Jump to content

How are scientific theories produced


Effie
 Share

Recommended Posts

First of all, I think it's wonderful that people focus their efforts on creating theories regarding various subjects and spend time discussing about them with other people . Nevertheless, I have a qustion to pose: every day we produce several theories during our effort to understand the universe that surrounds

us. Depending on our studies and our interests we elaborate on specific topics, trying to reveal some of the mysteries that "provoke"our mind. But does anyone know (and can tell the rest of us) HOW are theories produced? Many philosophers have tried to answer this question, but the answers that they have given have left me unsatisfied. Production of theories has been attributed to immagination, logics, accumulation of evidence, etc., but no one has EVER provided the scientific community with an accurate, precise mechanism. How can we evaluate whether a theory is right or wrong,complete or incomplete, if we don't even know how it was produced? How can we expect science as a whole to create well- founded opinions (theories) if there is no established mechanism? In order to produce any kind of product (theories are one of the intellectual- mental product) a well established procedure is essential. Otherwise, when the procedure is not known, the theoretical activity is empiric and NOT scientific. I agree that on one hand we do know how to produce theories ,given the infinite number of theories that have been produced during the history of science. On the other hand, how can we explain the fact that no one has expressed at least a rudimentary method? Is it enough for scientists to produce theories without realizing how they manage to do it or should focus our efforts on trying to solve this problem? I simply remind you that many theories , some of which were considered equivalent to scientific knowledge, have been proved wrong or inadequate, despite the fact that they were accepted by the entire scientific community. Is there any chance that such loss of time would have been avoided if we knew how theories are produced and evaluated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can we evaluate whether a theory is right or wrong,complete or incomplete, if we don't even know how it was produced?

 

How the theory was produced has absolutely no bearing on the question. Whether a theory is "wrong, complete or incomplete" is purely a matter of whether or not it makes predictions, and what the experimental outcome of testing these predictions is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One could just as well ask; What causes thoughts or language or music? It is the desire to explain and bring to order the world around us. Beyond that you are delving into the natures of consciousness and intelligence, areas science still seems to have contentious debate over. How would one go about definitively showing where any cognitive process begins?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Effie,

 

It's like you are asking for the one absolute way that moussaka is prepared. As already mentioned above, there is no such singular path. While there are usually similarities in the final output, the route that each person takes to arrive there are very unique, dependent upon local circumstances and context, and subjective to the various states of mind within each theorist.

 

 

 

npts2020 - While there may be something more "ethereal" prior to these, we can very closely approximate where cognitive processes begin via the recording of chemoelectrical signals and blood flow, and simply looking at neural activity... It basically goes from a mostly dormant brain region to one which is lit up when viewed with various scanning techniques.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can we expect science as a whole to create well- founded opinions (theories) if there is no established mechanism?

 

Your questions involve the history of science, the way the scientific community operates or has operated in the past, the role of ethics, and the individual creative process that iNow and npts mentioned.

 

Interesting bunch of questions.

 

there is an ethical principle, or tradition in the community, that theories should make definite predictions and thus be testable. Severian pointed this out.

Theoretical work is expected to lead to testability. If what the theory predicts is'nt observed, the theory eventually gets discarded or modified. A sterile theory that never succeeds in making definite predictions is eventually discarded (if we are doing science).

 

Only the community, acting in reasonable good faith, and holding true to its traditions, can enforce such norms. There is no mechanical method for doing science. It is something that has evolved in human culture mostly since around 1610---Galileo, Kepler, Bacon.

 

It is a living tradition and it could die someday. A political or religious movement could overwhelm the practice of doubt, testing, the demand for predictivity, and the reliance on evidence.

 

The community ethos, within which competing laws and explanations evolve, is as important as the creative individual. Science as we know it cannot exist without a scientific community.

 

Scientific theories are not, as you called them, opinions. A physical law does not ask to be believed. It is meant to be used to make predictions about the outcome of observation and experiment. And, if possible, it is to be empirically refuted and replaced. Laws exist to be replaced by better laws. The people who invent them, use them, and test them do never once have to believe them. They can reserve judgment entirely, if they choose.

 

But the philosophy of science, and the history of science are regions of opinion. Indeed they are not science, they are about science. And what I have just said is my opinion :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Martin:

There is no mechanical method for doing science

 

Mechanical or not, there should be a method! Otherwise science couldn't produce so many theories!! Besides that, you must have observed that scientists that share the same traditions (Kuhn calls it paradigm) seem to produce theories on the same pattern- that cannot be coincidental! ;)

 

"Scientific theories are not, as you called them, opinions"

 

I insist they are :) Don't get puzzled by the fact that they contain data. The final outcome is an uncertain opinion, which has to be tested. After all, theories are our means to approach the un-known, they cannot be considered equal with scientific knowledge, simply because they can be prove wrong. They become scientific knowledge only after being theoretically and experimentally verified!

 

"A physical law does not ask to be believed"

 

Nature doesn't need our äpproval", tht's for certain. However, there are many examples during the history of science that demonstrate that scientists have believed in theories that were proved wrong in the end...Unortunately our self confidence about our beliefs and our mental activity is so high that sometimes doesn't let us suspect that we may be wrong and that universe is much more complex tan we believe :)

 

"But the philosophy of science, and the history of science are regions of opinion. Indeed they are not science, they are about science. And what I have just said is my opinion"

 

I laughed with this one, really clever :)

 

 

To Now

 

“As already mentioned above, there is no such singular path”

 

You suggest that there are multiple paths… I am only asking for one. Can you provide it?

I think that more or less we all produce our theoretical products in the same general way… Soon I will post my suggestion on this matter, I think that If you read it you will realize that it is very common and we use it all the time, that’s why it still remains unknown  Gravity was always at the tip of our nose, but only Newton managed to reveal its presence!

 

 

To npts2020

 

“How would one go about definitively showing where any cognitive process begins?”

 

If we do not try it, we won’t be able to tell if we could do it or not!

 

To Severian

 

“How the theory was produced has absolutely no bearing on the question.”

 

But I think that is exactly the point  A scientist should know exactly what he is doing. He has to fix a standard procedure and control every step he takes, otherwise he cannot be sure of the result he will produce and might lose precious time trying to verify an illfounded theory!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mechanical or not, there should be a method!

Why? Developing theories (actually, hypotheses) is inherently a creative process. While the scientific method does proscribe a methodology for evaluating hypotheses, it doesn't proscribe a methodology for creating them. Good thing, that, or otherwise science would not be able to produce many theories.

Otherwise science couldn't produce so many theories!!

It is the lack of a proscribed methodology that enables science to "produce so many theories". While creativity is not something that can be taught, it certainly is something that can be recognized. What science has is a method for recognizing and encouraging creativity. Mandating a process stifles creativity. Management in most institutions (corporate, academic, and government) succeeds in stifling creativity with mandated processes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I create a lot of theories, so I am familiar with the inception process. The process begins with some basic understanding through education and data observation. The imagination sort of organizes this into a new relationship. This is the basic idea or theory. The next step is to to see if other similar observations also correlate to see how far the theory can extrapolate.

 

Depending how far you extrapolate, the theory continues to work, or the imagination modifies the existing theory, or forms an entirely new idea. The best ideas are the simplest with the widest range of application. Complex is more impressive but it means fudge factors. In my case, if it gets too fancy another simplicity will be the goal.

 

With the basic idea in hand, this brings us to the more common interface step, where you need to present the idea in a way that interfaces the protocol of science or knowledge. The easiest is with direct experiment. The difficulty is getting resources. The harder way is with logic, but this is cheaper. Direct experiment can use statistics so it doesn't have the same strict requirements of logic. With just logic, any good counter argument can invalidate the theory. With statistics you get a free handful of exceptions without adverse impact on the theory.

 

The inception process can also be used to reverse engineer existing theories to make sure they are conceptually sound. But often the protocol interface is what is considered important. This allow theories without sound conceptual footing to be called valid science since they satisfy the protocol. This is the reason mutually exclusive is allowed to exist at the same time. The front end does not have to be fully functional at the conceptual level. The idea goes into the interface production process immediately, with the interface becoming the deciding factor.

 

Conceptually, the theory of a statistical or random reality, putting aside right or wrong, does not affect the interface, since there is good math and experimental correlation protocol to make this theory possible. Where the impact is, is at the inception stage. There is no logical requirement at the foundation of new theory. As long as you can generate an interface it doesn't matter.

