Lovelier yet, string theory could unify general relativity with quantum mechanics, solving what is perhaps the most stubborn problem in fundamental physics. The trouble? To put string theory to the test, we may need experiments that operate at energies far higher than any modern collider. Meanwhile, cosmologists have found themselves at a similar impasse. We live in a universe that is, by some estimations, too good to be true.
Why do these numbers, which are essential features of the universe and cannot be derived from more fundamental quantities, appear to conspire for our comfort? Researchers have been trying to underpin our apparent stroke of luck with hard science for decades. String theory suggests a solution: It predicts that our universe is just one among a multitude of universes, each with its own fundamental constants.
The tricky part is testing the idea. Yet the theory provides a neat solution to the fine-tuning problem. Popper sought to distinguish between various means of understanding the world in an effort to determine what constitutes a scientific approach. Prior to his seminal work, merely the empirical nature of scientific investigation was accepted as the criterion that differentiated it from pseudo- or nonscientific research.
Falsifiability Encyclopedia of Research Design Search form. Show page numbers Download PDF. Search form icon-arrow-top icon-arrow-top. Page Site Advanced 7 of Whilst some "pure" sciences do adhere to this strict criterion, many fall somewhere between the two extremes, with pseudo-sciences falling at the extreme end of being unfalsifiable.
According to Popper, many branches of applied science, especially social science, are not truly scientific because they have no potential for falsification. Anthropology and sociology, for example, often use case studies to observe people in their natural environment without actually testing any specific hypotheses or theories. While such studies and ideas are not falsifiable, most would agree that they are scientific because they significantly advance human knowledge.
Popper had and still has his fair share of critics, and the question of how to demarcate legitimate scientific enquiry can get very convoluted. Thus, falsifiability is not a simple black and white matter. The Raven Paradox shows the inherent danger of relying on falsifiability, because very few scientific experiments can measure all of the data, and necessarily rely upon generalization.
Technologies change along with our aims and comprehension of the phenomena we study, and so the falsifiability criterion for good science is subject to shifting. For many sciences, the idea of falsifiability is a useful tool for generating theories that are testable and realistic.
Testability is a crucial starting point around which to design solid experiments that have a chance of telling us something useful about the phenomena in question. If a falsifiable theory is tested and the results are significant , then it can become accepted as a scientific truth. The advantage of Popper's idea is that such truths can be falsified when more knowledge and resources are available.
Even long accepted theories such as Gravity, Relativity and Evolution are increasingly challenged and adapted. The major disadvantage of falsifiability is that it is very strict in its definitions and does not take into account the contributions of sciences that are observational and descriptive. Retrieved Nov 11, from Explorable.
The text in this article is licensed under the Creative Commons-License Attribution 4. That is it. You can use it freely with some kind of link , and we're also okay with people reprinting in publications like books, blogs, newsletters, course-material, papers, wikipedia and presentations with clear attribution.
Menu Search. Menu Search Login Sign Up. You must have JavaScript enabled to use this form.
0コメント