A hypothesis is a testable explanation of an observed event. New data that contradicts a hypothesis may lead to a new scientific explanation. The hypothesis is changed. A good example of this is the atomic model. Sometimes scientists come up with different explanations for the same data. When new data is produced, an accepted scientific explanation or theory is not usually immediately overturned. And eventually that does happen: a new or modified theory is proposed that explains everything that the old theory explained plus other observations that didn't quite fit with the old theory.
When that new or modified theory is proposed to the scientific community, over a period of time it might take years , scientists come to understand the new theory, see why it is a superior explanation to the old theory, and eventually, accept the new theory.
However, occasionally, special interest groups try to misrepresent a non-scientific idea, which meets none of these standards, as inspiring scientific controversy.
To learn to identify these false controversies, visit: What controversy: Is a controversy misrepresented or blown out of proportion?
Accepted theories may be modified or overturned as new evidence and perspective emerges. Scientists are likely to accept a new or modified theory if it explains everything the old theory did and more. The process of theory change may take time and involve controversy, but eventually the scientific explanation that is more accurate will be accepted.
Misconception: Scientific ideas are absolute and unchanging. Misconception: Because scientific ideas are tentative and subject to change, they can't be trusted. Example: When Gregor Mendel in studied the pattern of single trait inheritance of garden peas he formed a hypothesis on the manner of how these traits were inherited. The hypothesis he formed based on his observations included the following:.
To scientists, a theory is a coherent explanation for a large number of facts and observations about the natural world. In popular use, a theory is often assumed to imply mere speculation, but in science, something is not called a theory until it has been confirmed over many independent experiments. Theories are more certain than hypotheses, but less certain than laws. The procedures and processes for testing a theory are well-defined within each scientific discipline.
Example: Between and Mendel cultivated and tested some 28, pea plants which brought forth two theories of how character traits are inherited. Ironically, when Mendel's paper was published on , it had little impact. It wasn't until the early 20th century that the enormity of his ideas was realized.
A scientific law is a description of a natural phenomenon or principle that invariably holds true under specific conditions and will occur under certain circumstances. Example: In the early 20th century, after repeated tests and rejection of all competing theories Mendel's Laws of Heredity were accepted by the general scientific community.
A key assumption of the foregoing argument is that there is a strong connection between the amount of scientific work as measured by the number of journal articles and the degree of success of the best scientific theories.
This might well be a sign of maturity of current science but, as it stands, it does not show that the present theoretical paradigm is not subject to radical change.
The correlation between increased scientific work and scientific progress, which is assumed by Fahrbach may not be strong enough:. It seems more plausible to expect decreasing marginal revenues of scientific work since it usually takes much less time to establish very basic results than to make progress in a very advanced state of science. Imagine that we are back in and we look at the period between and Or imagine that we are further back in and look at the theories of the period — We could run the same argument about those theories, viz, that they are likely to survive theory change.
But if we look at the historical pattern , they did not survive; nor did the theories between — By the same token, we should not expect current theories to survive theory-change. Is there room for defending an epistemic privilege for current science? Two points are worth making. If there is an epistemic privilege of current science in relation to past science, it is not a matter of quantity but of quality.
The issue is not specifying how likely it is that an arbitrary current theory T be true, given the evidence of the past record of science. The issue, instead, is how a specific scientific theory—a real theory that describes and explains certain well-founded worldly phenomena—is supported by the evidence there is for it.
If we look at the matter from this perspective, we should look at case-histories and not at the history of science at large. The evidence there is for specific theory T e. The reason is that there is local epistemic privilege, that is, privilege over past relevant theories concerning first-order evidence and specific methods. The second point is this. But this kind of argument is open to the following criticism. It assumes, as it were, unit-homogeneity, viz.
Only on this assumption can it be argued that at no time can scientists claim that their theories are not subject to radical change. For if there are senses in which subsequent theories are closer to the truth than their predecessors, it is not equally likely that they will be overturned as their predecessors were. But this is odd. It totally ignores the fact that all available evidence renders GTR closer to the truth than the simply false Aristotelian theory.
In other words, that GTR has substantial truth-content makes it less likely to be radically revised in the future. An analogous point was made by Park This view entails that the more theories have been discarded before T is discarded, the more justified we are in thinking that T is likely to be discarded. However, it is also the case that based on their greater success, we are more justified to take newer theories to be more likely to be truthlike than older ones.
We then reach a paradoxical situation: we are justified to take newer theories to be both more probable than older ones and more likely to be abandoned than older ones. If an inductive rendering of historical pessimism fails, would a deductive rendering fare better? Could PI be considered at least as a valid deductive argument?
Wray 65 interprets the original argument by Laudan as being deductive. And he notes. But if this is the intent of the argument, history plays no role in it. All that is needed is a single counterexample, past or present. This, it should be noted, is an endemic problem with all attempts to render PI as a deductive argument. He adds:. Even just one counterexample as long as it is not explained away undermines the claim that truth is the best explanation for the success of theories as it calls into question the explanatory connection in general.
