DOCSLIB.ORG

A Gentle Reminder That a Hypothesis Is Never Proven Correct, Nor Is a Theory Ever Proven to Be True by Jacqueline Mclaughlin

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Gentle Reminder That a Hypothesis Is Never Proven Correct, Nor Is a Theory Ever Proven to Be True by Jacqueline Mclaughlin A Gentle Reminder that a Hypothesis is Never Proven Correct, nor is a Theory Ever Proven to Be True By Jacqueline McLaughlin onald French, president of the don’t always work in practice. Among ing why or how things happen. For Society of College Science some scientists, theories are thought to example, “global warming” refers to DTeachers, points out in his lack solid basis in the facts (Morrison the observation that worldwide tem- recent commentary on disclaimers in 2005, p. 39). peratures seem to be increasing. The science textbooks that science is typi- Yet, the scientific definition of “theory of global warming” refers to cally taught as a litany of terms and a theory is a logical self-consistent scientific work that attempts to explain facts using textbooks that do not stress model or framework for describing how and why this could be happening that the concepts presented in them are the behavior of a certain natural by measuring various factors such as actually theories—the best current ex- phenomenon that is supported by increased CO2 emissions in the atmo- planations supported by experimental considerable experimental evidence sphere, loss of rain forest productivy in evidence that scientists have to offer (www.wikipedia.org). tropical ecosystems, and ice sedimen- (2006). We teachers, therefore, have While most scientists try to rely tation in Antarctica and Greenland. created a huge misconception for on the dictionary definition of a scien- “Skeletal muscle contraction” refers to students and non-scientists who read tific theory, Thomas Lovejoy, environ- the observation that muscles shorten, and use textbooks. They have come mental scientist, author, and president as seen using microscopy, when myo- to believe that science is absolute and of the Heinz Center for Science, cytes or sarcomeres are stimulated. The not open to challenge. Worse still for Economics and the Environment, “sliding filament theory of skeletal the scientific community is the fact says that “theory is used in everyday muscle contraction” refers to the body that, in common speech, theory has English to mean hypothesis whereas of scientific experimental evidence that almost the opposite meaning from its in science it means something much explains how the proteins actin and use in the sciences. This change can stronger and just shy of a law (e.g., myosin—with the aid of other proteins be seen in modern dictionaries that Second Law of Thermodynamics). like troponin and tropomyosin, essen- now define theory as a guess or hunch Theory in science means a constantly tial ions like Ca2+, and molecules like in preference to the scientific defini- tested explanation of a broad variety ATP—in the sarcomere work to ‘slide’ tion. In everyday English, a theory is of facts and phenomena.” past one another to shorten the H-zone a hunch that a detective comes up with Richard B. Alley, an eminent and I-bands. No hunches here, just in a murder mystery. It is one of several scientist at Penn State University solid data from countless published competing ideas, none of them proved. known for his work in global warm- scientific experiments that continue to Fringe theories and conspiracy theories ing, states that “in contrast to most support the best explanation thus far. are crazy ideas that are out of the main- dictionary definitions, I believe that These two theories have passed the stream. New medicines or changes in theories necessarily involve narrative test of time, as have hundreds others the tax laws may be good in theory, but as well as explanation and prediction. like chemiosmosis as the basis of ATP So, you might define a theory as the synthesis, voltage-gated ion channels overarching narrative or ‘world view’ as the basis of the propagation of an Jacqueline McLaughlin ([email protected]) is that encompasses and makes sense of action potential along the membrane assistant professor of biology at the Pennsyl- vania State University, Lehigh Valley. She is the observations and successful pre- of a neuron, and microtubule depoly- also director of the professional development dictive tools in a field of study.” merization and protein motors at the program CHANCE (https://royercenter.cwc. A theory is not a hunch; it is the kinetochores to move chromosomes psu.edu/CHANCE). scientifically grounded way of explain- during anaphase. 60 JOURNAL of COLLEGE SCIENCE TEACHING These explanations remain as bi- Recently, I had the honor of judg- prove…” When they finished their ological theories and are the concepts ing a regional science fair, the Penn- presentations they smiled with pride that fill biological textbooks. Are you sylvania Junior Academy of Science at having given us, the judges, what wondering if you should purchase a (PJAS). I also had the honor of taking they thought was the most important new edition of your biology textbook? fifteen of my brightest undergradu- entity in science—positive results When one truly realizes that science ate biology majors to this event and that prove something. is in a state of perpetual flux, that having them act as judges. Several For the sake of my devotion to what’s in print today may be outdated of my college students were placed real scientific investigation I asked the tomorrow, this question won’t even together as judges, but most of them presenters if they truly felt they had cross your mind. Again, all of our were placed with judges from all over proven their hypothesis. When they current understanding of scientific our region—professionals working in replied ‘yes’ I proceeded to give my phenomena is theoretical and could be industry, academia, and health care. speech that no amount of experimental revised in a heartbeat if commendable It was a spectacular sight, seeing my evidence or testing can prove a hy- and repeatable evidence falsifies it and students all dressed up and acting pothesis beyond a shadow of a doubt. supports a new theory. like scientists, ready to use the core A hypothesis gains credibility from Colleagues, it is time to bring biological concepts and inquiry-based positive data that support it. If they honor and dignity back to the ‘history scientific methodology I had taught had supplied the scientific world with of scientific investigation’ that has pre- them. They were ready and eager to evidence or new knowledge to support vailed for centuries. We must act and act as role models and mentors, and their hypotheses then, with additional work together as professional educa- I was ready to embrace helping them supporting evidence from others doing tors to correct the misconceptions that and all the middle school presenters research on the same topic, a theory or a theory is a hunch, and that science is practice their scientific vocabulary. an integrated explanation of a number absolute. As Dr. French pointed out, You see, I had judged many science of hypotheses, may emerge. This re- one way is to have a disclaimer in our fairs before this one, and knew what minder doesn’t fall on deaf ears, as my textbooks that would make the under- was awaiting all of us. own students showed me at the end of pinnings of science explicit—that our I, along with three other judges, the day. They rushed to me with glee explanations are tentative and open to presided over eight of some of the to tell me that they’d had to explain challenge, that what’s in our textbooks brightest and motivated middle scientific theory to the middle school just happens to be the best theories school students I had ever interacted students they judged. The lesson for thus far, and that science is a process. with. Their experiments focused on the day was that in science we cannot Another way is this: listen to our stu- topics such as the effects of moisture explain anything with 100% accuracy; dents and non-scientist community and and temperature on fungal growth, our data either support or negate our gently remind them to be careful with the role pH plays on the decom- hypotheses. One is not better than the their words. This step also requires that position of soil, and the inhibitory other since from negative results we we become more cautious with our effects of preservatives on bread can actually learn more. own words. By using the appropriate mold growth. They were all elegantly In our present world, research sci- words when we speak about research prepared experiments that followed entists are fighting to reinforce to the in a public forum, we can correct the the “textbook” scientific method of non-scientific world that the “theory misconceptions that science is a done formulating a question, developing a of global warming” and the “theory of deal, and that a theory is a hunch. hypothesis, designing an experiment, evolution” (to name two hot-topic the- So what are the words that we determining the variables, present- ories) are not mere guesses or hunches, need to keep in mind? The hardest part ing and analyzing results, and then but explanations based on reliable data about understanding scientific theories interpreting the results. The last that should be taken seriously. Ideas or and hypotheses seems to be this: a hy- step, however, was the only one that hunches that are not grounded in scien- pothesis is never proven correct, nor is needed attention. Most students got tific evidence, like intelligent design, a theory ever proven to be true. Words to their conclusion section and stated, should not be associated with the word like prove, correct, and true should be “My hypothesis is correct because I theory. Scientists pride themselves removed from our vocabulary com- have proved that…” or even, “My on being able to present data that can pletely and immediately.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Greek and Latin Roots, Prefixes, and Suffixes
    GREEK AND LATIN ROOTS, PREFIXES, AND SUFFIXES This is a resource pack that I put together for myself to teach roots, prefixes, and suffixes as part of a separate vocabulary class (short weekly sessions). It is a combination of helpful resources that I have found on the web as well as some tips of my own (such as the simple lesson plan). Lesson Plan Ideas ........................................................................................................... 3 Simple Lesson Plan for Word Study: ........................................................................... 3 Lesson Plan Idea 2 ...................................................................................................... 3 Background Information .................................................................................................. 5 Why Study Word Roots, Prefixes, and Suffixes? ......................................................... 6 Latin and Greek Word Elements .............................................................................. 6 Latin Roots, Prefixes, and Suffixes .......................................................................... 6 Root, Prefix, and Suffix Lists ........................................................................................... 8 List 1: MEGA root list ................................................................................................... 9 List 2: Roots, Prefixes, and Suffixes .......................................................................... 32 List 3: Prefix List ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Principles of Scientific Inquiry
    Chapter 2 PRINCIPLES OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY Introduction This chapter provides a summary of the principles of scientific inquiry. The purpose is to explain terminology, and introduce concepts, which are explained more completely in later chapters. Much of the content has been based on explanations and examples given by Wilson (1). The Scientific Method Although most of us have heard, at some time in our careers, that research must be carried out according to “the scientific method”, there is no single, scientific method. The term is usually used to mean a systematic approach to solving a problem in science. Three types of investigation, or method, can be recognized: · The Observational Method · The Experimental (and quasi-experimental) Methods, and · The Survey Method. The observational method is most common in the natural sciences, especially in fields such as biology, geology and environmental science. It involves recording observations according to a plan, which prescribes what information to collect, where it should be sought, and how it should be recorded. In the observational method, the researcher does not control any of the variables. In fact, it is important that the research be carried out in such a manner that the investigations do not change the behaviour of what is being observed. Errors introduced as a result of observing a phenomenon are known as systematic errors because they apply to all observations. Once a valid statistical sample (see Chapter Four) of observations has been recorded, the researcher analyzes and interprets the data, and develops a theory or hypothesis, which explains the observations. The experimental method begins with a hypothesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Sacred Rhetorical Invention in the String Theory Movement
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Communication Studies Theses, Dissertations, and Student Research Communication Studies, Department of Spring 4-12-2011 Secular Salvation: Sacred Rhetorical Invention in the String Theory Movement Brent Yergensen University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/commstuddiss Part of the Speech and Rhetorical Studies Commons Yergensen, Brent, "Secular Salvation: Sacred Rhetorical Invention in the String Theory Movement" (2011). Communication Studies Theses, Dissertations, and Student Research. 6. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/commstuddiss/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Communication Studies, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Communication Studies Theses, Dissertations, and Student Research by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. SECULAR SALVATION: SACRED RHETORICAL INVENTION IN THE STRING THEORY MOVEMENT by Brent Yergensen A DISSERTATION Presented to the Faculty of The Graduate College at the University of Nebraska In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Major: Communication Studies Under the Supervision of Dr. Ronald Lee Lincoln, Nebraska April, 2011 ii SECULAR SALVATION: SACRED RHETORICAL INVENTION IN THE STRING THEORY MOVEMENT Brent Yergensen, Ph.D. University of Nebraska, 2011 Advisor: Ronald Lee String theory is argued by its proponents to be the Theory of Everything. It achieves this status in physics because it provides unification for contradictory laws of physics, namely quantum mechanics and general relativity. While based on advanced theoretical mathematics, its public discourse is growing in prevalence and its rhetorical power is leading to a scientific revolution, even among the public.
    [Show full text]
  • Hempel and Confirmation Theory
    Hempel and Confirmation Theory Jan Sprenger* June 15, 2020 Carl Gustav Hempel (1905–1997) was one of the primary exponents of logical empiricism. As a student and member of the Gesellschaft für em- pirische Philosophie in Berlin, alongside Reichenbach and Grelling, he wit- nessed the emergence of logical empiricism as a philosophical program. From the mid-1930s onwards, his contributions shaped its development, too. Hempel studied primarily in Göttingen and Berlin, but in 1929/30, he also spent a semester in Vienna studying with Carnap and partici- pated in the activities of the Vienna Circle. Both societies joined forces for organizing scientific events, and founded the journal Erkenntnis in 1930, where many seminal papers of logical empiricism were published, with Carnap and Reichenbach as editors. While the work of the Berlin philosophers is congenial to the project of the Vienna Circle, there are important differences, too. Neither Hempel nor his mentor Reichenbach identified “scientific philosophy” with the project of cleansing science of meaningless statements (e.g., Carnap 1930). Rather, Hempel extensively used a method that Carnap would apply in later works on probability and confirmation (Carnap 1950, 1952): expli- cation, that is, the replacement of a vague and imprecise pre-theoretical concept (e.g., “confirmation”) by a fruitful and precise concept (e.g., a formal confirmation criterion). Relying on the method of explication, Hempel developed adequacy conditions on a qualitative concept of con- firmation (Hempel 1943, 1945a,b), a probabilistic measure of degree of *Contact information: Center for Logic, Language and Cognition (LLC), Department of Philosophy and Education Sciences, Università degli Studi di Torino, Via Sant’Ottavio 20, 10124 Torino, Italy.
