Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
37 bytes added ,  12:53, March 21, 2008
not everyone believes this
Line 2: Line 2:  
It is more substantial than a conjecture or [[hypothesis]], but may not be verified as consistent with [[empirical]] data. <ref>For example, scientists may refer to phlogiston theory or ether theory, even though empirical verification was lacking.</ref>  
 
It is more substantial than a conjecture or [[hypothesis]], but may not be verified as consistent with [[empirical]] data. <ref>For example, scientists may refer to phlogiston theory or ether theory, even though empirical verification was lacking.</ref>  
   −
To be considered [[science|scientific]], a theory must be [[falsifiable]].
+
For many philosophers of science, a theory must be ''[[falsifiable]]'' to be considered [[science|scientific]].
 
This means that there must be some way to do experiments that could counter the theory's predictions, thus disproving the current theory.
 
This means that there must be some way to do experiments that could counter the theory's predictions, thus disproving the current theory.
 
<ref>"A theory not only explains known facts; it also allows scientists to make predictions of what they should observe if a [[theory]] is true. Scientific theories are testable. New evidence should be compatible with a theory. If it isn't, the theory is refined or rejected." [http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution/theory.php] </ref>
 
<ref>"A theory not only explains known facts; it also allows scientists to make predictions of what they should observe if a [[theory]] is true. Scientific theories are testable. New evidence should be compatible with a theory. If it isn't, the theory is refined or rejected." [http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution/theory.php] </ref>
Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650

edits

Navigation menu