and by employing/applying logic (science of correct reasoning
The philosopher (1902-1994), in argued that the 'Baconian' process of induction — of gathering facts, considering them, and inferring general laws — is logically unsound, as many mutually inconsistent hypotheses might be consistent with any given facts. Rather, Popper argued that the good scientist begins with a bold speculation, a hypothesis, from which he logically deduces predictions that can be tested by experiments. Experiments are not designed to confirm or verify the hypothesis, quite the contrary, they are designed to the hypothesis, by attempting to disprove it. He argued that this 'hypothetico-deductive' method was the only sound way by which science makes progress, and concluded that for a proposition to be considered scientific, it must, at least in principle, be possible to make an observation that would show it to be false. Otherwise, the proposition has, as Popper put it, no connection with the real world.
promoted that "logic has traditionally been the science of ..
For LOTH to vindicate folk psychology it is sufficient that ascientific psychology with a LOT architecture come up withscientifically grounded psychological states that are recognizablylike the propositional attitudes of folk psychology, and that playmore or less similar roles in psychological explanations.
While philosophers and scientists may disagree among themselves and between themselves about whether there is a general "scientific method" and if so exactly what it involves, in any given field there are always some practices that are accepted as scientific good practice and others that are not. When scientists give expert evidence in Courts of Law, their evidence is given particular weight, reflecting the respect that is given to good scientific practice. In 1993, in the decision, the U.S. Supreme Court accorded a special status to 'The Scientific Method', in ruling that "… to qualify as 'scientific knowledge' an inference or assertion must be derived by the scientific method. Proposed testimony must be supported by appropriate validation - i.e., 'good grounds', based on what is known." The Court also stated that "A new theory or explanation must generally survive a period of testing, review, and refinement before achieving scientific acceptance. This process does not merely reflect the scientific method, it is the scientific method."
Inductive Reasoning and the Philosophy of Science
CORRECTION: When newspapers make statements like, "most scientists agree that human activity is the culprit behind global warming," it's easy to imagine that scientists hold an annual caucus and vote for their favorite hypotheses. But of course, that's not quite how it works. Scientific ideas are judged not by their popularity, but on the basis of the evidence supporting or contradicting them. A hypothesis or theory comes to be accepted by many scientists (usually over the course of several years or decades!) once it has garnered many lines of supporting evidence and has stood up to the scrutiny of the scientific community. A hypothesis accepted by "most scientists," may not be "liked" or have positive repercussions, but it is one that science has judged likely to be accurate based on the evidence. To learn more about , visit our series of pages on the topic in our section on how science works.
Inductive reasoning and the philosophy of science ..
Another name for empirical evidence is natural evidence: the evidence found innature. Naturalism is the philosophy that says that "Reality and existence (i.e. theuniverse, cosmos, or nature) can be described and explained solely in terms of naturalevidence, natural processes, and natural laws." This is exactly what science tries todo. Another popular definition of naturalism is that "The universe exists as sciencesays it does." This definition emphasizes the strong link between science and naturalevidence and law, and it reveals that our best understanding of material reality andexistence is ultimately based on philosophy. This is not bad, however, for, whethernaturalism is ultimately true or not, science and naturalism reject the concept ofultimate or absolute truth in favor of a concept of proximate reliable truth that is farmore successful and intellectually satisfying than the alternative, the philosophy ofsupernaturalism. The supernatural, if it exists, cannot be examined or tested by science,so it is irrelevant to science. It is impossible to possess reliable knowledge about thesupernatural by the use of scientific and critical thinking. Individuals who claim to haveknowledge about the supernatural do not possess this knowledge by the use of criticalthinking, but by other methods of knowing.
In entrepreneurial science, a hypothesis is ..
It is, of course, impossible to receive an adequate education today withoutrelying almost entirely upon authoritarian evidence. Teachers, instructors, and professorsare generally considered to be reliable and trustworthy authorities, but even they shouldbe questioned on occasion. The use of authoritarian evidence in education is so pervasive,that its use has been questioned as antithetical to the true spirit of scholarly andscientific inquiry, and attempts have been made in education at all levels in recent yearsto correct this bias by implementing discovery and inquiry methodologies and curricula inclassrooms and laboratories. The recently revised geology laboratory course at MiamiUniversity, GLG 115.L, is one such attempt, as are the Natural Systems courses in theWestern College Program at Miami. It is easier to utilize such programs in humanities andsocial sciences, in which different yet equally valid conclusions can be reached bycritical thinking, rather than in the natural sciences, in which the objective reality ofnature serves as a constant judge and corrective mechanism.