Post by Maddad on Feb 16, 2005 21:19:40 GMT -6
Science is a process as opposed to a discovered fact. It starts with an observation that needs explaining. If your explanation is testable, meaning that you provide a means of disproving your explanation, then we call that explanation a hypothesis.
If we test the hypothesis and fail to disprove it, and the implications of the explanation are broad, encompassing more than just the data necessary to formulate it, then we call the hypothesis a theory. The more we try, and then fail, to disprove the theory, and the more broadly you are able to apply the theory, the stronger that theory becomes. You never prove it though; you just make it more and more solid.
You need to attempt to disprove a theory before you label it as solid. Without aggressive failed attempts to disprove the theory, you fall victim to the very non-scientific trap of confirmation. Karl Popper made a strong case for it in his 1963 paper at www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html . It is one of the great papers in science because it defines for us the difference between the process of science and that of pseudo-science.
If we test the hypothesis and fail to disprove it, and the implications of the explanation are broad, encompassing more than just the data necessary to formulate it, then we call the hypothesis a theory. The more we try, and then fail, to disprove the theory, and the more broadly you are able to apply the theory, the stronger that theory becomes. You never prove it though; you just make it more and more solid.
You need to attempt to disprove a theory before you label it as solid. Without aggressive failed attempts to disprove the theory, you fall victim to the very non-scientific trap of confirmation. Karl Popper made a strong case for it in his 1963 paper at www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html . It is one of the great papers in science because it defines for us the difference between the process of science and that of pseudo-science.
