Knowledge Tree
Hypothesis
Also known as: H1
Facts (14)
Sources
Epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu Dec 14, 2005 5 facts
claimExplanatory coherentism accounts for a lack of justification by noting that if an alternative explanation for an experience (E) is as good as or better than the hypothesis (H), the subject is not justified in believing (H).
claimAccording to explanatory coherentism, the justification for a belief (H) is structured by two beliefs: (1) the subject has a visual experience (E) of a hat looking blue, and (2) the subject's experience (E) is best explained by the assumption that the hypothesis (H) is true.
claimReliability coherentism posits that for a subject to be justified in believing a hypothesis (H), the subject need not believe anything about the reliability of the belief's origin, but must have justification for believing that the belief's origin is reliable, specifically by having justification for propositions (1) and (3).
claimExplanatory coherentism posits that for a subject to be justified in believing a hypothesis (H), it is not necessary that the subject actually believes the supporting propositions (1) and (2), but it is necessary that the subject has justification for believing (1) and (2).
claimExplanatory coherentism posits that a subject is justified in believing a hypothesis (H) when that hypothesis provides the best explanation for the subject's perceptual experiences.
Protocol for testing global neuronal workspace and integrated ... journals.plos.org 5 facts
procedureIn the testing protocol, a Bayes Factor (BF) greater than 10 is interpreted as strong evidence for the hypothesis (H1) that decoding generalization is higher than chance, while a BF less than 1/10 is interpreted as strong evidence for the null hypothesis (H0) that decoding generalization is equal to chance.
claimThe researchers define a Bayes Factor (BF) greater than 10 as strong evidence for the hypothesis (H1) that decoding generalization is higher than chance, and a Bayes Factor less than 1/10 as strong evidence for the null hypothesis (H0) that decoding generalization is equal to chance.
claimIn the study, a Bayes Factor (BF) greater than 10 is interpreted as strong evidence for the hypothesis (H1) that decoding performance is greater in the posterior parietal cortex (PPC) and/or sensory regions, while a BF less than 1/10 is interpreted as strong evidence for the null hypothesis (H0) that performance is equal between regions.
procedureIn the testing protocol, a Bayes Factor (BF) greater than 10 is interpreted as strong evidence for hypothesis H1, which posits that decoding performance in the posterior parietal cortex (PPC) and/or sensory regions is greater than chance following prefrontal cortex (PFC) manipulation. A Bayes Factor less than 1/10 is interpreted as evidence for hypothesis H0, which posits that decoding performance is equal to chance after prefrontal cortex manipulation.
claimThe researchers define a Bayes Factor (BF) greater than 10 as strong evidence for the hypothesis (H1) that the spike rate at stimulus offset is greater than the baseline spike rate, and a Bayes Factor less than 1/10 as evidence for the null hypothesis (H0) that the spike rate at stimulus offset is equal to the baseline spike rate.
Scientific Consensus - NASA Science science.nasa.gov Oct 21, 2024 2 facts
claimThe scientific method defines a hypothesis as a statement of a possible explanation for a natural phenomenon, which is tested and retested until it is refuted or disproved.
claimThe scientific method defines a hypothesis as a statement of a possible explanation for a natural phenomenon, which is tested and retested until it is either refuted or disproved.
Evolutionary psychology - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org 1 fact
claimEvolutionary theory acts as a heuristic by generating hypotheses that might not be developed from other theoretical approaches.
Social Epistemology - Open Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science oecs.mit.edu Jul 24, 2024 1 fact
claimIn networks where information is compartmentalized, agents who are ignorant of evidence against a hypothesis are likely to continue pursuing it, which increases the number of alternative hypotheses pursued and reduces the chance of hypotheses being rejected too early.