209
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 15:
Line 15: + + − + − + − + − + − + − ** If the experiment does not support the hypothesis it is either rewritten or discarded+ − + + − One of the fundamental tenets of science is that no theory is absolute; theories are constantly changing in response to the observation of new evidence. Hence, a scientific theory that begins with an immutable conclusion and attempts to "fit the facts" to that argument does not fall within the realm of true scientific research.<ref>Examples would include the claims that God created the world and that all living things evolved from a common ancestor.</ref>+ − − When repeatable experiments for a phenomenon cannot be performed directly (e.g. the origins of the universe), scientists rely on devising experiments which simulate related or partial phenomena in order to build a supporting framework for an overall theory.
→Principles of science
Economist [[Milton Friedman]] said, "In all of science, progress comes through people proposing hypotheses which are subject to test and rejected and replaced by better hypotheses." [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/int_miltonfriedman.html#10]
Economist [[Milton Friedman]] said, "In all of science, progress comes through people proposing hypotheses which are subject to test and rejected and replaced by better hypotheses." [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/int_miltonfriedman.html#10]
The scientific method consists of two stages, theory formation and theory testing. In the early 20th Century the scientific method was commonly understood to follow the inductive procedure, whereby general statements are derived from a collection of singular observations. It was thought that through this method theories were constructed; a collection of observations led to the formation of a general theory to explain them. Secondly, at the testing stage, it was considered that a hypothesis could be verified through a collection of singular observations.
Karl Popper, considered by many to be the most important contributor to the philosophy of science in recent times, put forward a damning critique of induction, going so far is to claim that it did not exist. Popper argued that general theories cannot ever be conclusively verified by singular observations, but that such a theory could be conclusively falsified by such means.
The generally accepted scientific procedure is:
The consensus today is based in large part upon the work of Popper, although in general induction is believed to play a part. The modern view is that the scientific method employs both inductive and deductive methods and is characterised by the principle of falsification:
* Observations of an unknown phenomenon are made
* A theory is put forward (Popper argues that this is not inductive, but the consensus is that people are led to invent theories based upon previous observations)
* A hypothesis is made to explain the observations
* This theory is provisionally assumed to be true for the purposes of testing it.
* A experiment or experiments are carried out to test the hypothesis.
* Assuming the theory is true, we can logically follow it through to a specific and inevitable outcome, a prediction, which becomes the hypothesis. In order for the hypothesis to be considered scientific it must be falsifiable.
** If multiple experiments support the hypothesis it is considered a theory
* The hypothesis is repeatedly tested empirically.
* If the observations do not falsify the hypothesis then we accept the theory provisionally (note, we cannot say that it is now 'fact', nor that is has been 'proven')
* If at a later date evidence is produced which contradicts the theory, it is modified or discarded and a new hypothesis is developed
* If the observations do falsify the hypothesis then we reject it in its current form.
* The theory, or at least parts of it, can then be modified, or a new theory proposed, which takes us back to teh beginning of the process.
Since verification of general theories is logically impossible, science is not, as many believe, a body of accumlated 'facts', but rather a collection of theories that have yet to be falsified. Via falsification we can move closer and closer to the truth, but since verification is not possible, we can never know if we ever reach the goal of 'ultimate truth' itself.
==Naturalism and science==
==Naturalism and science==