Sage-Tips

Why are scientific explanations important?

A really good scientific explanation should do two main things: It should explain all the observations and data we have. It should allow us to make testable predictions that we can check using future experiments.

When scientists say a theory can never be proven what are they actually saying?

When scientists say that a theory can never be proven, what are they actually saying? It is always possible for new data to contradict a theory.

Why do scientists repeat their experiments over and over again?

If research results can be replicated, it means they are more likely to be correct. Replication is important in science so scientists can “check their work.” The result of an investigation is not likely to be well accepted unless the investigation is repeated many times and the same result is always obtained.

Why is it important for a hypothesis to be falsifiable?

Falsifiability is the capacity for some proposition, statement, theory or hypothesis to be proven wrong. That capacity is an essential component of the scientific method and hypothesis testing. The requirement of falsifiability means that conclusions cannot be drawn from simple observation of a particular phenomenon.

How will the world end support your answer with scientific explanation?

The world will end as a direct result of either fire or ice. Some scientists believed that the world would be incinerated from its fiery core, while others were convinced that the coming ice age would destroy all living things on the Earth’s surface.

Can scientific theory be proven?

A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.

Why is repeating an experiment necessary?

To repeat an experiment, under the same conditions, allows you to (a) estimate the variability of the results (how close to each other they are) and (b) to increase the accuracy of the estimate (assuming that no bias – systematic error – is present). These are the 2 reasons for the repetition of one experiment.

What is the purpose of repeating experiments?

Repeating an experiment more than once helps determine if the data was a fluke, or represents the normal case. It helps guard against jumping to conclusions without enough evidence. The number of repeats depends on many factors, including the spread of the data and the availability of resources.

Why is falsifiability so important to science?

For many sciences, the idea of falsifiability is a useful tool for generating theories that are testable and realistic. If a falsifiable theory is tested and the results are significant, then it can become accepted as a scientific truth.

Why is science falsifiable?

In the philosophy of science, a theory is falsifiable (or refutable) if it is contradicted by an observation statement that has a conventional empirical interpretation, i.e., is potentially observable with existing technologies.

Does science sometimes provide explanations?

A presupposition of most recent discussion has been that science sometimes provides explanations (rather than something that falls short of explanation—e.g., “mere description”) and that the task of a “theory” or “model” of scientific explanation is to characterize the structure of such explanations.

Does science have a place in the realm of ideas?

The Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg, an eloquent advocate for science’s place in the realm of ideas, takes this distinction at face value – in order to demonstrate that science does indeed explain something.

Is our account of this science adequate?

Our account of this science will be adequate if it achieves such clarity as the subject-matter allows. Every human activity aims at some end that we consider good. The highest ends are ends in themselves, while subordinate ends may only be means to higher ends.

What is a related point in the theory of Science?

A related point is that, while most theorists of scientific explanation have proposed models that are intended to cover at least some cases of explanation that we would not think of as part of science, they have nonetheless assumed some implicit restriction on the kinds of explanation they have sought to reconstruct.