If the body of evidence fails to reject the hypothesis, the hypothesis stands. Experiments are then performed to test them. Initially, ideas and conjectures are formulated. A testable hypothesis is one that can be rejected (falsified) by empirical observations, a concept known as the principle of falsification. Research progresses via iterative empirical testing of formulated, testable hypotheses (formulated through inductive reasoning). The universally accepted scientific method, as it is used in science laboratories today, is grounded in hypothetico-deductive reasoning. In another example, if one never has seen a swan that is not white, they might conclude that all swans are white, even when we know that black swans do exist, however rare they may be. And this is where limited observations can lead to erroneous conclusions reasoned inductively. Referring back to cell theory, there may be rare occasions in which a cell does not arise from a pre-existing one, even though we haven’t observed it yet-our observations on cell behavior, although numerous, can still benefit from additional observations to either refute or support the conclusion that all cells arise from pre-existing ones. Inductive reasoning, however, is not immune to mistakes and limitations. The rationale behind this conclusion is that because all observations of cell behavior show that cells are only derived from other cells, this assertion must be always true. The inductive method was used, for example, by the scientist Rudolf Virchow to formulate the third principle of the notorious cell theory, according to which every cell derives from a pre-existing one. In essence, Bacon thought that inductive reasoning based on empirical observation was critical to the formulation of hypotheses and the generation of new understanding: general or universal principles describing how nature works are derived only from observations of recurring phenomena and data recorded from them. Philosophers Francis Bacon and René Descartes are often credited with formalizing the scientific method because they contrasted the idea that research should be guided by metaphysical pre-conceived concepts of the nature of reality-a position that, at the time, was highly supported by their colleagues. The scientific method has its roots in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. This is why the scientific framework should be conceived not only as a mechanism for understanding the natural world, but also as a framework for engaging in logical reasoning and discussion. Unconsciously, they could even end up selecting only the arguments that support their hypothesis or beliefs. They can lack the ability to self-estimate the quality of their performances and thoughts. People can easily overestimate the relevance of their own behaviors and choices. An example is represented by the so-called “ cognitive biases”-systematic mistakes that individuals make when they try to think rationally, and which lead to erroneous or inaccurate conclusions. Individuals without training in logical reasoning are more easily victims of distorted perspectives about themselves and the world. So why is it important, then, that every person understand how science is done?īecause the scientific method is, first of all, a matter of logical reasoning and only afterwards, a procedure to be applied in a laboratory. And this is a huge problem: science invites criticism because it is not easily understood. For people unfamiliar with its intrinsic jargon and formalities, science may seem esoteric. These data are validated on large-scale numbers and take into consideration the intrinsic variability of the real world. Working from hypotheses, scientists draw conclusions based on empirical data. The scientific method-the process used by scientists to understand the natural world-has the merit of investigating natural phenomena in a rigorous manner.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |