define hypothesis, theory, law, evidence

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Quite possibly. If you are incapable of finding information quickly and efficiently then you aren't fit for debate.

I've actually never used a dictionary specific to science. But out of curiosity I went to the Credo Reference database and the Sage database and looked at various definitions in dictionaries of science for the word hypothesis. The first interesting thing was that some dictionaries didn't have an entry for hypothesis, such as the following:

The Dictionary of Microbiology and Molecular Biology
Dictionary of Developmental Biology and Embryology
A Dictionary of Sociolinguistics
Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics
Dictionary of Optometry and Visual Science (this one actually did have an entry: "See significance")
Dictionary of Computing
Hargrave's Communications Dictionary

As for some dictionaries...

I didn't realize speed was the goal, but as the above is part of the 4th response in this thread, and followed by another I wrote, would that qualify as finding information quickly? I could have offered a lot more. I have a book that's actually titled A Realist Theory of Science. Science produces theories, so how can we have such a book? Or Jaynes' Probability Theory and the Logic of Science? Now theories define sciences? Well, at least we can safely fall back on grade school concepts like hypotheses. Except we can't and it's actually a rather major issue (no doubt you've read Springer's volume on the subject released last year I believe). I apologize for not being able to find a version for you that didn't require access to a database, but the study is the same: "The Uses of the Term Hypothesis and the Inquiry Emphasis Conflation in Science Teacher Education"

I had better luck with another one: Leaving Theory Behind

However, as I'm sure your intimately familiar with Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Quine, Putnum, and epistemic justification in general, you can teach those foolish teachers how your definition should fit scientific research you don't read so that you can encourage them to teach an 18th century method that isn't used but which you know to be true (hence defining for scientists what it is they do).

but you aren't grasping it.

Because my definitions don't fit yours. Of course, I actually do research in a scientific field and I don't believe you do. Not that this make me right or you wrong, of course, but given that, in addition to regurgitating information from research methods courses I had to tutor, and all the research I read, and the reference material for researchers in a decent number of fields, I'd say that you could at least offer up something other than accusing me of using wiki while continually reasserting this dogma you've turned The Scientific Method into just so you can misuse theory like creationists do.

but I'll respond anyway.

Thank you.

What specifically do you want to know?

In general, the technical literature in any scientific field will tend to use some subset of the following 4 categories they use the word "theory":

1) Theories from classical physics we know are wrong
2) Theories like number theory which is a branch of mathematics
3) Theories like "the theory of unintended consequences" which is as scientific as Murphy's law
4) Theories like evolution which somehow sprout entire scientific fields which rely on a theory to test a hypothesis which becomes...evolution 2.0?

If you wish to argue that quantum field theory, graph theory, string theory, number theory, information theory, complexity theory, communications theory, computability theory, control theory, set theory, group theory, quantum information theory, item response theory, and any number of ways in which a field in the sciences or mathematics (if one separates these) uses "theory" is wrong, because conform to your grade school version, then one has to wonder if perhaps your version is inadequate. If scientists don't use the term the way you say they ought to, does that make them wrong?

Perhaps if I explain it again....

Thank you but I understood it the first time. I have to grit my teeth and spout such nonsense because it was required for high school kids or college kids. What I want is your basis for your assertions. That is, apart from looking in a standard dictionary, what are you using to relate your understanding of hypothesis & theory to scientific research? And in which field?

If you have a point please make it

The theory of evolution uses the definite article and is singular.

I have never stated that the theory of evolution was a single theory.

When you use a definite article and a singular noun in English, then it means singular. There are exceptions, of course (mass and count nouns and all that), but this isn't one of them.

That is so great for you. I still fail to see how this is relevant.

It has to do with your dogmatic stance on definitions when you don't apparently grasp even the basics. You stated:

Einstein had no reason to believe in any such theories (if they existed at the time) about how awesome the new areas of physics would be.

I know this is excessively rude but wow how wrong you are.

I don't mind people being rude so long as they can demonstrate their point with more than dogmatic claims. So far, you haven't.

You mistake your misunderstandings for my words

I'm just going to let that one stay as is.

and my correction of said misunderstanding as me backing out of my previous point?

You talked about a theory of gravity that doesn't exist and then claimed that because what used to be the force called gravitation is now incorporated in to relativistic physics somehow you were right and not just spouting nonsense like you did about Einstein and what he had reason to believe.

To be clear I back everything I have said. I was attempting to teach you the difference between a law and a theory and why a theory will never become a law.

Only they are frequently used interchangeably, and all of your definitions fail to cohere with practice: P Value and the Theory of Hypothesis Testing: An Explanation for New Researchers

But what do I know? I apparently just use Wikipedia and Google. The fact that even ignoring my personal library, I have access to ScienceDirect, Academic Search Complete, JSTOR, PsychInfo, SAGE online, Springer, and so much more because I work in a scientific field and have university access to these databases is irrelevant. As clearly I don't ever read anything from these databases or from the ghastly over-priced monographs and volumes I own.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I didn't realize speed was the goal, but as the above is part of the 4th response in this thread, and followed by another I wrote, would that qualify as finding information quickly? I could have offered a lot more. I have a book that's actually titled A Realist Theory of Science. Science produces theories, so how can we have such a book? Or Jaynes' Probability Theory and the Logic of Science? Now theories define sciences? Well, at least we can safely fall back on grade school concepts like hypotheses. Except we can't and it's actually a rather major issue (no doubt you've read Springer's volume on the subject released last year I believe). I apologize for not being able to find a version for you that didn't require access to a database, but the study is the same: "The Uses of the Term Hypothesis and the Inquiry Emphasis Conflation in Science Teacher Education"

Speed isn't the issue in online debates but I was simply bringing the point that in the age of the Internet it isn't a difficult leap of the imagination to think that someone could find all of this information rather easily.

What is your field of study and degree if I might ask? I'm not doing this to undermine or bring you up. I am simply curious.

Also I have read the link. I am reading the second one now but I don't think I"ll have time to read it and respond before I have to leave. I thank you for the link as I found it informative and I have walked away with a greater understanding of the terms and the portions of grey in which you were pointing out earlier. I recognize the problem but again I bring up the point that nothing the paper countered my points but rather expounded upon them and broadened the definitions.

A few things I have learned just so you know I'm not blowing off the point is it had never occurred to me that a hypothesis by itself was near useless without a pre-existing theory in which to construct it around. This seems so self evident and yet I had never thought it and neither was it ever brought up in any of my classes.

There are differences in the way it is used specifically in the "grey" area from pedagogical resources and the scientific research. The bit I think you were attempting to convey to me (correct me if I am wrong) is more on the idea that separates it from a "guess" rather than tentative knowledge. It seemed thought the entire paper was far more focused not on defining the term but rather unifying its usage to enhance the scientific literacy and scientific inquiry skills of new students.

The only time though in the whole paper that I saw a slight smidgen of a grey area between hypothesis and theory was on page 22 when one of the students in the survey described his idea of how to make the hypothesis more "scientific" and his answer was to formulate a miniature theory rather than what they believed will happen.

I had better luck with another one: Leaving Theory Behind

Currently reading

However, as I'm sure your intimately familiar with Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Quine, Putnum, and epistemic justification in general, you can teach those foolish teachers how your definition should fit scientific research you don't read so that you can encourage them to teach an 18th century method that isn't used but which you know to be true (hence defining for scientists what it is they do).

Do I catch a hint of sarcasm? I still stand by my basic definition. I am learning more from the readings you have provided but I haven't seen a counter yet specifically. What again about my point is being specifically refuted and I do very well with cited sources. If I'm wrong I do man up to it and walk away smarter. You got a chance to change my mind. Go for it.

Because my definitions don't fit yours. Of course, I actually do research in a scientific field and I don't believe you do. Not that this make me right or you wrong, of course, but given that, in addition to regurgitating information from research methods courses I had to tutor, and all the research I read, and the reference material for researchers in a decent number of fields, I'd say that you could at least offer up something other than accusing me of using wiki while continually reasserting this dogma you've turned The Scientific Method into just so you can misuse theory like creationists do.

I generally have a good understanding of science. I didn't take kindly to your demeaning language. I know for a fact I am not incorrect in the general sense. You are arguing from an advanced perspective if you really are a scientist and that much I can respect. However when I know the definitions it doesn't make me ignorant and a far far far cry from creationist. I try not to get into back and forth battles with those just trying to boost their own ego. If thats not what you were doing then I apologize for my remarks. If it was then I take back nothing.

In general, the technical literature in any scientific field will tend to use some subset of the following 4 categories they use the word "theory":

Just from my knowledge. I can go in depth more with research and information gathering but I hope this rounds back to a point.

1) Physics is strange and the more we learn about things the more we learn our general conceptions were wrong. I'm assuming you mean the theories that have been disprove over time that worked out mathematically till we received new information. Examples are Newtonian and other classical mechanics.

2) This is the one area of the 4 I know I am at least somewhat well versed. I stray mainly within the realm of real numbers and workable situations. What specifically do you want to know? If you mean research I guess I can forward you to the invention of calculus or some of the slightly newer higher mathematics. However statistics hasn't changed much over the years and that is what I usually work with.

3) Not very familiar with this one. Man enough to admit that


4) I know quite a bit about evolution. I studied this extensively as an undergrad when I was going for premed. Evolutionary biologist will obviously know more and I don't have a degree in it. However I do know far more than the majority of people on the street. This also brings up the point that I will concede to you in the wording I used about hypothesis vs theory. I stated that theories came after hypothesis and I wish to amend that now.

If you wish to argue that quantum field theory, graph theory, string theory, number theory, information theory, complexity theory, communications theory, computability theory, control theory, set theory, group theory, quantum information theory, item response theory, and any number of ways in which a field in the sciences or mathematics (if one separates these) uses "theory" is wrong, because conform to your grade school version, then one has to wonder if perhaps your version is inadequate. If scientists don't use the term the way you say they ought to, does that make them wrong?

Please give a concrete example as to why and how it doesn't fit with the general definition that I had previously provided with the amendment that theories can come before hypothesis.

Thank you but I understood it the first time. I have to grit my teeth and spout such nonsense because it was required for high school kids or college kids. What I want is your basis for your assertions. That is, apart from looking in a standard dictionary, what are you using to relate your understanding of hypothesis & theory to scientific research? And in which field?

So you are telling me that the dictionary is wrong? I wasn't aware that I required an extensive research paper to back up the claim I laid for the definition. I did read your paper and working on reading the second and it has expanded my knowledge on hypothesis and its usage but it still dwells within the general realm of the dictionary definition so far.

It has to do with your dogmatic stance on definitions when you don't apparently grasp even the basics. You stated:

As previously stated I do have a decent grasp of the basics. You keep insisting that I don't. Please provide a counter and just to be sure provide a source.

I don't mind people being rude so long as they can demonstrate their point with more than dogmatic claims. So far, you haven't.

Quoting the dictionary?

You talked about a theory of gravity that doesn't exist and then claimed that because what used to be the force called gravitation is now incorporated in to relativistic physics somehow you were right and not just spouting nonsense like you did about Einstein and what he had reason to believe.

The law of gravity exists. Its measurable and definable. I used the term "theory of gravity" as its found abundantly in discussions like this. The theory of relativity goes into "how" gravity works. Have I stated something untrue yet? Please point out where I am wrong.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Only they are frequently used interchangeably, and all of your definitions fail to cohere with practice: P Value and the Theory of Hypothesis Testing: An Explanation for New Researchers

But what do I know? I apparently just use Wikipedia and Google. The fact that even ignoring my personal library, I have access to ScienceDirect, Academic Search Complete, JSTOR, PsychInfo, SAGE online, Springer, and so much more because I work in a scientific field and have university access to these databases is irrelevant. As clearly I don't ever read anything from these databases or from the ghastly over-priced monographs and volumes I own.

You really are steaming over that poke I made at you for wiki aren't you? I don't really give to rats arses what your title is or if you do or do not have access to this information.

If my definitions fail then perhaps someone should contact Oxford or Websters.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If my definitions fail then perhaps someone should contact Oxford or Websters.

