Are scientific theories revised by observations or do they drive progress?

In this blog post, we’ll explore whether scientific theories are revised or discarded by observations, or whether they serve to reinterpret observations and lead to new advances.

 

Scientific theories are the lens through which we see the world. They don’t just explain natural phenomena; they have a profound impact on how we understand and interpret reality. Scientific theories reflect the knowledge and mindset of an era and are important tools for human intellectual inquiry and development. Without them, we would have great difficulty systematically understanding complex natural phenomena or developing new technologies. Scientific theories themselves provide a window into the world, and through that window we can better understand and even predict the world.
It is often assumed that because science is based on observation and experience, any scientific theory must be modified or discarded if it is inconsistent with observations. Scientific theories, which are formed based on empirical facts, exist to describe and predict natural phenomena. Therefore, when a theory’s predictions do not match actual observations, the theory becomes useless. According to this view, observations are what make a theory live or die.
However, the relationship between observation and theory is not always so one-sided. Take the example of Isaac Newton. Isaac Newton published theories about gravity and motion that earned him respect and acclaim almost unprecedented in the history of science. However, at the time, his theories didn’t agree with all observations. Astronomers pointed out that the motion of the moon predicted by Newton’s theories did not match observations. Nevertheless, Isaac Newton did not revise or abandon his theory. Rather, he advised astronomers to reexamine their observations, taking into account the many factors that affect the moon’s behavior. Astronomers followed his advice and modified their observations, and as a result, were forced to admit their errors.
Almost a century after Isaac Newton’s theory was published, astronomers again realized that Uranus’ orbit was not where Isaac Newton’s theory predicted. Still, they didn’t doubt Isaac Newton’s theory, so they came to believe that there must be another planet affecting Uranus’ orbit. Using Isaac Newton’s theory, they calculated the position and mass of that planet, tracked it down, and discovered that it was indeed Neptune. This is an example of a theory leading to a new development. Examples like this are not uncommon in the history of science, where scientists did not easily abandon their theories just because observations contradicted them.
Isaac Newton’s theory was refined by many scientists who believed in it, and it went down in scientific history as an outstanding achievement. Authoritative scientific theories like this serve as what Thomas Kuhn calls paradigms. A paradigm is a set of beliefs, values, techniques, etc. that are shared by members of a community of scientists. Paradigms define problems worthy of scientific inquiry, provide problem-solving models for scientists to employ, and serve as criteria for discerning the validity of research findings. The existence of paradigms in science is almost absolute, and scientists actively defend and protect them. So when observations are made that are inconsistent with the paradigm, rather than questioning the theory, scientists try to reinterpret the observations and resolve the inconsistencies through new experiments.
However, when the number of observations that contradict the theory increases, the paradigm is in crisis. This leads to a period of chaos, when new theories emerge to interpret these observations and compete with each other. Scientists don’t abandon the old paradigm until one theory wins and becomes the new paradigm. Of course, some people think that scientists’ refusal to abandon existing scientific theories, even in the face of counterexamples that show that the theories are incorrect, is not rational. However, we cannot say that their attitude is unreasonable. Scientific theories are tools to see the world, and it is impossible for a scientist to see the world without tools.

 

About the author

Writer

This blog offers free business documents, cover letters, resumes, and assignments for elementary school, middle school, high school, and college students. I want to help you write easily and effectively, so find what you're looking for today!