-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does Science Depend on Experimentation?
- Thread starter TTCUSM
- Start date
lunamoth
Will to love
Usually experimentation is part of the scientific method, but it does not always take the form of controlled experiments conducted in the lab or field. It can also include the measurement or other systematic observation and analysis of natural events over time, or space, including something like the amassed data of the fossil record.
I would say that observation, formulation of hypothesis, and then repeated testing and refining of that hypothesis are the heart of the scientific method.
I would say that observation, formulation of hypothesis, and then repeated testing and refining of that hypothesis are the heart of the scientific method.
I would say that science is dependent on observation. Experimentation is just one way of making observations.
What about Popper's notion that experiments cannot actually confirm, but only either disconfirm or collaborate? Would you say he was correct?
Noaidi
slow walker
Would 'collaborate' equate with 'confirm' to a degree?
(sorry - I'm answering a question with a question!)
In a limited sense, perhaps. Collaboration adds credibility to an hypothesis. The more experiments and other observations collaborate an hypothesis, the stronger it becomes. But there is always a chance some unknown factor has not been taken into account, so an hypothesis is -- strictly speaking -- never fully confirmed.
To "confirm" a theory would be something less than to "prove" it (not doable).
But I'd say Popper is absolutely correct about the alternatives of "disprove" or "corroborate".
Karl Popper be the man!
He's the one with the penguins....right?
Last edited:
Richard Feynman http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman had this to say:
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
There is some experimentation in Paleontology... mostly dealing closely with Taphonomy, genetics and so on. Paleontology is actually highly multidisciplinary, digging things out of the ground is only the start.
Experimental studies in Precambrian paleontology: Structural and chemical changes in blue-green algae during simulated fossilization in synthetic chert -- OEHLER 87 (1): 117 -- GSA Bulletin
Taphonomy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
wa:do
Experimental studies in Precambrian paleontology: Structural and chemical changes in blue-green algae during simulated fossilization in synthetic chert -- OEHLER 87 (1): 117 -- GSA Bulletin
Taphonomy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
wa:do
Yerda
Veteran Member
I haven't read any Popper or much philosophy of science, but I get the feeling that falsifiability is not a better approach than positivism. No matter how many times you get a negative result ad-hoc assumptions can preserve your hypothesis.
How do you get around that?
Photonic
Ad astra!
The best example was Steven Hawkings Famous mistake of saying this;
"Information is lost in a black hole."
He was later proven wrong. Thankfully.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Experimentation is really about supporting or disproving hypotheses...
Theories are built upon several well supported hypothesis/laws.
wa:do
Theories are built upon several well supported hypothesis/laws.
wa:do
gnostic
The Lost One
For science, experimentation is an important method of investigating, testing and observing.
Like painted wolf said, it is use to test the hypotheses. However, I think evidences are even more important. Experimentation is often use in control environment, so not every variables are known that could affect if it was in the real world environments.
Like painted wolf said, it is use to test the hypotheses. However, I think evidences are even more important. Experimentation is often use in control environment, so not every variables are known that could affect if it was in the real world environments.