I can't tell you about Webster's, but the actual Oxford English Dictionary (the one that used to be available only in several volumes and currently is only available through access their site), that I can. The first two entries the OED lists as obsolete. The 3rd is:
"A conception or mental scheme of something to be done, or of the method of doing it; a systematic statement of rules or principles to be followed"

The 4th entry has 3 sub-entries a, b, and c.

a is "A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed"

b is "That department of an art or technical subject which consists in the knowledge or statement of the facts on which it depends, or of its principles or methods, as distinguished from the practice of it"

and c is "A systematic statement of the general principles or laws of some branch of mathematics; a set of theorems forming a connected system"

The 5th entry is "In the abstract (without article): Systematic conception or statement of the principles of something; abstract knowledge, or the formulation of it: often used as implying more or less unsupported hypothesis"

and the 6th is "In loose or general sense: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion"

Of course, dictionaries are built to reflect usage. Contrary to popular belief, they don't define words, people do (usually through a certain amount of frequent usage, although some words are coined an others, through grammaticalization, become semantically bleached and used to indicate e.g., modality).

So if you want to know what "theory" means in the sciences, you look at how it is used. You don't dogmatically insist on a single definition because without that definition you are left with no response to "it's just a theory" other than by using that single definition, despite the fact that it's equally inaccurate.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

2)I stray mainly within the realm of real numbers and workable situations. What specifically do you want to know?

From you? The implied question ("but I recall there being four...") I asked in this post.

If you mean research I guess I can forward you to the invention of calculus

You really didn't read this thread, as this was the post about yours:

High school kids learn linear algebra in a chapter, and it is not only difficult for them but useless unless they continue on to college and take a course in the subject, in which case it was a waste of time. They learn to simply expressions in order to evaluate limits if they end up taking calculus, which is only really useful if it leads either to other math courses in applied mathematics and/or if they go onto analysis (where they find that the calculus they were taught was needlessly complicated by using the epsilon-delta definition of limits that hasn't been necessary since infinitesimals were finally given a suitable formal definition and needlessly awkward Riemann integrals which are now replaced with Lebesgue integrals).

I've studied the history of logic independently (i.e, just to do this) and so I know, for example, Bertrand Russell's remark that had Leibniz published his work on logic then, we'd have symbolic logic before Frege. What I know about most history of mathematics comes from reading textbooks that have blurbs about when infinitesimals, matrix notation (Cayley), a sufficiently formal limit definition (from Newton to Cauchy things there was no such thing, but Weierstrauss finished the work. Not the work in analysis, obviously, but the epsilon-delta approach.

However statistics hasn't changed much over the years and that is what I usually work with.

Most statistical techniques we have now weren't around until we had powerful computers and were seldom used until scientists got tired of working with programming languages that are filled with unnecessary things for research but make difficult so much that is. So MATLAB, R, SAS, etc. Most techniques couldn't be used on high-dimensional data or didn't exist (e.g., SEM, Fuzzy probability and statistics, PCA, IC, and Factor analysis, MUNDA, Bayesian statistics, the various spatial metrics used in classification analyses, etc.).Dealing with operations on matrices in 10,000th dimensional space is difficult to do repeatedly and quickly until recently.

You really are steaming over that poke I made at you for wiki aren't you? I don't really give to rats arses what your title is or if you do or do not have access to this information.

How much would you appreciate spending enormous amounts of money and years and years of your life to some art, discipline, sport, academic field, skilled labor, etc., only to be told that all of this was a few moments searching the internet? You stated

A respected scientific theory then. But to be considered a viable scientific theory by the general science community is a big deal.

Although currently I work as a consultant for a company that offers services and software to research labs in fields as diverse as sociology, applied physics, food science, and business schools, my work (before I had to move; research in most fields doesn't pay), my "field" is cognitive neuropsychology. Or cognitive science. The thing is that the cognitive sciences have become so incredibly broad that it isn't just an interdisciplinary field, it's an umbrella term for a set of many interdisciplinary fields. That's why you can go to a psychology conference, a computer science conference, a sociology conference, an engineering conference, and an AI/computational intelligence/robotics conference and see the same person at all of them.

Speed isn't the issue in online debates but I was simply bringing the point that in the age of the Internet it isn't a difficult leap of the imagination to think that someone could find all of this information rather easily.

Yes. You could have found the information had you read the first page of this tread along with the links I gave you and the post that is just before yours.

What is your field of study and degree if I might ask? I'm not doing this to undermine or bring you up. I am simply curious.

I had two majors (sociology & psychology, and ancient Greek & Latin) and a minor (cognitive science). After under my undergrad studies, I went into cognitive neuropsychology, and the labs I worked in and with there were primarily concerned with neuroimaging but also behavioral studies. Now my work is to investigate how various science field conduct research, such that I can determine whether the research services my client offers could be used by some lab or center, whatever the field in question is, and if so where.

but I haven't seen a counter yet specifically.

Perhaps that's why researchers don't rely on dictionaries or encyclopedias. Research methods are created, critiqued, and improved (hopefully) all within scientific literature, from conference proceedings to volumes where an editorial board of the type peer-reviewed journals have ask specialists to contribute papers that will be chapters.

I do very well with cited sources.

I give them here & here, and that should be enough to start off with.

However when I know the definitions it doesn't make me ignorant and a far far far cry from creationist.

In general, yes. As far as you understanding The Scientific Method is concerned? Not really.

I try not to get into back and forth battles with those just trying to boost their own ego.

I stated my position in the first page of this thread, before you said a word. And in multiple posts, from one that was just references to scientific dictionaries to my own answers and finally to my responses to others on the issue of theory.

I gave your links to threads and posts regarding the scientific method which might have informed you read them rather than writing them off by repeating your Wikipedia dismissal.

Physics is strange and the more we learn about things the more we learn our general conceptions were wrong. I'm assuming you mean the theories that have been disprove over time that worked out mathematically till we received new information. Examples are Newtonian and other classical mechanics.

No I refer to two theoretical frameworks that are among the most successful in existence yet they conflict and nobody has unified them (and, for one, nobody even agrees what it is).

Please give a concrete example as to why and how it doesn't fit with the general definition that I had previously provided with the amendment that theories can come before hypothesis

Most of them are fields of research. Quantum field theory is the basis for attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativistic physics. Graph theory is a mathematical field that (depending on how one wishes to categorize) is either field unto itself, a subfield of combinatorics, or of algebras, or all can be subsumed under set theory.

As previously stated I do have a decent grasp of the basics

The law of gravity exists. Its measurable and definable. I used the term "theory of gravity" as its found abundantly in discussions like this. The theory of relativity goes into "how" gravity works. Have I stated something untrue yet? Please point out where I am wrong.[/quote]
The theory of gravitation held that gravity was a force. In relativistic physics, it isn't. It's a parameter or a variable.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Of course, dictionaries are built to reflect usage. Contrary to popular belief, they don't define words, people do (usually through a certain amount of frequent usage, although some words are coined an others, through grammaticalization, become semantically bleached and used to indicate e.g., modality).

So if you want to know what "theory" means in the sciences, you look at how it is used. You don't dogmatically insist on a single definition because without that definition you are left with no response to "it's just a theory" other than by using that single definition, despite the fact that it's equally inaccurate.

Actually they do define words. Thats why it has to be updated as time goes on. Words change over time and that is because the definition isn't based from the dictionary but by its usage. That much you are correct. But to say that you can safely disreguard the definition is a bold claim.

As I have minor degrees in two areas of science (physics and biology) I have done more about the scientific method than your average joe and the definitions that limit hypothesis and theory still hold true. They become more specific but not incorrect.

In feilds of research the term hypothesis isn't even used as there is no real need to define what someone "thinks" will happen or project any kind of result unless you are repeating an experiment. Collection of data is the overal goal in research and then it is utilized later in constructs of theories. Hypothesis is generally only used in contrast with other data when something unexpected happens.

You have still yet to provide me with a SINGLE example of a hypothesis being utilized in a situatin where it is not confined to a localized experiment or objective.

You really didn't read this thread, as this was the post about yours:

You need to more clearly articulate where you are going with these posts. A lot of times it seems you just state informatin as if it were a rebuttle when in fact it isn't.

I've studied the history of logic independently (i.e, just to do this) and so I know, for example, Bertrand Russell's remark that had Leibniz published his work on logic then, we'd have symbolic logic before Frege. What I know about most history of mathematics comes from reading textbooks that have blurbs about when infinitesimals, matrix notation (Cayley), a sufficiently formal limit definition (from Newton to Cauchy things there was no such thing, but Weierstrauss finished the work. Not the work in analysis, obviously, but the epsilon-delta approach.

Thats great.

Most statistical techniques we have now weren't around until we had powerful computers and were seldom used until scientists got tired of working with programming languages that are filled with unnecessary things for research but make difficult so much that is. So MATLAB, R, SAS, etc. Most techniques couldn't be used on high-dimensional data or didn't exist (e.g., SEM, Fuzzy probability and statistics, PCA, IC, and Factor analysis, MUNDA, Bayesian statistics, the various spatial metrics used in classification analyses, etc.).Dealing with operations on matrices in 10,000th dimensional space is difficult to do repeatedly and quickly until recently.

the techniques are new but not the math itself. Now that we have computing tools that are more powerful at our disposal we can do a lot more. The techniques used with computors would take days to do by hand, and in some cases nearly impossible.

Analytics is something completely different than statistics. Albeit connected they aren ot the same thing.

How much would you appreciate spending enormous amounts of money and years and years of your life to some art, discipline, sport, academic field, skilled labor, etc., only to be told that all of this was a few moments searching the internet? You stated

Power of the internet my friend. If you know how to search and where you can find just about everything you need for free. Thats why I only subscribe to databases through my college and not on my own.

Although currently I work as a consultant for a company that offers services and software to research labs in fields as diverse as sociology, applied physics, food science, and business schools, my work (before I had to move; research in most fields doesn't pay), my "field" is cognitive neuropsychology. Or cognitive science. The thing is that the cognitive sciences have become so incredibly broad that it isn't just an interdisciplinary field, it's an umbrella term for a set of many interdisciplinary fields. That's why you can go to a psychology conference, a computer science conference, a sociology conference, an engineering conference, and an AI/computational intelligence/robotics conference and see the same person at all of them.

My fiancee is majoring in Psychology. Its very different from the more physical sciences. You don't have to do so much guessing and its much harder to have a scientific experiment. Especially repeatable ones. Its very possible what I use my my physical sciences as theories and hypothesis would be different but at the core they are the same.

Perhaps that's why researchers don't rely on dictionaries or encyclopedias. Research methods are created, critiqued, and improved (hopefully) all within scientific literature, from conference proceedings to volumes where an editorial board of the type peer-reviewed journals have ask specialists to contribute papers that will be chapters.

all I hear from you is "your wrong. Here is informatin that shows you you are wrong."
*reads information*
Information does not counter my piont and solid examples as to why I am wrong have yet to be presented. You have a lot of information and you seem well read but you still haven't shown a good case as to why I am wrong.

I give them here & here, and that should be enough to start off with.

currently reading.

In general, yes. As far as you understanding The Scientific Method is concerned? Not really.

Again a bunch of accusations without actual counters in them. You have not shown any ability to judge my knowledge of the scientific method and processes.

I stated my position in the first page of this thread, before you said a word. And in multiple posts, from one that was just references to scientific dictionaries to my own answers and finally to my responses to others on the issue of theory.

I gave your links to threads and posts regarding the scientific method which might have informed you read them rather than writing them off by repeating your Wikipedia dismissal.

I have read your links. I still didn't see anything in there to confront my claims.

Most of them are fields of research. Quantum field theory is the basis for attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativistic physics. Graph theory is a mathematical field that (depending on how one wishes to categorize) is either field unto itself, a subfield of combinatorics, or of algebras, or all can be subsumed under set theory.

That still doesn't mean that a hypothesis has the ability to be used outside of a localized set of research. Unless you are now countering something else I have stated.

The theory of gravitation held that gravity was a force. In relativistic physics, it isn't. It's a parameter or a variable.

Exactly. Now you are getting it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Actually they do define words.

“The difference between a dictionary and a thesaurus is this. In a thesauras, words that are similar in meaning are grouped together…In a dictionary, on the other hand, words are arranged simply where you can find them *in ‘alphabetical order’ in English).” Halliday’s paper on lexicology.

Webster started his dictionary mainly to criticize Johnson for insisting on sticking with archaic terms, and his big accomplishment and his stated intent was to both provide a formalized spelling system and to reflect usage.
The real problem is that there still isn’t an accepted criteria for what constitutes a “word”, and still less criteria for parts of speech. When you have languages like Navajo in which almost everything is a verb that things get tacked onto, trying to build a lexicon or dictionary is pretty difficult; a few verbs can make up hundreds of pages.

