- #1
Grimble
- 485
- 11
I thought this was the appropriate place for what is essentially (at least to my mind) a pholosphical idea.
Has there been a fundamental change in the way scientific experiments are evaluated?
Has the standard of proof shifted, as indeed it probably has to, due to the phenomena we are investigating?
I was taught at school that the scientific process was to investigate, to evaluate, to form a theory and to test that theory. In particular that one must conclude that every part of a theory happened as envisaged and could have no other possible cause.
But as the scope of scientific theory continues to grow we focus on the extremes: the 'infinitely' small, sub-atomic particles; the 'infinitely' large, cosmological entities and processes; the 'infinitely' brief, etc, etc.
We seem to be tending towards the line of argument; if A then B and if evidence is found, that can be cosidered to comply with A, then B is considered to be proven.
Please understand that I am not in any way decrying modern science, for perhaps this has always been the way?
The example of Phlogiston comes to mind: first given that name by Georg Ernst Stahl, in 1703 and said by some to have had negative weight, the theory lasted for nearly 100 years.
Grimble![Egg on Face o:) o:)](/styles/physicsforums/xenforo/smilies/eggonface.png)
Has there been a fundamental change in the way scientific experiments are evaluated?
Has the standard of proof shifted, as indeed it probably has to, due to the phenomena we are investigating?
I was taught at school that the scientific process was to investigate, to evaluate, to form a theory and to test that theory. In particular that one must conclude that every part of a theory happened as envisaged and could have no other possible cause.
But as the scope of scientific theory continues to grow we focus on the extremes: the 'infinitely' small, sub-atomic particles; the 'infinitely' large, cosmological entities and processes; the 'infinitely' brief, etc, etc.
We seem to be tending towards the line of argument; if A then B and if evidence is found, that can be cosidered to comply with A, then B is considered to be proven.
Please understand that I am not in any way decrying modern science, for perhaps this has always been the way?
The example of Phlogiston comes to mind: first given that name by Georg Ernst Stahl, in 1703 and said by some to have had negative weight, the theory lasted for nearly 100 years.
Grimble
![Egg on Face o:) o:)](/styles/physicsforums/xenforo/smilies/eggonface.png)
Last edited: