Science is a METHOD for the acquisition of knowledge about the universe around us (reliable - thought not infallible). The minimum requirements was given in the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, 1981. Judge Overton found that science has four essential features:
QUOTE
1. It is guided by natural laws, and is explanatory by references to natural laws.
2. Science is testable against the empirical world.
3. Its conclusions are tentative, not the final word.
4. It is falsifiable.
2. Science is testable against the empirical world.
3. Its conclusions are tentative, not the final word.
4. It is falsifiable.
Scientific Method:
The main difference between the scientific method and other procedures for generating knowledge is that science says that YOU HAVE TO PROVE WHAT YOU CLAIM. The scientific method has a set procedure for going about this. It can be summarized in a series of steps:
1) Observation ( A series of observations is made and a phenomenon noted)
2) Form a falsifiable testable hypothesis to explain these observations. Deduce predictions from the hypothesis. These are phrased as statement in the form "if principle P is true, then event E should occur or fact F should be true."It MUST be "falsifiable" (The most crucial). That means a scientific hypothesis must have some feature about it that would allow someone (a careful experimenter or observer) to prove the hypothesis false if it is wrong.
3) Testing of the hypothesis (We must design an experiment or define a set of observations that we will take as proof that our theory is wrong. )
4) Adoption of the hypothesis or back to (2) if it fails the test(in which we admit that there is no evidence that our theory is correct.
We must notice:
i) These activities apply mostly to experimental sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry,...). But for Mathematics, the scientific methods involve logic, e.g., drawing inferences or deductions from hypotheses.
ii) Each element of scientific method is subject to peer review for possible mistakes. showing work to others increases the probability that weaknesses will be identified, and with advice and encouragement, fixed.
iii)Scientific method is iterative and recursive bcause scientists are constantly making new observations and testing via those observations, the four "steps" are actually practiced concurrently. New observations, although they were not predicted, should be explicable retrospectively by the hypothesis. New information, especially details of some process previously not understood, can impose new limits on the original hypothesis. Therefore, new information, in combination with an old hypothesis, frequently leads to new predictions that can be tested further.
iv) Scientific method does not aim to give an ultimate answer. Its iterative and recursive nature implies that it will never come to an end, so any answer it gives is provisional. Hence it cannot prove or verify anything in a strong sense. However, if a theory passed many experimental tests without being disproved, it is usually considered superior to any theory that has not yet been put to a test.
v) Scientific methods are impersonal. Any other scientist should be able to duplicate other scientist's work. When a person claims to measure or observe something by some purely subjective method, which others cannot duplicate, that person is not doing science. When scientists cannot duplicate the work of another scientist that is a clear sign that the scientist has erred either in design, methodology, observation, calculation, or calibration.
vi) If the predictions are not accessible by observation or experience, the hypothesis is not yet useful for the method, and must wait for others who might come afterward, and perhaps rekindle its line of reasoning.
vii) The "falsifiablity of a scientific hypothesis is important". Falsifiable does not mean false.
For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be at least in principle possible to make an observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that observation had not been made. For example, the proposition "All swans are white" would be falsified by observing one non-white swan.
The following is quoted from : " http://www.synapses.co.uk/evolve/lec1b.html
QUOTE
The "falsifiablity" seem a strange requirement but it is very important.
For example, I might make up the silly hypothesis that the Earth's core is made of chocolate. You would have a difficult time proving me wrong because you cannot visit the Earth's center in order to get a sample. For hundreds of years I could claim (unscientifically) that the Earth's core was chocolate and no one could prove me wrong.
You might be surprised to know that modern techniques in geophysics allow scientists to show that the Earth does not have a chocolate center. Measurements of the shock waves (produced by earthquakes) as they pass through the center of the Earth create a pattern that rules out a substance like chocolate. Indeed, the shock waves are more consistent with an Earth's core made of iron or nickel.
That means my silly hypothesis has actually become testable!
Think about that. My silly hypothesis was "unscientific" for hundreds of years but the 20th century science of geophysics progressed to the point that my hypotheses could actually be tested. That means 20th century technology made my silly hypothesis a scientific one. It's still silly but now it's testable and can be shown to be false. To put it another way, my silly hypothesis has been disproven by observations of shock waves using modern technology.
For example, I might make up the silly hypothesis that the Earth's core is made of chocolate. You would have a difficult time proving me wrong because you cannot visit the Earth's center in order to get a sample. For hundreds of years I could claim (unscientifically) that the Earth's core was chocolate and no one could prove me wrong.
You might be surprised to know that modern techniques in geophysics allow scientists to show that the Earth does not have a chocolate center. Measurements of the shock waves (produced by earthquakes) as they pass through the center of the Earth create a pattern that rules out a substance like chocolate. Indeed, the shock waves are more consistent with an Earth's core made of iron or nickel.
That means my silly hypothesis has actually become testable!
Think about that. My silly hypothesis was "unscientific" for hundreds of years but the 20th century science of geophysics progressed to the point that my hypotheses could actually be tested. That means 20th century technology made my silly hypothesis a scientific one. It's still silly but now it's testable and can be shown to be false. To put it another way, my silly hypothesis has been disproven by observations of shock waves using modern technology.
