To what extent do scientists rely on either confirming or falsifying a hypothesis? Is either matter ever straightforward? What does this tell us about the nature of the scientific endeavour?

Authors Avatar by crysisfreak69 (student)

Q> To what extent do scientists rely on either confirming or falsifying a hypothesis? Is either matter ever straightforward? What does this tell us about the nature of the scientific endeavor?

I think Science is known for its objectivity and how its facts remain same throughout the earth , except in some special cases such as a vacuum . What then becomes characteristic is the scientific method that is then followed to prove or disprove a belief .

The scientific method starts out with an observation  , then a hypothesis is made based on which experiments are conducted before it can be regarded as a theory or not . Because of the strong prevalence of this method in the science community , scientists don't have a choice and are expected to follow the same procedure . This doesn't mean that they these methods are exempted from mind boggling error potential.

Join now!

One of the main problems associated with the scientific method is that although the methods we adopt are objective , the implementation of the methods by humans aren't .  When a hypothesis is laid , the scientist is for it or against it , based on personal preferences , there is no absolute neutrality due to the characteristics of human nature . What happens then is that a person who is supporting the hypothesis will try to present only the successful data and cover up the unsuccessful data . Yes , the person is presenting the truth , however ...

This is a preview of the whole essay