 

It is important to better define the science requirements of the inception process. What I believe is the theory, before we build the interface, should be conceptually sound. Sometimes you need to go further back into time to make sure fuzzy is not the premise for further theory, so later theory then looks sound. The interface should be dessert and not meat and potatoes. Once you build a good interface and invest a lot of resources, you can get a nice house sitting on sand. Mutually exclusive, is where we build a bunch of houses, with most on sand, until sag becomes obvious to sort them out. If you have enough resources, you can continue to repair and avoid the appearance of conceptual sag. If they are supported long enough they can become the premises for further theory.

 

There is an conceptual trick that satisfies the interface protocol. It has to do with some tricks math can do. I am not saying math is suspect, just math is based on logic and is only as good as the premises. Math can create closed logic loops that look real due to math protocol but are actually conceptual illusions better seen at the inception stage.

 

Let me give an example using art. There is an artwork called the stairway to nowhere. It is plotted in 2-D, plane of cause and affect, but gives a 3-D image where if we climb the stairway, it always appears to go up. It is a special affect with art, that looks real but can not exist in reality. Say we added an x,y axis and plotted this drawing. Now it is analogous to a complex geometrical figure plotted on an axis. If we can discover the set of equations to define those data points, we have a closed math loop.

 

Next, we give these equations to someone not familiar with the original assumptions built into the art, and ask them to plot these on a new piece of paper. The math now creates the affect this is real, because the math is sound, even if it defies common sense. The person might then tell us, don't depend on your common sense. With better inception skills the math never would have been added, but once it is, it can still satisfy protocol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt what pioneer creates are theories, but mealy ideas :P

 

Effie, in science, theory has a very specific meaning, especially physics. You appear to think that a scientific theory is just an idea of something? Would this be a fair assumption of your belief or would you like to state your definition more clearly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I think that is exactly the point  A scientist should know exactly what he is doing.

This is so very wrong. It unfortunately is also the view of many in Congress and elsewhere who fund research in science. Here's what some notable scientists have to say about research:

That's the nature of research--you don't know what in hell you're doing.
If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!', but 'That's funny...'
I never came upon any of my discoveries through the process of rational thinking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are several fallacies in your opening post.

every day we produce several theories during our effort to understand the universe that surrounds us.
No, we don't. (I assume by 'we' you mean working scientists, representing the rest of us.) Working scientists spend their time testing, modifying and elaborating, and confirming existing theories. They very occassionaly disprove an existing theory or introduce a new one.
Production of theories has been attributed to immagination, logics, accumulation of evidence, etc., but no one has EVER provided the scientific community with an accurate, precise mechanism.
While this is true, you completely miss the point. There is no accurate, precise mechanism by which theories are produced. And the mechanisms do involve, to varying degrees imagination, logic, accumulation of evidence, blind luck, combination of contrasting ideas, combination of similar ideas in novel ways, etc.
How can we expect science as a whole to create well- founded opinions (theories)
An opinion and a theory are a Universe apart. A theory may have begun life as an idea, a suspicion, but before it transforms into a theory it will have been tried and tested by many hands and minds in many ways and will have come throught that testing changed, but unscathed.
Otherwise, when the procedure is not known, the theoretical activity is empiric and NOT scientific.
Not so. The testing of the idea is where the science comes in. The way the idea that forms the basis of the theory emerges is incidental.

 

Is it enough for scientists to produce theories without realizing how they manage to do it or should focus our efforts on trying to solve this problem?
We know how theories are developed from ideas. We know exactly how this is done. This is the scientific method.
I simply remind you that many theories , some of which were considered equivalent to scientific knowledge, have been proved wrong or inadequate, despite the fact that they were accepted by the entire scientific community.
That is how science works. All findings are provisional. Nothing is proven, only disproven.

 

I echo DH's remarks/question. I think you have an incorrect notion of what a theory is. What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before presenting my proposal, I would like to underline that following standard steps (procedure) does NOT undermine theoretical creativity. On the contrary, it enhances it, as knowledge always broadens our horizons and not the opposite. Imagination, intuition and all the other mental attributes are important, but when it comes to theoretical activity, they are zeros. Specific scientific knowledge is 1, which with the zeros forms the million. Every positive attribute is essential to this activity, but knowledge is fundamental: it is the basis that supports all the others. In order to understand the above, try to imagine a gifted, creative artist trying to produce theories for physics. Do you think that his imagination would help him?  Don’t be afraid that a “constitution” of the theoretical procedure will limit our inspiration. Think of it as the procedure you followed until you learnt how to drive: you were forced to follow specific steps, guided by your instructor, but now that you are experienced drivers, you can take your car and move to the other side of the earth. Similarly, if you learn step by step how to produce theories, you can use your knowledge in every matter that bothers you- the sky is the limit  Remember also that discipline is a synonym for freedom. On the other hand, uncontrolled liberty is a synonym for slavery!!!

