2 ms·
Essentially 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 so
by foota 11y ago
Essentially 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.