Jim_Duyer
6th September 2021, 20:53
One of the complaints made by some of our "Scientists" seems to be that amateurs, defined by them as persons without a Doctoral Degree in an Accepted Field of Science, do not utilize the scientific method. In fact, we amateurs may not even know the definition of "hypothesis" or "theory" or "testing", let alone "proof", according to them. Let us see.
Evidence is something or some object that contributes to knowledge of what happened. It includes everything that is used to reveal and determine the truth. Proof is evidence that is sufficient to demonstrate the certainty of something.
Here is an example that might help to clarify the process of using evidence to develop hypotheses, and then testing or confirming the hypotheses in order to propose a theory, which later will be published and accepted as proof or evidence.
You are positive that you finished your homework but unfortunately it's gone missing. You're just not able to locate it, anywhere. Considering the possibilities with great care, you come up with three suppositions:
(1) Maybe the dog ate it.
(2) Possibly your mom threw it out by accident while she was cleaning.
(3) Perhaps the gods removed all awareness of your homework from the known universe as a test of faith.
These three scenarios for the loss of your treasured homework are called hypotheses. The dog hypothesis and the mom hypothesis would more properly be called theories, because you might be able to find evidence for them. The gods hypothesis might be harder to substantiate, so it remains, for now, a hypothesis.
After searching the scene, you discover small shreds of wet paper on the floor. These resemble the same type of paper that you normally use to do your homework.
You inspect the entire supply of household garbage, and find nothing to indicate your homework might have been tossed out. However, the fact that your mom had done this once before, in the distant past, keeps this hypothesis alive.
There is no evidence for or against the gods hypothesis.
Proof is not constructed from the absence of evidence. And by that I mean that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, until proven.
In conclusion, after experimenting and proving your various hypotheses, you now have a solid, publishable theory that the dog ate your homework, and a minority theory that your mom threw it out by accident. Some scholars will peer-review your work, and the majority of them will support your dog ate homework hypothesis, while the rest will either support one of the two minority theories or suggest some of their own.
Your "Theory of the Propensity to Consume Homework via the introduction of a Species of Common Canine" appears as a "fact" in textbooks used by students across the country. Theories by other scientists that expand or support this theory are regularly peer-reviewed and published, and your theory is cited by other scientists when they publish their theories. Unless a more respected scientist is able to pass peer-review and publish his alternate theory, your work is the standard. All other fields of science, even those unrelated to your own, will need to massage any future discoveries until they are formed in accordance with your published theory.
Theories by non-scientists, or by scientists that do not obtain the approval of a review by scientific "peers", are not published by serious journals. Those wacky theories are relegated to the level of "Myths", or painted with the brush of "Pseudo Science Magic". Even if they happen to make much better sense.
I am not the holder of any scientific titles or degrees. I am not paid by, controlled by, or subject to the laws or edicts of any scientific body. I am able to adjust my theories and even admit mistakes, when they occur. Many of my ideas are radical, most are unique, and all are my own honest opinions, and were not formed under the professional pressure of others.
I'm proud to be among the "amateurs" of this world.
Evidence is something or some object that contributes to knowledge of what happened. It includes everything that is used to reveal and determine the truth. Proof is evidence that is sufficient to demonstrate the certainty of something.
Here is an example that might help to clarify the process of using evidence to develop hypotheses, and then testing or confirming the hypotheses in order to propose a theory, which later will be published and accepted as proof or evidence.
You are positive that you finished your homework but unfortunately it's gone missing. You're just not able to locate it, anywhere. Considering the possibilities with great care, you come up with three suppositions:
(1) Maybe the dog ate it.
(2) Possibly your mom threw it out by accident while she was cleaning.
(3) Perhaps the gods removed all awareness of your homework from the known universe as a test of faith.
These three scenarios for the loss of your treasured homework are called hypotheses. The dog hypothesis and the mom hypothesis would more properly be called theories, because you might be able to find evidence for them. The gods hypothesis might be harder to substantiate, so it remains, for now, a hypothesis.
After searching the scene, you discover small shreds of wet paper on the floor. These resemble the same type of paper that you normally use to do your homework.
You inspect the entire supply of household garbage, and find nothing to indicate your homework might have been tossed out. However, the fact that your mom had done this once before, in the distant past, keeps this hypothesis alive.
There is no evidence for or against the gods hypothesis.
Proof is not constructed from the absence of evidence. And by that I mean that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, until proven.
In conclusion, after experimenting and proving your various hypotheses, you now have a solid, publishable theory that the dog ate your homework, and a minority theory that your mom threw it out by accident. Some scholars will peer-review your work, and the majority of them will support your dog ate homework hypothesis, while the rest will either support one of the two minority theories or suggest some of their own.
Your "Theory of the Propensity to Consume Homework via the introduction of a Species of Common Canine" appears as a "fact" in textbooks used by students across the country. Theories by other scientists that expand or support this theory are regularly peer-reviewed and published, and your theory is cited by other scientists when they publish their theories. Unless a more respected scientist is able to pass peer-review and publish his alternate theory, your work is the standard. All other fields of science, even those unrelated to your own, will need to massage any future discoveries until they are formed in accordance with your published theory.
Theories by non-scientists, or by scientists that do not obtain the approval of a review by scientific "peers", are not published by serious journals. Those wacky theories are relegated to the level of "Myths", or painted with the brush of "Pseudo Science Magic". Even if they happen to make much better sense.
I am not the holder of any scientific titles or degrees. I am not paid by, controlled by, or subject to the laws or edicts of any scientific body. I am able to adjust my theories and even admit mistakes, when they occur. Many of my ideas are radical, most are unique, and all are my own honest opinions, and were not formed under the professional pressure of others.
I'm proud to be among the "amateurs" of this world.