 

 

 

First, I must define term “theory”. Theory is an intellectual- theoretical product that as afar as its structure is concerned consists of data and hypothesis. As an entity belongs to the sphere of opinions, as it combines known (data) with the un- known (hypothesis). A total that consists only of data is not a theory – it is a review of bibliography  On the other hand, a bunch of hypothesis cannot be named theory. It is just an ill-founded opinion. A theory, in order to “take a look of the unknown” must be very well founded on data. In science, theories represent the answers we give to the questions that bother us. In other words, they reflect our effort to interpret nature (By “nature”, I mean all the elements that compose universe, all things that are studied by a science; I don’t refer only to the nature that physicists study.

As a product, it is produced in general with the same method/ procedure that is used in every productive activity. In order to produce any kind of product (from the most simple to the most complex one) we need:

1. Raw material

2. Productive means

3. Procedure

4. Specialization, which permits to choose the appropriate material, means and procedure

5. Objective criteria to evaluate all of the above, as well as the final product.

 

A baker, for example, needs flour, water and yeast (raw material), mixer and oven (means) and kneading and baking (procedure). What’s more, he needs to know how to choose the suitable material and means and follow correctly the right procedure. Possible mistake in any of the above ruins the final product (10 excessive minutes of baking produce coal, not bread  )

When it comes to theories,

1. Raw material are the data which derive from laboratory research, field observations etc.

2. Productive means are the specialized knowledge and the respective opinions of the producer, which is known as his “scientific perception”. Scientific perception is the total of knowledge and opinions a scientist has regarding his object of interest, e.g. astronomy. These are the only means that can be used in the theoretical activity- there is no room for other machines, technological equipment etc. It is obvious that theoretical process is 100% intellectual or mental, thus the only “tool” that can be used is perceptions, and most specifically scientific perception. ( I could write about how scientific perception is produced, but that would be a little bit disorientating)

3. Procedure

(I would like to underline that in every phase I use examples regarding the same science in order to add coherence to my words- it is not a sample of bitterness. I simply use examples from a science I am familiar with.).

 

Phase 1.

 

During the first phase of the procedure, the scientists shapes a general mental picture of the phenomena that he studies. In other words, he conceives a general approach of his subject, he begins to represent the unknown with known terms. E.g. A biologists that begins the effort to interpret a biologic phenomenon, (cell differentiation for example), before anything else has a general notion of how I is completed.

The quality of the general mental picture he will conceive is directly proportional to the quality of his basic truth. Basic truth is a very general opinion about that represents the basic elements that compose the object he studies and the way they participate to the function of the total. Basic truth is a synonym for axioms, doctrines etc, or for what Kuhn called “paradigm” and Lakatos called “research program”. I must not extend to this matter, I will only mention that usually the majority of the scientific community shares the same basic truth- it is a question of uniformity, cohesion and effectiveness, but sometimes its contribution is suspensive (but that is a completely different issue). E.g. Basic truth of molecular biology claims that cells consist only of molecules and that molecules’ function is enough to interpret all of the activities of the cell. Therefore, a molecular biologist that will try to interpret cells differentiation for example will form a general mental picture in which only molecules are included. E.g.2 The man (I do not know who he is) that created the current theory for the shape of the earth, first observed a phenomenon (a sailboat “sinking” in the horizon) and assumed that earth wasn’t flat but round. Due to his adequate basic truth, he was able to explain the phenomenon of the sinking and, using other data (clues) he managed to create a compatible theory regarding earth’s shape. All the scientists before him couldn’t produce adequate theories because their basic truth was inadequate. The same happened with Newton (I cannot analyze this now), who , by explaining the fall of objects enriched predominant basic truth about nature- until then scientists strongly believed that universe was made only of matter, and they tried to interpret all physical phenomena attributing them to the interactions of matter. Gravity for example was firstly interpreted as a natural tendency of matter to return to is natural residence (centre of the earth).

