Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − +
If *you* can't observe it, is it still "scientific"?
A '''scientific theory''' is a plausible and consistent explanation for observable [[phenomena]].
A '''scientific theory''' is a plausible and consistent explanation for observable [[phenomena]].
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> Controversially, some scientists have declared that causes other than natural, observable ones should not be examined - and that theories involving such causes are "not scientific", e.g., [[behavioral psychology]]. This limitation and its implications for the [[philosophy of science]] plays a large role in the [[origins debate]].
For many philosophers of science, a theory must be ''[[falsifiable]]'' to be considered [[science|scientific]].
For many philosophers of science, a theory must be ''[[falsifiable]]'' to be considered [[science|scientific]].