Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian W
Ok Craig, using this as a teaching tool... I agree that they disproved the postulation(?) of a usable NW passage.
However with he melting ice packs there now is a usable NW passage.
Does this mean that their -theory- postulation- hypothesis- was correct after all?
I think I am asking; can one revisit a 'dis-proven theory' with new information and show it to be true?
Brian
|
The disproven hypothesis should be restated, and reformulated, in modern times, in the light of additional known information. It would then become a new hypothesis, with new testing methods, possibly looking for different outcomes. The 'ice barriers' existing in Cook's time, clearly may not exist in modern times, so the situation has also changed .. many variables would cause the hypothesis to have to be re-stated, not the least of which, would be the outcomes of the original hypothesis' test results (eg: Cook's and Vancouver's maps).
This highlights the need for very specific, (as unambiguous as is possible), formal wording of any hypothesis and succesful outcomes/testing criteria to be established, before one sets out to test it. Ever notice that NASA projects all set out with a definition of a successful mission statement? This is kind of the analogy of the scientific process.
Mind you, the practical side of me acknowledges that I don't think I've ever seen a modern hypotheses stated as clearly as I'm making out .. and in Cook's time, we'd have to rely on his written orders and the act of Parliament which led to the reward being posted .. after all .. none of this philosophical definitional stuff existed then !
Cheers