After forming his mental picture, the scientist will start to enrich it by adding his knowledge and opinions on the matter. The final outcome of this procedure is the “reconstitution model”, which will be his guide through out all the next phases. At this point the procedure resembles at the formation of an architectural design- an architect firstly conceives mentally how his building wants to be (general mental picture), and then gradually adds all the details, until he completes his model.

Substantially, in this phase the scientific perception (total of knowledge and opinions) transforms into model, which is the factor which determines the outcome of all the phases that come next.

It is evident that the quality of the model depends on the quality of the general mental picture, whose quality depends on the quality of the basic truth. What’s more, elements that are not included in the basic truth, won’t be included neither in the model. E.g. A model produced by the molecular basic truth cannot possibly contain any other element that molecules.

 

Phase 2.

 

During this phase, the scientist concentrates the data with which he will form his theory. Obviously, among the innumerous data that exist he will choose only the data that fit into his model. All the other data will be excluded, even if their validity and reliability are not disputed. An architect won’t choose cement and bricks, even if they are cheap materials of good quality, if his model represents a building of glass and iron. Similarly, a scientist who has a model based on molecular basic truth, will ignore all the evidence regarding the presence and role of the endogenous EM fields of cells.

In this phase, the scientists

a) locates

b) evaluates

c) concentrates the data that he needs.

In other words, he “scans” the available data, finds (evaluates) which are useful and which not and picks up those that he needs. So simple!

 

Phase 3.

 

Here comes the major difference between theoretical and any other productive activity. Data ,before being utilized into formation of theories, must be interpreted. Data are the coded answers that reality (nature) gives to the questions that we pose to her via research. Before being incorporated into theories must be interpreted correctly and comprehended. Otherwise, they are useless and cannot be used in production of theories. E.g. Scientists for many years supported that cells migrated due to the raise of intracellular Calcium. This was an interpretation of a data present in every research regarding this subject: while migrating, cells always present a stable and an alternative fluorescence. Scientists, who knew that when they experimentally added Calcium to cells they produced fluorescence, assumed that the fluorescence they observed in vivo owes its presence to the raise of intracellular calcium. However, this interpretation of data has been proved wrong, thus they couldn’t be utilized in the formation of well-founded theories that could interpret the phenomenon of cell migration.

It is unnecessary to add that the quality of the interpretations we produce depends on the quality of our scientific perception. An adequate perception will interpret all the data fully and correctly.

Afterwards, the scientist assembles the interpretations that he has produced and forms with them a single entity, which we call theory. At this point, you may think that his duty is done… but no! Theories refer to the un-known, while data refer to what we already know- at least partially. Data (and their correct interpretations) are not enough for a complete theory. Even if we manage to concentrate all the existing data and interpret them correctly, there will still be “gaps” in our theory. These gaps belong to the elements, clues etc that remain to be discovered and they are filled during the next phase.

 

Phase 4.

 

The scientist consults his model and constructs assumptions (hypothesis) that fit in the gaps he had observed. As we can easily understand, the hypothesis that we produce reflect the model we use and vice versa. Therefore, the quality of our model determines the quality of our hypothesis. If the model is compatible with nature, its assumptions will be well founded and sooner or later will be experimentally verified. I could write more about each phase (the criteria we use to evaluate the result that comes up from each phase, the analytical role that the model plays in each phase, examples from every science, etc) ,but first I would like to see how you will react to the few things I have written

 

Phase 5.

 

The scientist assembles the interpretations of the data he has produced during phase 3 with the hypothesis he produced in phase 4. The theory is complete and can be checked theoretically and experimentally!

 

 

Ps Excuse me for expressive mistakes- due to the fact I am not a native English speaker I find it difficult to express what I want it and follow grammatic and syntactic rules at the same time :)

 

"No, we don't. (I assume by 'we' you mean working scientists, representing the rest of us.)"

What makes you think that you are a working scientist while I am not? Please don't jump to conclusions!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To remark on the quotes from DH, the few things I have discovered myself were not what I intended to show or prove. They have come along the way trying to do something else.

 

I expect a lot of things to be like that, but for sure not all discoveries are "accidental".

