Validating a theory karl popper
Philosophers have introduced several concepts and theories on the basis of which to analyze the logical and inferential relations between empirical data and scientific hypotheses, including observation, falsifiability, confirmation, and experimental method.This is so for two reasons: First, because scientific hypotheses normally refer to entities, mechanisms, or processes that are not directly observable; and second, because hypotheses and theories normally make universal claims (laws) that go beyond any finite body of observations.Critical reflection upon classical confirmation theory notes that it is difficult or impossible to provide a purely formal specification of the set of deductive consequences of a theory that serve to enhance the warrant of the theory.Further discussions of the theory of falsifiability have noted that anomalies are too easy to find in the development of scientific theories, and have attempted to offer a more historically adequate account of scientific belief based on a theory of scientific research programmes (Lakatos 1978).
Selector .selector_input_interaction .selector_input. Selector .selector_input_interaction .selector_spinner.
A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.
For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.
No finite list of observations exhaustively confirms a theory with universal generalizations; and different types of additional evidence have very different incremental effects on the credibility of the theory. additional observations of the same type have less epistemic weight than an additional unexpected observation.
But the essential idea is that an empirical observation is a scientific belief with a relatively direct relationship between the evidence of the senses and the truth conditions of the statement, based on reliable techniques of data collection to which we can attach high rational credibility.