Scientific Theories

Posted: January 5th, 2023

Scientific Theories

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Tutor

Course

Due Date

Scientific Theories

Modern society is centred on the scientific environment, where any occurrence is linked to specific theories and forces. Since these theories are coined by various individuals in the community who try to prove their scientific knowledge, their efficacy and accuracy are questionable. Besides, almost every scientific approach that has ever got along with having been proven to be false. For instance, people have found a strong belief in bloodletting being a potential cure illness, a lead that could be turned into gold through its description by words. It has thus been concluded that the various present scientific theories are highly likely to be incorrect. This thus culminates into the conclusion that we should refrain from firmly believing in whatever science tell us. Consequently, this paper affirms the belief that science is not actual but mere speculation, as detailed below.

Philosophically, a theory is deemed to be falsifiable if it is able to e contradicted by any possible observations hence the description in the theoretical language. The theory when described in this manner, it must possess of both the conventional and the empirical interpretation.  However, the theory postulated in the rejection must be about the scientific evidence, although some possible observations must revolve around scientific evidence. For instance, Popper disapproved of the claim that “all swans are white.” He argued for falsifiability with an argument based on the concept of variability (Van Rooij and Baggio, 2020). The statement “all swans are white” would scientifically demand verification which demands the assessment of all available swans. This situation is ideally impossible, especially in theory that requires reasonable empirical interpretation. Besides, a single observation of a black swan is possible to invalidate the statement. Moreover, one black swan in principle is impossible to invalidate due to the existing biological law; it still forms a potential falsifier.

Philosophically, it is prudent to ascertain that scientifically accepted theories are all accepted based on the theory’s goal. The theory is defined as the “search for knowledge.” The various theories being developed are designed based on the achievement of a particular purpose. The multiple scientists’ different scientific postulations are based on researching the truth about the various phenomena. Hence, this theory leads to questioning the numerous projections under which the scientific modes in which are being developed (Kennedy, Thornberg, and Flick, 2018). This further ideology questions the truth in forming the theories and the magic in the actual occurrence of the phenomena in modern society. Besides, the various scientific theories are continuously scrutinized by new scientists to check on accountability. Every day, it is witnessed by the development of new ideas in society; hence, this leads to one wondering of the theories’ responsibility if they are facts or are based on specific projections by the theorists. If the theories are true, why do new scientific principles be incorporated into the scientific world to disapprove of the already existing predictions by science (Holtz and Monnerjahn, 2017). This ultimately leads to the ultimate ruling of the existing scientific projections and principles being false due to the periodic approvals and are only right upon the leading unchanging theory being achieved.

If scientific theories are facts, then why does the problem of induction question them. This, in essence, questions how it is possible to from observations to scientific laws. This forms the question of the cases in which there is an intention of experimenting with the theory that all swans are white, resulting in one swan being white. This is challenging as we cannot validly argue based on this scientific fact that is all swans are white, as this would demand logical fallacy, which includes; For example, affirming the consequent. It is impossible to verify that every swan is white. Kennedy, Thornberg, and Flick (2018) argue that through this argument, it is possible to tentatively accept the proposal that every swan is white because every swan is white while investigating for the non-white swans, which will be the guiding framework to be false. Therefore, Falsification improvises for the valid inference modus tollens. Laws are usually conjectured in an illogical manner which is based on the expectation and predispositions. Philosophically backed up, if anyone finds observation that does not contradict a law, it does not implicate the law being true. Verification has been deemed to lack value (Holtz and Monnerjahn, 2017). However, suppose the law is capable of making risky predictions and is corroborated. In that case, there is reasoning in the preference of this law over the various other laws that are likely to implicate difficult prediction and those that make no predictions. Therefore falsifiability an be described through the contradictions with observation which are disregarded in actual Falsification. Unlike in logical falsifications, it illustrates of  the law nurturing various risky predictions to be deemed different.

Falsificationism can be philosophically accepted by discrediting the scientific theories as facts. Falsification is acknowledged through the falsificationists, as exemplified through the admission that observations are theoretically impregnated. The various predictions inferred from the conjectures are indirectly compared with the multiple facts because all observation statements are theory-driven (Holtz and Monnerjahn, 2017). These problems are meager to the varied falsificationists as their faith is usually depended on the various critical argumentation which are prejudiced by the organismic aspects that have been previously proposed. Therefore, this implies that when a theory is falsified, it is consequently rejected, hence illustrating the dogmatic falsifications. Still, the general context is thus ruled as critical rationalism, and the various decisions are therefore viable for critical discussion and revision.

Ultimately, the proponent of the original argument that science is just, but theory and not fact backed up would counteract the above description of the view in amusement since the report above validates his statement that the scientific approach is just a speculation. He is highly likely to support the argument with more substantial evidence, such as the scientific theories being developed by the various human beings, which questions their validity. The original author of the phrase that scientific theories are false is likely to reject the aspect of the discussion on discrediting these postulations on accepting scientific postulations as fact since he is also advocating for discretization from the being false.  He will challenge it through the addition f the various reasons why they should not be credited if they are facts. Hence, these scientific theories should be discredited from being facts due to the postulations as mentioned above at its discretion. Therefore, this projections as described support of the need for rejecting the scientific theories as true facts since they are based on various postulation which question of their viability and accepting. This postulations are highly likely to be accepted by the developer of the argument.

References

Holtz, P., & Monnerjahn, P. (2017). Falsificationism is not just ‘potential’falsifiability, but requires ‘actual Falsification: Social psychology, critical rationalism, and progress in science. Journal for the theory of social behaviour, 47(3), 348-362.

Kennedy, B. L., Thornberg, R., & Flick, U. (2018). Deduction, induction, and abduction. The SAGE handbook of qualitative data collection, 49-64.

Van Rooij, I., & Baggio, G. (2020). Theory before the test: How to build high-verisimilitude explanatory ideas in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1745691620970604.