Scientific Methods
The Philosophy of Science |
| |
Science is not really the pursuit of truth. Rather, it seeks
to eliminate falsehoods. The truth is simply that which has not
yet been shown to be false. As we conduct experiments to test a hypothesisProposed explanations for an observation.,
we gather more and more evidence. If a test shows
that the hypothesis is incorrect, we discard or modify the hypothesis;
we eliminate a falsehood. If an experiment fails to show that
the hypothesis is incorrect, we can continue to run new tests.
As additional tests fail to eliminate a hypothesis, we gain more
and more confidence that the hypothesis is correct[#](Futuyma 1998).
Although science is a valuable tool for learning about the world around us,
it cannot provide certainty. Scientific research can approach proof, and scientists can
have immense confidence in their conclusions, but not certainty. There is always some
chance, however small, that your explanation (hypothesis)
is wrong or will need modification. Isaac Newton’s theory
of gravity was about as proved as ‘proved’ can get,
until Albert Einstein showed that the theory was inadequate to explain
gravity at cosmic scales[#](Einstein 1905).
So how can we learn anything if we can prove
nothing? The resolution to this seeming contradiction lies in
the philosophy and methodology of science.
|
| |
Illustration:
|
| |
If a succession of tests fails to show a hypothesis is wrong, at some point
we begin to accept an explanation (hypothesis)
as true. Even though the hypothesis hasn’t been proven,
there comes a point when sufficient evidence convinces us the
hypothesis is correct. Continued refusal becomes obstinacy, ignoring
evidence in favor of what ‘feels right’.
Of course, we must also strive to avoid accepting a hypothesis
that has not been adequately supported. A good scientist tries
to remain objectively skeptical
- at least to the extent that objectivity is possible.
Karl Popper noted that confirmations of a theory come easy if we look
only for confirmations[#](Popper 1963).
As a means to achieve objectivity in developing
and testing hypotheses, he proposed that theories can only be
considered scientific if they are falsifiable, or refutable, or
testable. OK, but what does
that mean?
It means that in order for a scientist to accept a theory, s/he
must first have an opportunity to show that it is wrong - to refute
it. If we can test it, we can evaluate it. But if we cannot test
a hypothesis, we have no grounds on which to accept or reject
it. All we would have is our intuition,
our feelings. Which is certainly not objective.
|
| |
 |
|
| |
|
|
 |