This is actually an area that my lab worked on: looking for a neurological basis for noun/verb distinction using neuroimaging, behavioral experiments with aphasiacs and those with other speech disorders, etc.

I think they’re wrong. I side with cognitive linguists here: lexicon and grammar exist along a continuum. And many a modern dictionary uses both corpus linguistics and frame semantics (frameNet, WordNet, etc.) to build new editions based upon usage.

But to say that you can safely disreguard the definition is a bold claim.

Why? What theory of lexical semantics do you adhere to?

It’s not a bold claim. Especially as dictionaries are intended to reflect general usage, not technical usage.

I have done more about the scientific method than your average joe

How does one do “more about scientific method”?

You have still yet to provide me with a SINGLE example of a hypothesis being utilized in a situatin where it is not confined to a localized experiment or objective.

"Optimal offspring size theory states that natural selection should balance the reproductive output between offspring size and offspring number in order to maximize fitness (Smith and Fretwell, 1974; Congdon and Gibbons, 1987). If a species has evolved an optimum offspring size, larger females may increase their fitness by simply producing more offspring (i.e. eggs) of an optimum size Ryan and Lindeman, 2007). On the other hand, the morphological constraint hypothesis suggests that anatomical or physiological factors, such as the mother’s pelvic aperture (Tucker et al., 1978; Congdon and Gibbons, 1987; Wilkinson et al., 2005), caudal gap (Clark et al., 2001), or endocrine-regulated egg size (Bowden et al., 2004), may constrain the balance between offspring size and offspring number."
("Evidence for the Morphological Constraint Hypothesis and Optimal Offspring Size Theory in the Mexican Mud Turtle")

Here a theory is tested against a hypothesis as if they were equal.
We find much the same with the fetal origins hypothesis.
Or the fundamental hypothesis of the three-phase traffic theory
Or how the direction is reversed as "a reaction to the casual way with which the profession, theorists as well as empiricists, implicitly advocate moving from theory to hypothesis tests" (source)
Then we have theories of hypothesis testing e.g., quantum hypothesis testing.

the techniques are new but not the math itself

Some of it isn't new (I know the history and I'm a fan of Rand Wilcox if that means anything to you). Some of it is, and I know because I know who developed certain techniques (not just Zadeh).

Analytics is something completely different than statistics.

That's like saying Pearson's r isn't statistics because it was developed to deal with measurement error when our devices were too primitive.

Its very different from the more physical sciences.

That depends on what a psychologist ends up as. Neuroscience, neurology, biology, robotics, computational sciences, machine learning, and much, much more are all things psychology undergrads can get into. I had another major in ancient languages. I've yet to meet another neuroscientists who deals with brain physiology, neuroimaging, high dimensional data sets, etc., and who knows how to read in more dead languages that modern languages.

You don't have to do so much guessing and its much harder to have a scientific experiment. Especially repeatable ones

So the fact that it is impossible to prepare a quantum system for repeated experiments such that it can be tested, requiring the basis foundations of physics to be irreducibly statistical, is somehow more repeatable that neuroimaging methods? And you know this because you know someone who's an undergrad? Do her a favor. Tell her to read sect. 1.1.1 of Dynamical Systems in Neuroscience so that she knows where any textbook explaining neural firing she's read is wrong (and the authors knew it).

I use my my physical sciences as theories and hypothesis would be different but at the core they are the same.

If I build a model of a neuron, or any computational model of spike trains, neural network topology, or an information-theoretic and Bayseian network approach to neural signals, exactly how would your "physical science" differ?

Information does not counter my piont and solid examples

That is not the theory of gravity. That is the law of gravity. Two different things.

So we have a theory of gravity and a law of gravity (despite the fact that what we have isn't either one), but that's not solid as long as you can manipulate terms to fit definitions you conceived of already.

Where, in any modern scientific literature, is there a description of a law of gravity that differs from the theory of gravity and takes into account that gravity isn't a force?

but you still haven't shown a good case as to why I am wrong.

When I have repeatedly shown how terms are used inconsistently and you say "you haven't shown me a good case" it's because you rationalize everything into your model. Why does "A new hypothesis of chronic fatigue syndrome: Co-conditioning theory" call their hypothesis a theory? Why do we not only have the "rational expectations hypothesis", but a "Theory of rational expectations hypothesis"?

Again a bunch of accusations without actual counters in them.

A scientific theory is a well constructed idea based on several experiments and recorded evidence.

Quantum field theory is based on an attempt to unify quantum mechanics and relativistic physics. It's a field. Information theory and communications theory are fields based not on hypotheses as you stated nor on testing as you stated. They are derived mathematically and used in research. But you keep moving goalposts.

That still doesn't mean that a hypothesis has the ability to be used outside of a localized set of research.

How can a theory that had no hypothesis fit into your model? How does machine learning's use of the term fit into it when it is the experiment?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

“The difference between a dictionary and a thesaurus is this. In a thesauras, words that are similar in meaning are grouped together…In a dictionary, on the other hand, words are arranged simply where you can find them *in ‘alphabetical order’ in English).” Halliday’s paper on lexicology.

Webster started his dictionary mainly to criticize Johnson for insisting on sticking with archaic terms, and his big accomplishment and his stated intent was to both provide a formalized spelling system and to reflect usage.
The real problem is that there still isn’t an accepted criteria for what constitutes a “word”, and still less criteria for parts of speech. When you have languages like Navajo in which almost everything is a verb that things get tacked onto, trying to build a lexicon or dictionary is pretty difficult; a few verbs can make up hundreds of pages.

This is actually an area that my lab worked on: looking for a neurological basis for noun/verb distinction using neuroimaging, behavioral experiments with aphasiacs and those with other speech disorders, etc.

I think they’re wrong. I side with cognitive linguists here: lexicon and grammar exist along a continuum. And many a modern dictionary uses both corpus linguistics and frame semantics (frameNet, WordNet, etc.) to build new editions based upon usage.

You may think they are wrong but however you have to set up a case in which supports your position. What specific instances in the lab in which you worked countered it specifically?
But to add on to what you said it also functions as a resource to give words a universal meaning. It grants certain authorities within languages that cannot so easily be subverted without ample evidence.

