The article
brings out a good point about empirical evidence which often analysis was based
on unless specified otherwise. By
making a collection of observations cannot necessarily create scientific laws. so, with empirical observations is not
sufficient. There is a need to create
and test hypothesis. It’s like the
validation of the theory.
The article
further elaborates important key points of a hypothesis. The concept of skepticism is crucial as being
one of the main tools for a scientist. I
think having the right critical thinking and being objective is to be adhered.
This is how new idea or theory that may contradict the norm but turn out to be
truthful at the end.
I think it is so true - as a scientist although somethings are labeled as "facts", they must always be in question. So many times in history a scientist comes up with a new discovery that disproves what was a norm in our society.
ReplyDeleteOne example that a lot of people use is the world being flat. For a long time a bunch of Europeans believe the world was flat and anyone who questioned that fact was killed. It wasn't until other scientists found contradictions to this theory and proved that the world was round that this new idea was wildly accepted among other.