Thus put, the history of past failures plays no role in PI. Any counterexample, even one concerning a current theory, will do. How is it best to understand the realist theses that the history of science is supposed to undermine? Mizrahi notes that the realist claim is not meant to be a universal statement. As he puts it:. Success may be a reliable indicator of approximate truth, but this is compatible with some instances of successful theories that turn out not to be approximately true.
In other words, that a theory is successful is a reason to believe that it is approximately true, but it is not a conclusive proof that the theory is approximately true. The relation between success and approximate truth, in this sense, is more like the relation between flying and being a bird: flying characterizes birds even if kiwis do not fly.
If this is so, then there is need for more than one counter-example for the realist thesis to be undermined. A recent attempt to render PI as a deductive argument is by Timothy Lyons.
He then reconstructs PI thus:. But in his argument the history of science plays no role. All that is needed for the argument above to be sound is a single instance of a successful theory that is not true. Lyons b: In any case, a critical question is: can some false-but-rigorously-empirically-successful theories justifiably be deemed truthlike from the point of view of successor theories?
This question is hard to answer without looking at actual cases in the history of science. The general point, made by Vickers is that it is not enough for the challenger of realism to identify some components of past theories which were contributing to their successes such that they were not retained in subsequent theories.
More generally, the search for a generic form of the pessimistic X -duction In-duction or De-duction has yielded the following problem: If the argument is inductive, it is at best weak. If the argument is deductive, even if it is taken to be sound, it makes the role of the history of science irrelevant. But the new induction is effective, if at all, only in tandem with PI. When it comes to the realist commitment to theories, the proper philosophical task is to ignore neither the first order scientific evidence that there is for a given theory nor the lessons that can be learned from the history of science.
Rather, the task is to balance the first-order and the second order of evidence. The first-order evidence is typically associated with whatever scientists take into account when they form an epistemic attitude towards a theory.
It can be broadly understood to include some of the theoretical virtues of the theory at hand—of the kind that typically go into plausibility judgments associated with assignment of prior probability to theories.
It concerns not particular scientific theories, but science as a whole. This second-order evidence feeds claims such as those that motivate PI or the New Induction. Actually, this second-order evidence is multi-faceted—it is negative showing limitations and shortcomings as well as positive showing how learning from experience can be improved.
Thanks are also due to the Editors of SEP and various anonymous reviewers for their encouragement and suggestions. The History of the Historical Challenge 1. Scientific Realism and the Pessimistic Induction 2.
The reply was: We will say to savants, philosophers and physicists, physicians, chemists, astronomers or geologists: Go forward boldly, without looking behind you, without caring for the consequences, reasonable or absurd, that can be drawn from your work.
Richet referred to a few remarkable cases, the most striking of which is the case of Jean Louis Prevost and Jean Baptiste Dumas, who had written in The pointlessness of our attempts to isolate the colouring matter of the blood gives us almost the certainty that one will never be able to find it. He described the challenge thus: The people of world [ les gens du monde ] are struck to see how ephemeral scientific theories are. As he put it: frequently opinions which are held in the highest esteem have been supplanted within a very short space of time by totally different theories; nay, even as St.
According to this principle: our own scientific theories are held to be as much subject to radical conceptual change as past theories are seen to be. Scientific realism is committed to the two following theses: theories are true or false in virtue of how the world is, and the point of the scientific enterprise is to discover explanatory truths about the world.
And he added: Indeed, there is inductive support for a pessimistic induction: any theory will be discovered to be false within, say years of being propounded. This argument may be put thus: L The history of science is full of theories which had been empirically successful for long periods of time and yet were shown to be false about the deep-structure claims they had made about the world.
It is similarly full of theoretical terms featuring in successful theories which do not refer. Therefore, by a simple meta induction on scientific theories, our current successful theories are likely to be false. List of successful-yet-false theories the crystalline spheres of ancient and medieval astronomy the humoral theory of medicine the effluvial theory of static electricity catastrophist geology, with its commitment to a universal Noachian deluge the phlogiston theory of chemistry the caloric theory of heat the vibratory theory of heat the vital force theory of physiology the theory of circular inertia theories of spontaneous generation the contact-action gravitational ether of Fatio and LeSage the optical ether the electromagnetic ether This is a list of a dozen of cases, but Laudan boldly noted the famous 6 to 1 ratio: I daresay that for every highly successful theory in the past of science which we now believe to be a genuinely referring theory, one could find half a dozen once successful theories which we now regard as substantially non-referring.
I There has been a plethora of theories ratio 6 to 1 which were successful and yet not truthlike. Therefore, it is highly probable that current theories will not be truthlike despite their success.
B If currently successful theories are truthlike, then past theories are not. C These characteristically false past theories were, nonetheless, empirically successful. He says: PI can … be described as a two-step worry.
0コメント