Why? What theory of lexical semantics do you adhere to?

Irrlevant. As I am not a linguist I don't throw my weight into any particular study. Though I suppose I have considered myself aligned with congnitive semantics.

It’s not a bold claim. Especially as dictionaries are intended to reflect general usage, not technical usage.

Bold claim to say that the general usage is not simply off the mark but dead wrong.

How does one do “more about scientific method”?

Typo error. I was responding from a tablet. I am secretly proud of myself for this being the only major error posted. What I meant to post was that I do have more experience on the practical side of the scientific method.


"Optimal offspring size theory states that natural selection should balance the reproductive output between offspring size and offspring number in order to maximize fitness (Smith and Fretwell, 1974; Congdon and Gibbons, 1987). If a species has evolved an optimum offspring size, larger females may increase their fitness by simply producing more offspring (i.e. eggs) of an optimum size Ryan and Lindeman, 2007). On the other hand, the morphological constraint hypothesis suggests that anatomical or physiological factors, such as the mother’s pelvic aperture (Tucker et al., 1978; Congdon and Gibbons, 1987; Wilkinson et al., 2005), caudal gap (Clark et al., 2001), or endocrine-regulated egg size (Bowden et al., 2004), may constrain the balance between offspring size and offspring number."
("Evidence for the Morphological Constraint Hypothesis and Optimal Offspring Size Theory in the Mexican Mud Turtle")

Here a theory is tested against a hypothesis as if they were equal.
We find much the same with the fetal origins hypothesis.
Or the fundamental hypothesis of the three-phase traffic theory
Or how the direction is reversed as "a reaction to the casual way with which the profession, theorists as well as empiricists, implicitly advocate moving from theory to hypothesis tests" (source)
Then we have theories of hypothesis testing e.g., quantum hypothesis testing. [/quote]
Looked up the morphological constrait hypothesis. Its a hypothesis based entirely off of one study about the mexican mud turtle. It still is localized rather than generalized. Its basis is being used to challenge another theory.

The fetal origins Hypothesis is based on predictions and on a few isolated cases rather than a wealth of information.

Need I go on? They still fit the general definitions I have sourced.

And theories of hypothesis testing is a different horse altogether and is not what we were talking about.

That's like saying Pearson's r isn't statistics because it was developed to deal with measurement error when our devices were too primitive.

Not really. Statistics is the gathering, analysis, prediction and presentation of data in general. Just about anything having to do with data is within the realm of statistics. Analytics however specifically focuses on finding meaninful patterns within data. It servers as a different function though is under a much larger umbrella.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So the fact that it is impossible to prepare a quantum system for repeated experiments such that it can be tested, requiring the basis foundations of physics to be irreducibly statistical, is somehow more repeatable that neuroimaging methods? And you know this because you know someone who's an undergrad? Do her a favor. Tell her to read sect. 1.1.1 of Dynamical Systems in Neuroscience so that she knows where any textbook explaining neural firing she's read is wrong (and the authors knew it).

Or its much easier to repeat a chemical reaction to develop a new drug in chemistry, or repeate a physics experiment to see if we can actually utilize a new compound in cars or engineer a new computor that can process data 4x faster than any other its size. Yes all of those require far less guesswork and general interpretation than psychology. But if you want to go the route and take extreme examples from the most gray science areas then go for it.

If I build a model of a neuron, or any computational model of spike trains, neural network topology, or an information-theoretic and Bayseian network approach to neural signals, exactly how would your "physical science" differ?

In those cases I would imagine they would not. I was trying to give you benifit of the doubt but alas I guess not.

Where, in any modern scientific literature, is there a description of a law of gravity that differs from the theory of gravity and takes into account that gravity isn't a force?

The newtonian law of Gravity is a law because that is how it works. The math works out and it describes the phenomenon. It does nothing to explain why the phenomenon happens. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

When I have repeatedly shown how terms are used inconsistently and you say "you haven't shown me a good case" it's because you rationalize everything into your model. Why does "A new hypothesis of chronic fatigue syndrome: Co-conditioning theory" call their hypothesis a theory? Why do we not only have the "rational expectations hypothesis", but a "Theory of rational expectations hypothesis"?

For whatever reason my tablet cannot view the first link. I cannot give you a response on it. The second however is providing a new hypothesis after a localized study about the banks and other financial institutions in Malaysia and then proposing it in the light of an already existing "Theory of Rational Expectations".

I don't have to rationalize them. They already fit. I'm not moving goalposts. You are assuming arrogantly that I am making this imaginary parameters that I have not set. I have recanted one key bit from my original position which is on theories comming from hypothesis but I have already explained numerous times why I was wrong on that.

Quantum field theory is based on an attempt to unify quantum mechanics and relativistic physics. It's a field. Information theory and communications theory are fields based not on hypotheses as you stated nor on testing as you stated. They are derived mathematically and used in research. But you keep moving goalposts.

Learn to read. I have already recanted that theories are not based on hypothesis. I have recanted that pages ago. Since then I have yet to move a single goalpost or be proven wrong.

But none of those theories would hold any ground at all if it wasn't based on significant evidence.

How can a theory that had no hypothesis fit into your model? How does machine learning's use of the term fit into it when it is the experiment?

What modle are you refrencing? The one I recanted or the made up one that you think I"m representing?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Looked up the morphological constrait hypothesis. Its a hypothesis based entirely off of one study about the mexican mud turtle. It still is localized rather than generalized. Its basis is being used to challenge another theory.

I'll start here. First, it's one of several constraint hypotheses that competes with other explanation for a particular evolutionary process/phenomenon.

Sexual dimorphism of tail length in lacertid lizards: test of a morphological constraint hypothesis

Sexual dimorphism in snake tail length: sexual selection, natural selection, or morphological constraint?

Sexual dimorphism and female reproduction in Lacerta vivipara in northeast China

Habitat predicts reproductive superfetation and body shape in the livebearing fish Poeciliopsis turrubarensis

"Testing the different hypotheses described above is not straightforward. However, establishing the relationship between age of the mother and fitness of young produced at the different ages might enable one to reject some of these hypotheses. If the optimal effort per offspring is achieved by large (old) mothers, then the hypotheses relating the increase in offspring size to the presence of invertebrate predators and to increased likelihood of competition can be rejected, as then an explanation is needed only as to why the offspring produced by small females are so small. Alternatively, the observation of young mothers producing optimal offspring size would allow the rejection of the morphological constraint hypothesis, the early fecundity hypothesis and the fish-adaptation hypothesis, as all these hypotheses assume that optimal offspring size is produced by larger animals."

