INNOVATIVE WORK

Submitted To Submitted By

Rintu Chacko Lekha TL

Natural Science

Reg No : 18114373012

„Science‟ can be defined simply as a methodology of testing knowledge claims through empirical observation (experimentation) Hypothesis

Experimentation

Analysis of results

Develop scientific laws

Develop scientific theories

Repeat the cycle

This is integrated with publication, peer review, replication and falsification

„science‟ is therefore not really just a body of knowledge, as is commonly thought

Law

Hypothesis (must be falsifiable)

Experiment (with independent,

dependent and control variables)

Conclusion

Theory

Peer review,

replication of

experiments,

scrutiny by

the scientific

community

and attempts

at

falsification

A paradigm

shift may

(but not

always) lead

to changes in

scientific

laws

When a knowledge claim purports to be scientific but does not meet the requirements of the scientific method, we label it pseudoscience

Such claims are often falsifiable or make such vague claims that they cannot be falsified (often supporters simply reject any falsification)

They are often based on belief systems which are not supported by empirical observation

While a good scientist (hopefully) should reject a hypothesis if it is falsified, a pseudoscientist will often introduce ad hoc exceptions to avoid doing so

However, just because something is not scientific does not mean it is

automatically pseudoscientific. A pseudoscience claims to be

scientific when it is not

Is this scientific?

The Story of

Creation in

Genesis

• Darwin‟s Theory

of Evolution by

Natural Selection

Which is scientific and why?

Science is a tool for getting closer to the truth

There are problems involved in falsification and a scientific theory by definition can never be claimed as fact (some people think the use of the word „theory‟ in science equates to a lack of certainty)

However, perhaps paradoxically it is the best method we have for approaching truth about our observations of the Universe around us

If a scientific theory has supporting evidence, corresponds to previous knowledge, coheres to the current paradigm and is pragmatic then we can accept it as true (at least until a better version of the theory comes along or there is a paradigm shift)

“Science does not aim at establishing immutable truths and eternal

dogmas; its aim is to approach the truth by successive

approximations, without claiming that at any stage final and

complete accuracy has been achieved.”

- Bertrand Russell