Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis, [1] although scientists also use evidence in other ways, such as when applying theories to practical problems. [2] Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with the scientific method.
The history of scientific method considers changes in the methodology of scientific inquiry, not the history of science itself. The development of rules for scientific reasoning has not been straightforward; scientific method has been the subject of intense and recurring debate throughout the history of science, and eminent natural philosophers and scientists have argued for the primacy of ...
The history of scientific method considers changes in the methodology of scientific inquiry, as distinct from the history of science itself. The development of rules for scientific reasoning has not been straightforward; scientific method has been the subject of intense and recurring debate throughout the history of science, and eminent natural philosophers and scientists have argued for the ...
Non-fiction books at a Danish library, shelves displaying the word Fakta, Danish for "Facts" A fact is a true datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance. [1] Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.
The philosopher Wesley C. Salmon described scientific inquiry: The search for scientific knowledge ends far back into antiquity. At some point in the past, at least by the time of Aristotle, philosophers recognized that a fundamental distinction should be drawn between two kinds of scientific knowledge—roughly, knowledge that and knowledge why.
Philosophers of science tend to understand evidence not as mental states but as observable physical objects or events, secured by following the scientific method. The problems of underdetermination and theory-ladenness are two obstacles that threaten to undermine the role of scientific evidence.
The concept of evidence is of central importance in epistemology and in philosophy of science but plays different roles in these two fields. [1] [2] In epistemology, evidence is what justifies beliefs or what determines whether holding a certain doxastic attitude is rational.
There are many philosophical and historical theories as to how scientific consensus changes over time. Because the history of scientific change is extremely complicated, and because there is a tendency to project "winners" and "losers" onto the past in relation to the current scientific consensus, it is very difficult to come up with accurate and rigorous models for scientific change. [17]