3 ms·
To note, he specifically asked for concepts that had "result of different sources of experimental evidence". Those concepts were attempts to explain observation
by npunt 11y ago
To note, he specifically asked for concepts that had "result of different sources of experimental evidence". Those concepts were attempts to explain observation, but did not have strong experimental evidence.
- foota 11y agoIsn't observation exactly the same as experimental evidence?
- resu_nimda 11y agoI was going to say something along those lines...you can draw an arbitrary line for what constitutes "real" experimental science, but I think that's missing the point of the original comment.
- scott_s 11y agoNo. In this instance, an observation is the thing used to construct the theory. You cannot test a theory with the same thing used to make it. Scientific theories make predictions, which are things which should happen if the theory is correct, but have not yet been observed, and hence cannot have been used to construct the theory itself. Testing those predictions is "experimental evidence."
- foota 11y agoEssentially you're saying that one thing (the observation) is what you don't understand initially that causes you to formulate some theory that then predicts some result that you observe and call experimental evidence?
- scott_s 11y agoI have difficulty following your grammar, so I'll just restate what I think is the case, using a similar progression as what I think you wrote. You initially observe some phenomenon. You do not have an immediate explanation for it. You come up with an explanation for that phenomenon. You cannot then use the original phenomenon to support your explanation. In order to test your explanation, you must figure out what else must happen if your explanation is true. You then devise experiments, or find other, different observations, which can falsify your explanation. That is, if the experiments come out a certain way, or you observe certain things, you can rule out your explanation. If, instead, you cannot rule out your explanation, but the other things your explanation predicts to happen does happen, then those new observations are experimental evidence that support your explanation.