The underlying reason for the topic of this debate is predicated upon the need for scientific hypothesis to have both a question and an answer. Oftentimes, the scientist must have a preconceived notion of the potential answer to his or her hypothesis in order to properly present the question. For example, in order to generate a hypothesis that purports to describe “why the sky is blue” presumes the person presenting the question has some inclination as to what the answer might be in order to formulate the question.
However, this is precisely where science departs from other methodology. Although, there is a degree of certainty required in order to demonstrate the outcome consistent with the answer. Experiments are conducted to generate proofs designed to support the hypothesis. Conversely, these very same proofs may prove the hypothesis wrong thereby generating a new hypothesis. The significance of this effort is the use of inductive and deductive reason verses analogy. Many other methods of explaining events rely on this analogy which is inherently unreliable.
It is this need to work the problem backwards, choosing to develop the hypothesis by knowing what the answer might possibly be that causes many to doubt the effectiveness of scientific methods. However, this very same method is used in mathematics for generating proofs as well. Furthermore, it is inconceivable to generate or develop ideas about the natural properties of things without some inherent idea as to how they might actually work. A complete absence of understanding is even less likely to generate any kind of reasonable estimate or understanding as to how something might work than the scientific method.
It is the empirical process used in order to deduce the result that remains imperative to a decent conclusion. Many hypotheses have started out with a presumption of correctness only to be confirmed false upon experiment. It is this very effort that enabled Einstein to gain a level of clarity and understanding about the Universe.
The end results of his efforts enabled him to confirm the null effects observed in the famous Michelson-Morley experiment were in fact correct and successful when the entire scientific community was still debating upon the failure of the experiment. It was his interpretation of many related events that enabled significant advancement in the areas of gravitation and time that stumped many for years. These are clear examples of both the myopic and clear aspects of the methodology proving science does both hinder as well as help mankind advance.
But once again, it was the proof of the “Perihelion of Mercury” that demonstrated Einstein’s interpretations were in fact the correct ones enabling advancement of theory. Illustrating the deductive proof is the element of science that transcends the obsolescence in this debate title. So although the possibility that science is skewed due to the need for the scientist to know possible answers to the hypothesis prior to completing the theory, it is proving this hypothesis right or wrong as well as interpretation of the results that will always enable the method to advance human knowledge.
Related posts:
Does Science by its very Nature Undermine its Search Answers Obsolesce – No
Does Science by its very Nature Undermine its Search Answers Obsolesce – No
Does Science by its very Nature Undermine its Search Answers Obsolesce – No
Does Science by its very Nature Undermine its Search Answers Obsolesce – No