    [Show full text]
  • This Is Dr. Chumney. the Focus of This Lecture Is Hypothesis Testing –Both What It Is, How Hypothesis Tests Are Used, and How to Conduct Hypothesis Tests
    TRANSCRIPT: This is Dr. Chumney. The focus of this lecture is hypothesis testing –both what it is, how hypothesis tests are used, and how to conduct hypothesis tests. 1 TRANSCRIPT: In this lecture, we will talk about both theoretical and applied concepts related to hypothesis testing. 2 TRANSCRIPT: Let’s being the lecture with a summary of the logic process that underlies hypothesis testing. 3 TRANSCRIPT: It is often impossible or otherwise not feasible to collect data on every individual within a population. Therefore, researchers rely on samples to help answer questions about populations. Hypothesis testing is a statistical procedure that allows researchers to use sample data to draw inferences about the population of interest. Hypothesis testing is one of the most commonly used inferential procedures. Hypothesis testing will combine many of the concepts we have already covered, including z‐scores, probability, and the distribution of sample means. To conduct a hypothesis test, we first state a hypothesis about a population, predict the characteristics of a sample of that population (that is, we predict that a sample will be representative of the population), obtain a sample, then collect data from that sample and analyze the data to see if it is consistent with our hypotheses. 4 TRANSCRIPT: The process of hypothesis testing begins by stating a hypothesis about the unknown population. Actually we state two opposing hypotheses. The first hypothesis we state –the most important one –is the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis states that the treatment has no effect. In general the null hypothesis states that there is no change, no difference, no effect, and otherwise no relationship between the independent and dependent variables.
    [Show full text]
  • The Scientific Method: Hypothesis Testing and Experimental Design
    Appendix I The Scientific Method The study of science is different from other disciplines in many ways. Perhaps the most important aspect of “hard” science is its adherence to the principle of the scientific method: the posing of questions and the use of rigorous methods to answer those questions. I. Our Friend, the Null Hypothesis As a science major, you are probably no stranger to curiosity. It is the beginning of all scientific discovery. As you walk through the campus arboretum, you might wonder, “Why are trees green?” As you observe your peers in social groups at the cafeteria, you might ask yourself, “What subtle kinds of body language are those people using to communicate?” As you read an article about a new drug which promises to be an effective treatment for male pattern baldness, you think, “But how do they know it will work?” Asking such questions is the first step towards hypothesis formation. A scientific investigator does not begin the study of a biological phenomenon in a vacuum. If an investigator observes something interesting, s/he first asks a question about it, and then uses inductive reasoning (from the specific to the general) to generate an hypothesis based upon a logical set of expectations. To test the hypothesis, the investigator systematically collects data, either with field observations or a series of carefully designed experiments. By analyzing the data, the investigator uses deductive reasoning (from the general to the specific) to state a second hypothesis (it may be the same as or different from the original) about the observations.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Philosophy
    An Introduction to Philosophy W. Russ Payne Bellevue College Copyright (cc by nc 4.0) 2015 W. Russ Payne Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document with attribution under the terms of Creative Commons: Attribution Noncommercial 4.0 International or any later version of this license. A copy of the license is found at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ 1 Contents Introduction ………………………………………………. 3 Chapter 1: What Philosophy Is ………………………….. 5 Chapter 2: How to do Philosophy ………………….……. 11 Chapter 3: Ancient Philosophy ………………….………. 23 Chapter 4: Rationalism ………….………………….……. 38 Chapter 5: Empiricism …………………………………… 50 Chapter 6: Philosophy of Science ………………….…..… 58 Chapter 7: Philosophy of Mind …………………….……. 72 Chapter 8: Love and Happiness …………………….……. 79 Chapter 9: Meta Ethics …………………………………… 94 Chapter 10: Right Action ……………………...…………. 108 Chapter 11: Social Justice …………………………...…… 120 2 Introduction The goal of this text is to present philosophy to newcomers as a living discipline with historical roots. While a few early chapters are historically organized, my goal in the historical chapters is to trace a developmental progression of thought that introduces basic philosophical methods and frames issues that remain relevant today. Later chapters are topically organized. These include philosophy of science and philosophy of mind, areas where philosophy has shown dramatic recent progress. This text concludes with four chapters on ethics, broadly construed. I cover traditional theories of right action in the third of these. Students are first invited first to think about what is good for themselves and their relationships in a chapter of love and happiness. Next a few meta-ethical issues are considered; namely, whether they are moral truths and if so what makes them so.