 

I should just make it clear, my discoveries are in mathematics and not physics. The notion of "theory" is different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I must define term “theory”. Theory is an intellectual- theoretical product that as afar as its structure is concerned consists of data and hypothesis.
I do understand the difficulties you face in expressing yourself in a foreign language, but you cannot define a word- in this case theory - by using that word, or a variation of it - in this case theoretical - in the definition. That is just wrong.
On the other hand, a bunch of hypothesis cannot be named theory. It is just an ill-founded opinion.

You don't understand what a hypothesis is. I suspect that I shall be wasting my time to read further.
What makes you think that you are a working scientist while I am not? Please don't jump to conclusions!!!!
I am not a working scientist. Please re-read what I wrote. If it is still not clear I shall try to put it in different words.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You don't understand what a hypothesis is"

 

I can assure you I know what a hypothesis is- hypothesis is a synonym for assumption. It is a Greek word, and given that I come from Greece maybe i understand it better than anyone.

You have the right not to read further, that's your choice... :)

Theory is an intellectual product, I put theoretical along to make myself clear because i didn't know if I used the right term. If we spoke the same language maybe we would be able to communicate.

Hypothesis is an opinion created in order to explain parts of phenomena that we study. E.g. a hyothesis would be "ells communicate by exchanging electromagnetic signals" or ear, except for being a sound- receptor is also an energy converter. Do I have to write down more hypotheses or are you convinvced that I know what they are?

 

Ajb,

Mathematics, besides being a very useful "tool" for all the other sciences (including psychology) are a role model for any other science... In my opinion, mathematics is a field where new, radically differnet opinions are more than welcome... ufortunately this is not the case for the majority of sciences (except physics, were new theories are received and tested), where thnking is limited within very small boundaries! Furthermore, mathematics is the only sciene that "conciously"uses, checks and improves its axioms (what i name "basic truth"). All the other sciences, even if they are built on axioms don't even realize that. Of course, checking and improving their axioms is out of the question :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he means you don't know what a hypothesis is in a scientific context.

 

hypotheses are not assumptions. they are testable ideas.

 

a theory is a hypothesis that has been tested by many people many times and has shown itself to be at least a better approximation than the existing theory if there was one.

 

certainly nothing that people produce lots of times a day.

 

and i don't get why you think that thinking is limited in the majority of sciences. this has not been my experience talking to any scientist in ANY field. or even when i was working in a chemical engineering research lab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scientific theories are not, as you called them, opinions. A physical law does not ask to be believed. It is meant to be used to make predictions about the outcome of observation and experiment. And, if possible, it is to be empirically refuted and replaced. Laws exist to be replaced by better laws. The people who invent them, use them, and test them do never once have to believe them. They can reserve judgment entirely, if they choose.

 

That bears repeating. I'd even go so far as to say that if someone "believes" a theory, they are not doing science. Real scientists have a "high degree of confidence in the predictive accuracy and precision of a theory/law based on its previous successful predictions", not a "belief" in it. If they say they "believe" or "have faith" or "know" that the theory is true, it is because that is shorter than the previous sentence, and they don't have to explain it or get funny looks.

 

But does anyone know (and can tell the rest of us) HOW are theories produced?

 

As far as I know, all theories are produced via a process called Inductive Reasoning, and tested via a process called the Scientific Method to eliminate the incorrect ones.

Edited by Mr Skeptic
multiple post merged
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know, all theories are produced via a process called Inductive Reasoning

That is the nice, logical, wrapped-with-a-pretty ribbon presentation of science. Inductive reasoning is fine for small, mundane extrapolations. It does not describe the large leaps of creativity that Kekulé envisioned the structure of benzene in a dream about dancing atoms that formed the snake Ouroboros. Einstein envisioned the principle of equivalence in a Walter Mitty moment, imagining his neighbor fall off his roof. Newton purportedly saw the fall of an apple and the orbit of a planet caused by the same thing. This is not mere inductive reasoning. It is something much, much more profound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"To remark on the quotes from DH, the few things I have discovered myself were not what I intended to show or prove. They have come along the way trying to do something else.

 

I expect a lot of things to be like that, but for sure not all discoveries are "accidental".

 

I repeat that the fact that we do not conciously know the method we use (and consequently we call it äccidental"or coincidental") doesn't mean that there is no method... Since a theory is produced, some way (yet un-known) is definitely used in the prodution procedure... The fact that we do not know the way, doesn't mean that a way does not exist!!!!

