non-sense. I'll use a little example that I've used in the past without naming any names. Your mom told you for years that sitting too close to the TV screen for long periods of time would hurt your eyes. Nobody believed mom and shrugged it off as nonsense. Now we have Dr.s writing books on Computer Vision Syndrome and everyone is perking up and saying "Yeah you know he/she is right I've noticed that working at my computer makes my eyes watery and tired and I don't see as well." The doc is revered as a hero and an intellect when all they did was put a bunch of scientific sounding words in to explain what mom had been telling you for years.

    So does over explanation then make it a fact? Some think so. What can be proven? Just about everything even Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny ;-) Common sense will tell you what is and what isn't a bunch of hooey, but unfortunately we've become so mind numbed that we have to conceptualize and research things (that we so often already have the answers to) to death and still never come up with the conclusions we set out for in the first place.

    So remember, 40 years ago mom said prolonged exposure to a Television screen would hurt your eyes or cause you problems only not so eloquently. It usually came out more like "Turn that damn thing off and go outside and play! Your eyes are gonna go bad." Now 40 years later a well educated person comes up and says the same thing only in "scietificionado speak" and it's now true where it wasn't before. Mom just didn't know. She wasn't a scientist, Ph.D. or a doctor so there wasn't a reason in the world to heed her warning other than the threat of getting smacked, or grounded :-)

    That's todays lesson folks. I hope you've enjoyed this cession and that I will see you all again. There will be a test on Friday and I lock the doors precisely at 10:00 AM so I don't recommend being late since it's 50% of your grade :-)

    Dear Steve "Toodles" :-)

    Prof. Darris Chambless

    PS. What does this subject have to do with anything you ask? It's an extension of my earlier lesson :-)




  2. #2
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    England
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    977

    Post

    Hypothesis - Hypothetically speaking, if a person typed a 1000 word rant about dictionary definitions, one could conclude that he/she had too much time on their hands.

    Theory - Theoretically speaking, since Darris has the time and inclination to type a 1000 word rant about dictionary definitions, then he most probably has too much time on his hands.

  3. #3
    OptiWizard
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Geezerville, AZ USA
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    353

    Post

    Personally, I'm gonna go outside tonight to see a cat in orbit. Finally, a good use for felines.

  4. #4
    Bad address email on file Darris Chambless's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    San Angelo, TX 76904
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,459

    Redhot Jumper

    Hello class,

    Although Maria can't count you should all learn by her example. She has the idea down pat. She will get an "A" for this class :-) She understands the difference between "Hypothesis" and "Theory". Since I didn't get into any broad ideology only narrow ones I will give her the credit she deserves but must also say she missed the point completely :-)

    Prof. Darris Chambless

  5. #5
    That Boy Ain't Right Blake's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Mobile, AL, USA
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    543

    Post

    Actually, Darris...er... professor, to get the greatest distance out of the cat, one would (hypothetically) launch it at an angle of 45 degrees and in the direction of the wind.
    Which brings up another question. When one says "there's more than one way to skin a cat", is that a hypothesis or a theory? I would say hypothesis, as there may be an infinite amount of possibilities, but a finite supply of cats (not to mention the experimenter would be arrested for animal cruelty).

    Blake

  6. #6
    Master OptiBoarder Shwing's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Pentiction, BC
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    658

    Post

    Darris is correct, but he forgot Proof. proof is what comes after theory.

    As an example, a Theory that gave way to a hypothesis (yes, in that order) was that cats always land on their feet.

    As a younger person, I decided to Test the theory (proof it), and I Proved that cats do NOT always land on their feet, provided that enough height is involved...

    But that just leads back to the rest of the scientific issues, such as quantifying and qualifying your results, setting parameters, and such...

    Shwing;-}

  7. #7
    sub specie aeternitatis Pete Hanlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Hickory Creek, TX
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    4,964

    Post

    Prof. Darris,

    What about the differences between "theory" and law? For example, Darwin's theories concerning natural selection are taught as "truth," right beside scientific laws (such as the Laws of Thermodynamics).

