That is, given that all of the relevant background and auxiliaries are made explicit (represented in 'b'), if two scientists disagree significantly about the likelihoods of important evidence claims on a given hypothesis, they must understand the empirical content of that hypothesis quite differently.
If that can happen for support functions in a class that represent likelihoods for various scientists in the community, then the empirical contents of the hypotheses are either too vague or too much in dispute for meaningful empirical evaluation to occur.
According to this line of thought, how strongly a given collection of data supports a hypothesis is not wholly determined by the content of the data and the hypothesis.
For, likelihoods represent the empirical content of a hypothesis, what the hypothesis (together with background b) probabilistically implies about the evidence.
Brain MRI confirmed the lesion in the posterior compartment of the left cavernous sinus: its signal behaviour excluded both fatty and hemorrhagic content of the tumour, excluding the hypothesis of paramagnetic effect related to hemosiderin and blood degradation products.
Given a correctness relation, we can define the empirical content of a hypothesis H as the set of data streams on which H is correct.
We assessed the GC content of the CNVRs to test the hypothesis that CNVs are located in gene-poor regions (17, 18).
This analysis served as a means to verify the content of the literature model, as hypothesis predictions for a literature node can be taken as evidence that the particular proliferation-relevant mechanism(s) are operating in the context of known experimentally modulated cell proliferation.
This example led to the following comments: The kind, content, and number of the hypotheses are arbitrary.
Decisions were made on a consensus basis until there was agreement on the form, structure and content of the survey to fully investigate the hypothesis.