 

I'd even go so far as to say that if someone "believes" a theory, they are not doing science. Real scientists have a "high degree of confidence in the predictive accuracy and precision of a theory/law based on its previous successful predictions", not a "belief" in it.

 

I totally agree with it, but the reality remains that many scientists "äre stuck" with theories that in the end are proved wrong, simply because they were approved by the majority of the scientific community. in the past everyone believed that earth was flat and at th center of the universe. Today we may laugh at this statements, but few centuries ago this opinion was believed by everyone! Servet, who claimed that heart was just a blood pump ws burnt to death, because everyone else believed that heart was the center of all the emotions!

 

I'd even go so far as to say that if someone "believes" a theory, they are not doing science. Real scientists have a "high degree of confidence in the predictive accuracy and precision of a theory/law based on its previous successful predictions", not a "belief" in it.

 

Since the method is known, how come we do not produce only correct theories? And please don't tell me due to the lack of sufficient evidence (which is a common excuse that scientists use), because you know better than me that Newton first came up with his theoretical conceptions and many years (or even centuries) later were dicovered the data which confirmed these theories! What's more, there are plenty of ddata in every science- why can't the scientists utilize them and incorporate them in complete theories, since they are familiar with the method? Why are there so many unknown phenomena?

 

hypotheses are not assumptions. they are testable ideas.

 

a theory is a hypothesis that has been tested by many people many times and has shown itself to be at least a better approximation than the existing theory if there was one.

 

Please take a look at these links... hypothesis are assuptions (sorry, but this is not negotiable)

http://lexicon.omhros.eu/wb/default.asp?LxcoS=*&lexis=%CF%85%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%B8%CE%B7%

 

CE%BC%CE%B9&submit=%CE%95%CF%8D%CF%81%CE%B5%CF%83%CE%B7

 

http://lexicon.omhros.eu/wb/default.asp?LxcoS=*&lexis=%CF%85%CF%80%CF%8C%CE%B8%CE%B5%CF%83%CE%B9%

 

CF%82&submit=%CE%95%CF%8D%CF%81%CE%B5%CF%83%CE%B7

 

http://www.google.gr/search?hl=el&defl=en&q=define:hypothesis&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=titl

 

e

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

 

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Glossary/index.php?mode=all

 

http://www.yukoncollege.yk.ca/~agraham/guides/tpglossary.htm

 

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sp/teaching/glossary.shtml#T

 

 

Furthermore, what i call "model"what you call theory. Theory is a complex, mental or intellectual product that consists of data and hypotheses and that are produced in order to explain complex phenomena.

 

and i don't get why you think that thinking is limited in the majority of sciences. this has not been my experience talking to any scientist in ANY field. or even when i was working in a chemical engineering research lab.

 

Please choose any paper you want (especially from cells biology,psychology or psychiatry , with which i am very familiar) and you will soon realize that they are built on the same pattern. I.e. according to molecular biology, all biological phenomena are completed with the following mechanism: a stimulus is received (the stimulus may be molecular, chemical, electric or magnetic signal etc). The stimulus activates the respective receptor, which activats a specific molecular chain (channel), which corresponds to the cell's response to the stimulus. The molecular systems may vary among different theories and different phenomena, but the fact is that all the theories based on the molecular model consist only of data regarding molecules. Even if scientists know that cells also have (besides molecules) E.M. fields, they don't incorporate their knowledge into their theories- simply because fields are not included in their model. I would like to underline that i wasn't referring to their personality- only to their theories. I admire them as researchers, but i think they cannot fully perceive the true importance of their data, because they cannot theoretically utilize them with their inadequate model.

 

One question that may be simple for you: under which conditions do two (or more) fields couple? Which physical characteristics must two fields need to have in order to couple? I have read many contradictοry reports on the subject, please enlighten me :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not one of those links calls hypothesis an assumption. rather they conform more to my definition of an idea to be tested.

 

don't try to redefine words. it will not get you anywhere.

 

you have a very distorted view of science, i suggest you try and remedy this before continuing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To remark on the quotes from DH

*Please* learn how to use the Quote button. It helps distinguish what you are writing from that which others have written.