    [Show full text]
  • Turns in the Evolution of the Problem of Induction*
    CARL G. HEMPEL TURNS IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM OF INDUCTION* 1. THE STANDARD CONCEPTION: INDUCTIVE "INFERENCE" Since the days of Hume's skeptical doubt, philosophical conceptions of the problem of induction and of ways in which it might be properly solved or dissolved have undergone a series of striking metamor- phoses. In my paper, I propose to examine some of those turnings, which seem to me to raise particularly important questions about the nature of empirical knowledge and especially scientific knowledge. Many, but by no means all, of the statements asserted by empirical science at a given time are accepted on the basis of previously established evidence sentences. Hume's skeptical doubt reflects the realization that most of those indirectly, or inferentially, accepted assertions rest on evidence that gives them no complete, no logically conclusive, support. This is, of course, the point of Hume's obser- vation that even if we have examined many occurrences of A and have found them all to be accompanied by B, it is quite conceivable, or logically possible, that some future occurrence of A might not be accompanied by B. Nor, we might add, does our evidence guarantee that past or present occurrences of A that we have not observed were- or are- accompanied by B, let alone that all occurrences ever of A are, without exception, accompanied by B. Yet, in our everyday pursuits as well as in scientific research we constantly rely on what I will call the method of inductive ac- ceptance, or MIA for short: we adopt beliefs, or expectations, about empirical matters on logically incomplete evidence, and we even base our actions on such beliefs- to the point of staking our lives on some of them.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Phil. 4400 Notes #1: the Problem of Induction I. Basic Concepts
    Phil. 4400 Notes #1: The problem of induction I. Basic concepts: The problem of induction: • Philosophical problem concerning the justification of induction. • Due to David Hume (1748). Induction: A form of reasoning in which a) the premises say something about a certain group of objects (typically, observed objects) b) the conclusion generalizes from the premises: says the same thing about a wider class of objects, or about further objects of the same kind (typically, the unobserved objects of the same kind). • Examples: All observed ravens so far have been The sun has risen every day for the last 300 black. years. So (probably) all ravens are black. So (probably) the sun will rise tomorrow. Non-demonstrative (non-deductive) reasoning: • Reasoning that is not deductive. • A form of reasoning in which the premises are supposed to render the conclusion more probable (but not to entail the conclusion). Cogent vs. Valid & Confirm vs. Entail : ‘Cogent’ arguments have premises that confirm (render probable) their conclusions. ‘Valid’ arguments have premises that entail their conclusions. The importance of induction: • All scientific knowledge, and almost all knowledge depends on induction. • The problem had a great influence on Popper and other philosophers of science. Inductive skepticism: Philosophical thesis that induction provides no justification for ( no reason to believe) its conclusions. II. An argument for inductive skepticism 1. There are (at most) 3 kinds of knowledge/justified belief: a. Observations b. A priori knowledge c. Conclusions based on induction 2. All inductive reasoning presupposes the “Inductive Principle” (a.k.a. the “uniformity principle”): “The course of nature is uniform”, “The future will resemble the past”, “Unobserved objects will probably be similar to observed objects” 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Hypothesis Versus Hyperthesis
    European Journal of Educational Sciences June 2014 edition Vol.1, No.2 HYPOTHESIS VERSUS HYPERTHESIS Abdul Mannan Baig, Senior Instructor, MBBS Naveed Ahmed Khan, Professor, BSc, MSc, PhD Aga Khan University, Pakistan Abstract A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, it needs to tested using scientific method(s). Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot be explained otherwise. A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon, until it is rigorously tested. In contrast, a scientific theory has undergone extensive testing and accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation. Here, the use of term ‘hyperthesis’ is introduced that highlights missing link between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory. It is believed that this term will be valuable in describing research that does not fit the scientific norm. Keywords: Scientific theory, hypothesis, hyperthesis Introduction Scientific explanations come at different levels, whether tackling a specific problem, or hypothesis by a single scientist, or by a community of scientists coming to agree on broad ideas over hundreds of individual experiments and studies resulting in a scientific theory. A hypothesis can be right or wrong, but a theory is supposed to be true based upon the scientific method. So, when a hypothesis has been verified to be true, it becomes a scientific theory. But is there anything in between? The precise definition of a hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In contrast, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven hypotheses.
    [Show full text]
  • Deconstructing Public Administration Empiricism
    Deconstructing Public Administration Empiricism A paper written for Anti-Essentialism in Public Administration a conference in Fort Lauderdale, Florida March 2 and 3, 2007 Larry S. Luton Graduate Program in Public Administration Eastern Washington University 668 N. Riverpoint Blvd., Suite A Spokane, WA 99202-1660 509/358-2247 voice 509/358-2267 fax [email protected] Deconstructing Public Administration Empiricism: Short Stories about Empirical Attempts to Study Significant Concepts and Measure Reality Larry S. Luton Eastern Washington University Like much social science empiricism, public administration empiricism at its best recognizes that it presents probabilistic truth claims rather than universalistic ones. In doing so, public administration empiricists are (to a degree) recognizing the tenuousness of their claim that their approach to research is better connected to reality than research that does not adhere to empiricist protocols. To say that one is 95% confident that an empirical model explains 25% of the variation being studied is not a very bold claim about understanding reality. They are also masking a more fundamental claim that they know an objective reality exists. The existence of an objective reality is the essential foundation upon which empiricism relies for its claim to provide a research approach that is superior to all others and, therefore, is in a position to set the standards to which all research should be held (King, Keohane, & Verba 1994; Brady & Collier, 2004). In one of the most direct expressions of this claim, Meier has stated “There is an objective reality” (Meier 2005, p. 664). In support of that claim, he referenced 28,000 infant deaths in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Induction, Deduction, and the Scientific Method
    INDUCTION, DEDUCTION, AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AN ECLECTIC OVERVIEW OF THE PRACTICE OF SCIENCE IRVING ROTHCHILD Emeritus Professor of Reproductive Biology Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine Cleveland, Ohio © 2006 by the Society for the Study of Reproduction, Inc. CONTENTS ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION 1 INDUCTION AND DEDUCTION 2 Etymology 2 Definitions 2 Induction 2 Deduction 3 THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD 3 BEING A SCIENTIST 4 Making Observations 4 Point of View 5 Asking the Right Question 6 Theorizing 6 The theory (or finding) that questions authority 7 Defending the controversial theory or finding 8 Eurekas 8 Experimentation 9 The failed experiment 9 Publishing 10 Statistics 10 Recognition 10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 10 REFERENCES 11 © 2006 by the Society for the Study of Reproduction, Inc. © 2006 by the Society for the Study of Reproduction, Inc. INDUCTION, DEDUCTION, AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AN ECLECTIC OVERVIEW OF THE PRACTICE OF SCIENCE IRVING ROTHCHILD* Emeritus Professor of Reproductive Biology Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine Cleveland, Ohio ABSTRACT: Science is a never-ending, always changing process through which we learn to know the material nature of the universe. Science does not deal with nonmaterial entities such as gods, for there is no way their existence can be either proved or disproved. No single, identifiable method applies to all branches of science; the only method, in fact, is whatever the scientist can use to find the solution to a problem. This includes induction, a form of logic that identifies similarities within a group of particulars, and deduction, a form of logic that identifies a particular by its resemblance to a set of accepted facts.
    [Show full text]