I’m acquainted with the scientific method myself, but when I try to explain it to science deniers I always fall short of capturing what makes it such a universal and thorough method. Any help?
In: 6
When a scientific hypothesis is created we construct 2 statements the first is the one we expect to be true if the thing we’re testing for is true. The next is what we expect if our hypothesis is false. We then test for the falseness. We don’t come in trying to prove ourselves right. Rather we try to prove ourselves wrong in every way possible. If after almost every reasonable test we can’t prove our idea wrong, then we can reject our false hypothesis.
Then we submit our findings to our peers for review and further testing. If every one of our peers cannot create a test that disproves our hypothesis then we have a possible theory. If we test that potential theory further and further and further until we have no other tests we can do to disprove it then it becomes the dominant theory.
And that’s the difference most people don’t understand. The scientific method is used in an attempt to prove the hypothesizer wrong. You have to approach your tests with every intent to prove your own ideas wrong.
Latest Answers