I repeat that the fact that we do not conciously know the method we use (and consequently we call it äccidental"or coincidental") doesn't mean that there is no method... Since a theory is produced, some way (yet un-known) is definitely used in the prodution procedure... The fact that we do not know the way, doesn't mean that a way does not exist!!!!

We do know how theories are produced: They are the products of creative minds. You are trying to put the creative process in a box. All that attempts to put creativity in a box accomplish is the annihilation of creativity. Large bureaucratic entities, for example, excel at stifling creativity.

I'd even go so far as to say that if someone "believes" a theory, they are not doing science. Real scientists have a "high degree of confidence in the predictive accuracy and precision of a theory/law based on its previous successful predictions", not a "belief" in it.

These are not your words. They are Mr. Skeptics' words. Please learn how to use the "Quote" button.

I totally agree with it, but the reality remains that many scientists "äre stuck" with theories that in the end are proved wrong, simply because they were approved by the majority of the scientific community.

*All* scientific theories are "wrong". One way of looking at science is as progressively approaching a better and better approximation of the "truth".

in the past everyone believed that earth was flat

No, they didn't, at least not for a couple of thousand years.

and at th center of the universe.

This is a pre-scientific view. The scientific revolution is typically viewed to have started with Copernicus' rejection of the Ptolemaic system. Using pre-scientific views to exemplify flaws in the scientific method is disingenuous at best.

 

Since the method is known, how come we do not produce only correct theories?

What makes you think we produce any "correct theories"? Newtonian mechanics is downright wrong in the regime of the very small. Darwin's theory of evolution is an oversimplification (it was quickly replaced by the modern synthesis).

 

You have a very distorted view of science and the scientific method. Your misunderstanding of the difference between assumptions, hypotheses, and theories exemplifies this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe i have a distorted opinion about science...However, it is possible that you have a distorted opinion and it doesn't matter that you can support each other... The opinion of the majority wasn't always the correct one... However, if your opinion provides results (i have my doubts, but OK), you should insist on it. But I will mention this in the most friendly way: dogmatism never led beyond a dead end...

The basic problem of the theoretic sector is the confusion about the terminology that is used. You identify theories with verified hypotheses and you think that your approach is correct? I try very hard to keep a low profile and do not be provokative- that's why I won't enter this forum again. Thank you for your participation and, if I could give you an advice it would be: Before adopting the opinions others have expressed before you, take your time and think carefully about all the potentials- all the possible choices. Aristotle has sustained this thousands of years ago, so I let his text speak for itself:

 

The effect which lectures produce on a hearer depends on his

habits; for we demand the language we are accustomed to, and that

which is different from this seems not in keeping but somewhat

unintelligible and foreign because of its unwontedness. For it is

the customary that is intelligible. The force of habit is shown by the

laws, in which the legendary and childish elements prevail over our

knowledge about them, owing to habit. Thus some people do not listen

to a speaker unless he speaks mathematically, others unless he gives

instances, while others expect him to cite a poet as witness. And some

want to have everything done accurately, while others are annoyed by

accuracy, either because they cannot follow the connexion of thought

or because they regard it as pettifoggery. For accuracy has

something of this character, so that as in trade so in argument some

people think it mean. Hence one must be already trained to know how to

take each sort of argument, since it is absurd to seek at the same

time knowledge and the way of attaining knowledge; and it is not

easy to get even one of the two.............WE must, with a view to the science which we are seeking, first

recount the subjects that should be first discussed. These include

both the other opinions that some have held on the first principles,

and any point besides these that happens to have been overlooked.

For those who wish to get clear of difficulties it is advantageous

to discuss the difficulties well; for the subsequent free play of

thought implies the solution of the previous difficulties, and it is

not possible to untie a knot of which one does not know. But the

difficulty of our thinking points to a 'knot' in the object; for in so

far as our thought is in difficulties, it is in like case with those

who are bound; for in either case it is impossible to go forward.

Hence one should have surveyed all the difficulties beforehand, both

for the purposes we have stated and because people who inquire without

first stating the difficulties are like those who do not know where

they have to go; besides, a man does not otherwise know even whether

he has at any given time found what he is looking for or not; for

the end is not clear to such a man, while to him who has first

discussed the difficulties it is clear. Further, he who has heard

all the contending arguments, as if they were the parties to a case,

must be in a better position for judging.

 

Bye!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.