(source)

That last one was from 1997. The article I linked to before, "Evidence for the Morphological Constraint Hypothesis and Optimal Offspring Size Theory in the Mexican Mud Turtle (Kinosternon integrum)" was published in 2012 and supported the hypothesis.

In this 2012 study: "Female size constraints egg size via the influence of reproductive organ size and resource storage in the seed beetle Callosobruchus chinensis" The researchers

"conclude that females adjust egg size depending on capital resource level under the morphological constraint"

And state "Acceptance of the morphological constraint hypothesis requires evidence that the ovipositor width relative to body size is not larger in small females. Smaller females may incur a cost to widen the ovipositor relative to their body size to produce optimal size eggs. In such cases, a trade-off will be observed between relative ovipositor width and other traits."

Then we find "The morphological constraint hypothesis is not supported by experimental manipulations of the thermal environments of insects, in which egg size depended on the thermal regime of the mother at the time of vitellogenesis rather than her thermal regime during the juvenile period ( Blanckenhorn, 2000 and Fischer et al., 2003)."
from "Thermal dependence of reproductive allocation in a tropical lizard"

So not only are you completely wrong about it being "localized", research on the experimental evidence of eggs yields different results in literature going back 20+ years.

The fetal origins Hypothesis is based on predictions and on a few isolated cases rather than a wealth of information.

from "Unravelling the fetal origins hypothesis: Is there really an inverse association between birthweight and subsequent blood pressure?"

"The association between birthweight and subsequent blood pressure levels has been considered to provide some of the strongest, and most consistent, support for the "fetal origins" hypothesis of adult disease. It had been estimated that a 1 kg higher birthweight is typically associated with a 2-4 mm Hg lower systolic blood pressure.

55 studies that had reported regression coefficients of systolic blood pressure on birthweight (with 48 further studies that reported only the direction of this association), and seven such studies within twin pairs, were identified. Each study was weighted according to the inverse of the variance of the regression coefficient (ie, "statistical size"), and combined using a "fixed effects" approach."


Apparently one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world disagrees with you.

Heck, we were "revisiting" this "hypothesis" in 1999: "Fetal origins of adult disease—the hypothesis revisited"


Birth size, growth, and blood pressure between the ages of 7 and 26 years: failure to support the fetal origins hypothesis

So the hypothesis wasn't supported in 2003, but we find in 2005:
"The fetal origins hypothesis—10 years on"

By 2011 we find "the fetal origins hypothesis has not only survived contact with economics, but has flourished" ("Killing me softly: The fetal origins hypothesis")

Need I go on?

No. I've think you've shown exactly how wrong you were.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Or its much easier to repeat a chemical reaction to develop a new drug in chemistry

It isn't. And having reviewed all the literature, you know about how this process works, and you can tell me why I have a volume from the series Frontiers of Neurology and Neuroscience (no. 25): Clinical Trials in the Neurosciences and you can explain why two contributors are from the Center for Neurosciences (The Feinstein Institute for Medical Research), 2 from UCLA's Neuroscience dept., one from the University of Miami's Departments of Neurology and Psychology, one from the Neuroscience Institute QET5, one from the Neuroscience Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, and in general numerous PhDs in psychology related fields, multiple psychiatrists, and even a biophysicist, but not a single chemist?

And as long as we're dealing with new drugs, why is Stahl's Essential Psychopharmacology: Neuroscientific Basis and Practical Applications not written by a chemist but a psychiatrist who relies a great deal on psychological research?

Well, that's all psychopharmacology stuff. I mean, it's not like psychologists, neuroscientists, and similar scientists would be involved in other areas of human health:

Functional Neuroanatomy of Pain (vol. 184 of Advances in Anatomy Embryology and Cell Biology)

Memory research, placebo effects, pain management, sleep studies, recreational drug dependency, embryology, and so much more all come back to that thing called the brain because it controls just about everything and the people who study it are usually psychologists. Psychologists study plenty of other things, of course, but the cognitive- and neurosciences are at the heart of medical research from designing technology for those who are paralyzed to conducting studies on the ways in which placebo effects can vary depending on the clinical set-up itself.

or repeat a physics experiment to see if we can actually utilize a new compound in cars or engineer a new computer that can process data 4x faster than any other its size

That's engineering and computer scientists. Go look at what IEEE publishes. Or do some reading about the fields before you talk about them:

Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics
9th International Conference, EPCE 2011, Held as Part of HCI International 2011, Orlando, FL, USA, July 9-14, 2011, Proceedings
Series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 6781
Subseries: Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence

Electric, Hybrid, and Fuel-Cell Vehicles: Architectures and Modeling (IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, VOL. 59, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2010)

Gesture in Embodied Communication and Human Computer Interaction
8th International Gesture Workshop, GW 2009, Bielefeld, Germany, February 25-27, 2009 Revised Selected Papers
Series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5934
Subseries: Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence

Small-Scale and Large-Scale Routing in Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, VOL. 58, NO. 9, FEBRUARY 2010)

Yes all of those require far less guesswork and general interpretation than psychology. But if you want to go the route and take extreme examples from the most gray science areas then go for it.

I'd love to, seeing as you just described everything so completely inaccurately it would be interesting to hear what your rationale was.

The newtonian law of Gravity is a law because that is how it works.

That is not the theory of gravity. That is the law of gravity. Two different things.

What support do you have for this distinction other than your say-so?

The math works out and it describes the phenomenon. It does nothing to explain why the phenomenon happens. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Maybe it's because I've spent several years reading physics literature and all of the sudden someone comes up and explains that is called a theory and law interchangeably and that theory is wrong (and we know it is) somehow squares with this distinction your making.

The second however is providing a new hypothesis after a localized study about the banks and other financial institutions in Malaysia and then proposing it in the light of an already existing "Theory of Rational Expectations".

This is more ad hoc explaining and it is wrong. From wiki: "Rational expectations is a hypothesis in economics which states that agents' predictions of the future value of economically relevant variables are not systematically wrong in that all errors are random."