    Just to give the CVS prophets some semblance of a defense, I would say that the hypothesis would take a form somewhat like this:
    • Since the emmetropic eye is relaxed at distance and must accommodate for near vision, it stands to reason that the eye was primarily designed for distance vision.
    • It is possible that the increased near point demands of today's workplace may have negative effects on visual comfort.
    • Since pixels behave differently than printed graphics and text, the eye may react differently to prolonged viewing of a computer screen compared to prolonged periods of viewing "hard" copy.
    • Since the position of the monitor may cause the user to assume uncomfortable positions for extended periods of time, computer use may negatively affect the neck and back.


    Theoretically speaking...
    • Surveys show a significant percentage of computer users have dry eyes, neck and back pain, and the various other maladies that have been associated with CVS.
    • Noticeable relief is realized by some people when they use a prescription specifically measured for computer use.


    Oh, I forgot some of the hypotheses of CVS "experts..."
    • If we create a new condition, we can probably sell people on a "cure."
    • If we happen to be associated with a company that would be in a position to supply such a "cure," we would stand to benefit financially.


    Theoretically, we could also add...
    • People (especially Americans), enjoy being diagnosed with the latest "fad" malady (e.g., "hyperglaucemia" in the 80's), so they'll lap up our new cure.
    • If you ask the average individual to concentrate on a part of the body, they'll have a heightened awareness of it (e.g., you probably weren't aware of the big toe on your right foot until you read this sentence).
    • People assume people who wear white coats know what they're talking about.


    Pete "CVS really gets your goat, doesn't it Dr. D?" Hanlin

  8. #8
    Master OptiBoarder Darryl Meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Kansas City, Kansas, United States
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    3,700

    Post

    Originally posted by Blake:
    Actually, Darris...er... professor, to get the greatest distance out of the cat, one would (hypothetically) launch it at an angle of 45 degrees and in the direction of the wind.
    Yes, you are correct. And near the surface of the Earth the force of gravity on a given object is constant for all intents and purposes. The cat is being pulled down at roughly 9.8 m/s^2 whether flying horizontally or vertically.

    I believe that the biggest difference between theory and hypothesis is the level of commitment to the proposal. A theory represents what we suspect is the nature of how something works, perhaps through experiment and reasoning. A hypothesis is more of an educated guess that hasn't been tested yet. You'd be willing to wager more on the theory.

    Best regards,
    Darryl

  9. #9
    Master OptiBoarder Darryl Meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Kansas City, Kansas, United States
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    3,700

    Post

    Originally posted by Pete Hanlin:
    What about the differences between "theory" and law
    Back to my "level of commitment" thing again. Laws, in this context, are theories that have never been disproved after years of experiment and testing. So they become accepted as fact. In many pseudo-sciences though, the requirements for a "law" are a little more liberal.

    The distinction isn't much more elegant than that, which also makes it prone to error. For instance, Newton's "law" of gravity is now considered after centuries to be incorrect (no longer a "law"), while Einstein's "theory" of relativity is now considered by many to be more of a "law" in that it more accurately explains phenomena that Newton's classical mechanics fails to.

    Best regards,
    Darryl

  10. #10
    Master OptiBoarder BobV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Blue Springs, MO USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    488

    Post

    Great use of the words "hypothesis" and "theory".

    Now a question for the scientists in our midsts:

    Which is more important...distance or loft?
    It would seem that if I whacked said kitty with a driver, I would get great distance. But then, after the drive, the kitty lands in the litter box, would I be better off getting the loft from a sand wedge or try for a little more distance using the pitching wedge?

    Either way, kitty gets it, and that is all the proof we need.

    So, hypothesis, theory, and proof. What more is there???

