Read on Twitter
I think we should start most papers with "How does Y change in response to X?" (or correlate with X) rather than "Does Y change in response to X?" Thanks for your Critique, @davidjglassMD (cc @Lester_Domes). Some quotes: https://academic.oup.com/clinchem/article/56/7/1080/5622360
"The way that science seems to be actually done productively is to first conduct an experiment in response to a question, rather than a hypothesis ... The answer to a question might be a set of data, and from these data the scientist can build a model. ...
A model differs from a hypothesis in several fundamental ways. First, it is data derived. Second, it can be explicitly tested for its predictive, or inductive, power. Third, it exists in a framework that accepts inductive reasoning. Fourth, it can be modified on the basis ...
of new data and not just falsified/rejected or affirmed/accepted in a purely binary manner. Finally, a model can be said to be correct within a probability range. It does not have to be absolutely correct, as long as the stated probability is verifiable."