The authors of the study start their abstract with "The Rational Expectations Hypothesis (REH) states that the actual outcome will be identical to the optimal forecast when all obtainable information had been utilized in forming the expectations. This study intends to empirically examine the existence of rational behavior in the banks and other financial institutions in Malaysia..." REH is not "localized", it's even on Wikipedia. However, the authors are proposing a theory about REH. In other words, they are describing a localized theory about a generalized hypothesis.

I don't have to rationalize them. They already fit.

That's why we have a law and a theory of gravity, why you described every field so far incorrectly, and why your pronouncement about that all the hypotheses I referred to which weren't localized really were (and I linked you to a small portion of research on these hypotheses), and why you came up with an ad hoc explanation for why a paper entitled "Theory of rational expectations hypothesis" was not about an already existing theory, but about an already existing hypothesis (the REH), and the "theory" the authors proposed was about that hypothesis.

You are assuming arrogantly that I am making this imaginary parameters that I have not set.

I'm not assuming. You showed this. You have yet to back a single argument with anything other than ad hoc explanations, distinctions that apparently you are entitled to make because the fact that Newton's law of gravity is Newton's theory of gravity doesn't fit into you schema, and descriptions of fields like chemistry and physics which are almost entirely inaccurate.

But none of those theories would hold any ground at all if it wasn't based on significant evidence.

They aren't theories. That's like saying physics or calculus are theories. They happen to include the word, because sometimes that's how fields are named.

What mode; are you refrencing? The one I recanted or the made up one that you think I"m representing?

Take your pick. Hypotheses are carried out hundreds or thousands of times in one experiment or procedure or session in machine learning. Why? Because they don't use the word the same way that it is used in e.g., Rational Expectations Hypothesis or the other hypotheses I said were not local, nor are they using it in the way you define hypotheses.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You may think they are wrong but however you have to set up a case in which supports your position. What specific instances in the lab in which you worked countered it specifically?

Well, there was the reason we scrapped one experiment because we couldn’t the classification of certain verbs (action, interpersonal, and stative) turned out to be too difficult to fit the experiment. Which is surprising, considering I know that embodied cognitive scientists have done plenty of this and other types of experiments. See e.g.,

Feldman, 2006. From Molecule to Metaphor: A Neural Theory of Language. MIT Press

The edited volume Time to Speak: Cognitive and Neural Prerequisites for Time in Language, published as part of The Language Learning-Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics Cognitive Neuroscience Series (it’s filled with papers by specialists reviewing specific topics in this specific research area within cognitive linguistics which is a branch of cognitive science that has at its core embodied cognition)

Or there’s looking just at stative verbs of position:

Newman, J. (Ed.). (2002). The linguistics of sitting, standing and lying (Vol. 51 of Typological Studies in Language).

And probably the best example (given the author) is Pulvermüller, F. (2003). The neuroscience of language: on brain circuits of words and serial order. Cambridge University Press

Why is it the best? Because the director of my lab, during the seminar in which we were supposed to take apart the embodied cognition framework, Pulvermüller came up in more ways than one. First, the director of the lab, in a review he co-authored in 2008, went as far back as Pulvermüller’s 1991 study along with several others of his and just this past April the director co-authored another review in which he again covered Pulvermüller (mostly just his work in c. 2005) along with many other studies.


The seminar was designed to show that evidence which has been accumulating for over 30 years is all wrong. It’s not a theory. Theories don’t have journals devoted to them. They don’t have contributors from multiple backgrounds, including the entirety of the various approaches to language covered under cognitive linguistics, but also neuroscientists, cognitive psychologists, physicists, and more. They don’t have yearly conferences and multiple scientific societies. That’s what scientific fields have. Not theories.

Yet people like the director, Pinker, Chomsky, Jackendoff, Minsky, Barsalou, etc., aren’t convinced. Hundreds and hundreds of experiments of every kind you can do here, from neural network models to neuroimaging to corpus analyses, and yet the field is still divided. Only it is really a field, or even an interdisciplinary field. It is a set of interdisciplinary fields with a common interdisciplinary core.

So where is the hypothesis testing in all this? How does this factor in to your grade school scientific method?

How can we have volumes filled with studies the 2009 volume Human Centered Robot Systems: Cognition, Interaction, Technology (Vol. 6 of Cognitive Systems Monographs), monograph series in different fields (e.g., The Expression of Cognitive Categories), studies that have not only increased in frequency but also in the technological abilities provided by things like fMRI scans and statistical software packages all by people from linguists to physicists, cognitive psychologists to computational biologists, engineers to neuroscientists, and so on, always increasing and yet we still have this division?

But to add on to what you said it also functions as a resource to give words a universal meaning.

Words are by nature polysemous. The basic units of speech are constructions, not words.

It grants certain authorities within languages that cannot so easily be subverted without ample evidence.

Terrific. Then we need debate no longer because the most authoritative dictionary of the English language in existence has, as one of the definitions of theory:
"In loose or general sense: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion."

So, either your view on dictionaries is wrong, or your view on theories is wrong (I would argue both). You pick.

Bold claim to say that the general usage is not simply off the mark but dead wrong.

Do you know how general dictionaries are put together? Using corpus resources like these.

What I meant to post was that I do have more experience on the practical side of the scientific method.

In what field? And doing what experiments?

And theories of hypothesis testing is a different horse altogether and is not what we were talking about.

We're talking about definitions of theories and hypothesis and specifically your grade school version. There are theories about hypothesis testing. If there are theories, how does this not factor into a discussion on what a theory is?

Not really. Statistics is the gathering, analysis, prediction and presentation of data in general. Just about anything having to do with data is within the realm of statistics. Analytics however specifically focuses on finding meaningful patterns within data. It servers as a different function though is under a much larger umbrella.

Yeah. You should tell statisticians that. Especially those writing stuff like this:

K Fukunaga's Introduction to Statistical Pattern Recognition 2nd ed. (Academic Press)

BD Ripley's Spatial Statistics (Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics)

Krim, H., & Yezzi, A. J. (Eds.). (2006). Statistics and analysis of shapes. (Modeling and Simulation in Science, Engineering and Technology)

or any number of books, volumes, etc., written for and by statisticians which disagree with your definition.