    Bob V

  11. #11
    Master OptiBoarder Darryl Meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Kansas City, Kansas, United States
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    3,700

    Post

    Originally posted by Darris Chambless:
    Your mom told you for years that sitting too close to the TV screen for long periods of time would hurt your eyes. Nobody believed mom and shrugged it off as nonsense. Now we have Dr.s writing books on Computer Vision Syndrome and everyone is perking up and saying "Yeah you know he/she is right I've noticed that working at my computer makes my eyes watery and tired and I don't see as well." The doc is revered as a hero and an intellect when all they did was put a bunch of scientific sounding words in to explain what mom had been telling you for years.
    This is an interesting analogy. Since I just had to write a short paper on CVS last week, I'll take a moment or two to express my opinion on the matter. (Though I am not a PhD, so I might be exempt from this argument.)

    First of all, a child sitting too close to a cartoon show for an hour or two is a very different situation than an adult -- often a presbyope -- doing a visually intensive task on a computer monitor for the better part of the day.

    There are literally millions of computer users and roughly 90% of them experience vision-related ("CVS") symptoms. Let's suppose that all of these computer users were fortunate enough to have a mom with a similar outlook on TV usage working as the occupational health nurse for their companies. She could simply tell them to "stop using your computer and go outside and play" -- just like she does with the TV set. I wish my work day went like this!

    Now, then... Did you believe your mom when she told you to stop sitting so close to the television? For that matter, did your mom even know why exactly she didn't want you sitting so close to it? So what does she say when you question her judgment on the matter? "Because the radiation will burn your eyeballs" or something to that effect.

    Even if applying the scientific method does nothing more than confirm what your mother was saying all along -- hasn't it still benefitted society? Would you not now be more likely to listen to her with a PhD standing next to her saying, "She's right, Darris...?"

    Now, as Pete pointed out, there are definite problems associated with the visually intensive work at computer workstations. This is exacerbated by poorly prescribed lens designs, poor workplace lighting, low contrast monitors, improper monitor placement, uncorrected refractive errors, binocular vision anomalies, screen glare, etcetera, etcetera. Many of these are certainly factors that neither your common sense nor your mom may be cognizant or able to advise you professionally on. She may not be able to tell you to keep your Rx updated, choose a lens style suitable for your viewing situation, use a glare filter for your monitor, position your monitor slightly below your line of sight at a comfortable viewing distance, take periodic breaks from the viewing tasks, keep some artificial tears handy, etcetera.

    Presbyopes without appropriate spectacle corrections must make awkward postural adjustments and excessive head movements in order to keep enough of the monitor in clear focus. This obviously leads to blurred vision, asthenopia, and/or musculoskeletal pain. This is a fact. If you were not aware that there was such a thing as Computer Vision Syndrome, you might not attribute these pains to vision problems and vision ergonomics. You might suffer through while trying out fancy new chairs or chiropractors or whatever else.

    As for the term "CVS"... Computer related vision problems have been around as long as computing has. Years before the term "CVS" was popular, lens manufacturers were making CRT and ED other occupational trifocals and multifocals to improve computer vision. Why give it a name? To make the Public more aware of it of course. Whether it is common sense or not, millions of computer users suffer from CVS and are often not properly treated for it. They are given poorly prescribed eyewear and continue to work in a visually stressful environment. Building awareness for this common problem will compel more computer users to visit their eyecare professionals, which in turn will compel more eyecare professionals to prescribe more appropriate eyewear and ergonomic solutions.

    CVS is not entirely unlike like the scientific community coining the term "AIDS" (for HIV), which built awareness for a serious health issue.

    Best regards,
    Darryl

    [This message has been edited by Darryl Meister (edited 04-07-2001).]

  12. #12
    Master OptiBoarder Darryl Meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Kansas City, Kansas, United States
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    3,700

    Post

    Originally posted by BobV:
    It would seem that if I whacked said kitty with a driver, I would get great distance. But then, after the drive, the kitty lands in the litter box, would I be better off getting the loft from a sand wedge or try for a little more distance using the pitching wedge?
    I suspect that the net result would be a lot of kitty guts all over your driver. Though if you tried, you might be under par with its decapitated head -- but who wants to clean that mess up? Besides, the Humane Society wouldn't find it nearly as entertaining. ;)

    Best regards,
    Darryl

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •