Module: Scientific methodology
Quote of the page
Genius was 1 percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration.
- Thomas Edison
Whether in scientific research or in everyday life, we often need to choose between alternative explanations or theories. Here are six criteria we can use to evaluate them and help us decide which to accept.
What are the facts or observations we are trying to explain? Are they incompatible with any of the theories? If so, this will be a good reason to reject them, unless there are reasons to think that some of the observations are not reliable.
A scientific theory ought to help us make predictions and explain our observations. If a hypothesis generates no testable prediction, it fails the minimal requirement for a scientific hypothesis.
When we evaluate the predictive power of a theory, we consier both the quantity and the quality of the predictions. How many predictions can the theory make? How accurate and precise are they? Does the theory make predictions across a wide range of phenomena?
In general, we want theories that can explain the connections between events by revealing the underlying causal mechanisms. This can help us generate more predictions to test the theory and make other discoveries.
This is about whether a theory helps us make surprising or unexpected predictions which turn out to be correct, and whether the theory helps us detect and explain connections which we would not have noticed otherwise.
A simple theory is (roughly) one with fewer assumptions, and which posits less entities than its competitors. Many scientists believe strongly that we should search for simple theories if feasible.
A theory should be internally coherent in the sense that it is logically consistent. If not, there is something wrong with the theory as it stands, and so there is a need to revise the theory to come up with a better version.
The other aspect of coherence is that we should look for theories that fit together with other well-confirmed facts and scientific theories. Widely accepted theories are already well-confirmed, so if a hypothesis is incompatible with existing science, the default response should be that the hypothesis is mistaken. An extraordinary claim incompatible with scientific knowledge should require very strong evidence before it can be accepted.
One piece of writing very relevant to the topic under discussion comes from the famous scientist and writer Carl Sagan. In one of his books he proposed what he calls “A Baloney Detection Kit,” a set of tools useful for scientific and everyday reasoning. Here they are: