Scientific evidence
Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis,[1] although scientists also use evidence in other ways, such as when applying theories to practical problems.[2] Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with the scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.[citation needed]
Principles of inference
A person's assumptions or beliefs about the relationship between observations and a hypothesis will affect whether that person takes the observations as evidence.
When rational observers have different background beliefs, they may draw different conclusions from the same scientific evidence. For example,
A more formal method to characterize the effect of background beliefs is Bayesian inference.[5] In Bayesian inference, beliefs are expressed as percentages indicating one's confidence in them. One starts from an initial probability (a prior), and then updates that probability using Bayes' theorem after observing evidence.[6] As a result, two independent observers of the same event will rationally arrive at different conclusions if their priors (previous observations that are also relevant to the conclusion) differ.
The importance of background beliefs in the determination of what observations are evidence can be illustrated using deductive reasoning, such as syllogisms.[7] If either of the propositions is not accepted as true, the conclusion will not be accepted either.
Utility of scientific evidence
Philosophers, such as
Philosophical versus scientific views
In the 20th century, many philosophers investigated the logical relationship between evidence statements and hypotheses, whereas scientists tended to focus on how the data used for statistical inference are generated.[10]: S193 But according to philosopher Deborah Mayo, by the end of the 20th century philosophers had come to understand that "there are key features of scientific practice that are overlooked or misdescribed by all such logical accounts of evidence, whether hypothetico-deductive, Bayesian, or instantiationist".[10]: S194
There were a variety of 20th-century philosophical approaches to decide whether an observation may be considered evidence; many of these focused on the relationship between the evidence and the hypothesis. In the 1950s,
In 2001, Achinstein published his own book on the subject titled The Book of Evidence, in which, among other topics, he distinguished between four concepts of evidence: epistemic-situation evidence (evidence relative to a given epistemic situation), subjective evidence (considered to be evidence by a particular person at a particular time), veridical evidence (a good reason to believe that a hypothesis is true), and potential evidence (a good reason to believe that a hypothesis is highly probable).[14] Achinstein defined all his concepts of evidence in terms of potential evidence, since any other kind of evidence must at least be potential evidence, and he argued that scientists mainly seek veridical evidence but they also use the other concepts of evidence, which rely on a distinctive concept of probability, and Achinstein contrasted this concept of probability with previous probabilistic theories of evidence such as Bayesian, Carnapian, and frequentist.[14]
Simplicity is one common philosophical criterion for scientific theories.[15] Based on the philosophical assumption of the strong Church-Turing thesis, a mathematical criterion for evaluation of evidence has been conjectured, with the criterion having a resemblance to the idea of Occam's razor that the simplest comprehensive description of the evidence is most likely correct.[16] It states formally, "The ideal principle states that the prior probability associated with the hypothesis should be given by the algorithmic universal probability, and the sum of the log universal probability of the model plus the log of the probability of the data given the model should be minimized."[16] However, some philosophers (including Richard Boyd, Mario Bunge, John D. Norton, and Elliott Sober) have adopted a skeptical or deflationary view of the role of simplicity in science, arguing in various ways that its importance has been overemphasized.[17]
Emphasis on hypothesis testing as the essence of science is prevalent among both scientists and philosophers.
Concept of scientific proof
While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media,[22] many scientists and philosophers have argued that there is really no such thing as infallible proof. For example, Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."[23][24] Albert Einstein said:
The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe", and in the great majority of cases simply "No". If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe", and if it does not agree it means "No". Probably every theory will someday experience its "No"—most theories, soon after conception.[25]
However, in contrast to the ideal of infallible proof, in practice theories may be said to be proved according to some
See also
- Anecdotal evidence – Evidence relying on personal testimony
- Evidence-based medicine – Illness diagnosis, treatment and prevention based on data collection and analysis
- Scientific evidence (law)– Person whose opinion is accepted by the judge as an expert
- Science – Systematic endeavor for gaining knowledge
- Probabilistic causation
- Probabilistic argumentation
- Probabilistic logic – use of probability and logic to deal with uncertain situations
- Opinion – Judgment, viewpoint, or statement that is not conclusive
References
- OCLC 54461920.
Scientific evidence is generally taken to be anything tending to refute or confirm a hypothesis.
- ^ a b Boyd, Nora Mills; Bogen, James (June 14, 2021). "Theory and observation in science". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. "Discussions about empirical evidence have tended to focus on epistemological questions regarding its role in theory testing ... even though empirical evidence also plays important and philosophically interesting roles in other areas including scientific discovery, the development of experimental tools and techniques, and the application of scientific theories to practical problems."
- ^ a b Longino, Helen (March 1979). Philosophy of Science, Vol. 46. pp. 37–42.
- ^ Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolution, 2nd Ed. (1970).
- ^ William Talbott "Bayesian Epistemology" Accessed May 13, 2007.
- ^ Thomas Kelly "Evidence". Accessed May 13, 2007.
- ^ George Kenneth Stone, "Evidence in Science"(1966)
- ^ Karl R. Popper,"The Logic of Scientific Discovery" (1959).
- ^ Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 2nd Ed. (2000), p. 71. Accessed Feb 21, 2020. see: the 3rd edition of Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence
- ^ S2CID 120774584.
- OCLC 372957.
- ISBN 0198750625.
- S2CID 62119768.
- ^ OCLC 824535995.
- ^ Baker, Alan (20 December 2016). "Simplicity". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- ^ S2CID 184483493.
- ^ Fitzpatrick, Simon (2013). "Simplicity in the philosophy of science". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. See especially Sections 1b and 4c.
- ISBN 978-1108422260..
No other criterion of a good scientific theory is as widely recognized as the falsifiability or testability of a theory—not only within the philosophy of science, but also way beyond it.
And: "Understanding Science 101: Testing scientific ideas". undsci.berkeley.edu. University of California Museum of PaleontologyTesting hypotheses and theories is at the core of the process of science.
- ^ OCLC 870285649.
- OCLC 42603382.
- The Huffington Post. Retrieved 15 May 2015.
- Fox News Channel. 28 February 2014. Retrieved 19 March 2014.
- ISBN 978-1136700323.
- ^ Theobald, Douglas (1999–2012). "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution". TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 19 March 2014.
- ISBN 978-0-387-49575-0.
- ^ .
Traditional epistemology established knowledge on the basis of a false concept—true belief. On our theory, scientific evidence should be based on a process of justifying the agent's reasonable acceptance of a hypothesis in an inquiry that ends in proof. We have shown in section V how this procedure can be modeled using the Carneades Argumentation System. Any proposition that cannot be proved in an inquiry to an appropriate standard of proof following this kind of epistemological procedure is not acceptable as knowledge.
- ^ OCLC 919080389.
To say that something is knowledge, it is important that the proposition claimed as knowledge be based on evidence of a kind that reaches a level where the proposition passes beyond the level of being accepted as true because it is based on evidence. Only when it is proved by a certain kind of evidence, that is sufficient for the discipline, or more generally the context in which the proposition was claimed, can something be properly said to be knowledge. The standard has to be high enough in a scientific inquiry to minimize the possibility that the proposition accepted as true will later have to be retracted.