3 ms·
The hallmark of science is predictive power. Experiments, replication, peer review are all nice but optional. When you have a general enough theory, you don't
by blfr 12y ago
The hallmark of science is predictive power. Experiments, replication, peer review are all nice but optional.
When you have a general enough theory, you don't need to re-do the exact same experiment. You may not need to experiment at all and get by on mere observation. (Just call it a "natural experiment" when pressed.)
- rpedroso 12y agoI don't think this is correct. Willingness to accept theories based on our limited understanding of the underlying facts and our observations has led to widespread, incorrect belief before. Descartes and Galileo accepted atomism because, based on their limited understanding of chemistry, it made sense. It wasn't until experiments like the cathode ray tube experiment and the gold foil experiment revealed more elementary particles and forced people to revise their beliefs. Philosophers of science like Karl Popper like to focus on falsifiability over induction precisely because we tend to become complacent in beliefs that don't tell the whole story and otherwise obscure more interesting, less intuitive underlying phenomena. I feel like, if we had it your way, we might still be atomists.
- Dylan16807 12y agoNo, because they predicted measurements that were wrong.