Naučni dokaz — разлика између измена

Садржај обрисан Садржај додат

Инлајн

Верзија на датум 2. новембар 2023. у 01:07

Naučni dokaz 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.

Concept of scientific proof

While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media,^[3] 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."^[4]^[5] 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.^[6]

However, in contrast to the ideal of infallible proof, in practice theories may be said to be proved according to some standard of proof used in a given inquiry.^[7]^[8] In this limited sense, proof is the high degree of acceptance of a theory following a process of inquiry and critical evaluation according to the standards of a scientific community.^[7]^[8]

Reference

^ Taper, Mark L.; Lele, Subhash (2004). „The nature of scientific evidence: a forward-looking synthesis”. Ур.: Taper, Mark L.; Lele, Subhash. The nature of scientific evidence: statistical, philosophical, and empirical considerations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. стр. 527—551 (547). ISBN 0226789551. OCLC 54461920. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226789583.003.0016. „Scientific evidence is generally taken to be anything tending to refute or confirm a hypothesis.”
^ Boyd, Nora Mills; Bogen, James (14. 6. 2021). „Theory and observation in science”. Ур.: Zalta, Edward N. 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."
^ See, for example, „Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific proof humans are dominant cause of warming climate”. Fox News Channel. 28. 2. 2014. Приступљено 19. 3. 2014.
^ Popper, Karl (2011) [1966]. The Open Society and Its Enemies (5th изд.). Routledge. стр. 229—230. ISBN 978-1136700323.
^ Theobald, Douglas (1999—2012). „29+ Evidences for Macroevolution”. TalkOrigins Archive. Приступљено 19. 3. 2014.
^ Gaither, Carl (2009). Gaither's Dictionary of Scientific Quotations. New York: Springer. стр. 1602. ISBN 978-0-387-49575-0.
^ ^а ^б Walton, Douglas N.; Zhang, Nanning (мај 2013). „The epistemology of scientific evidence”. Artificial Intelligence and Law. 21 (2): 173—219 (214). doi:10.1007/s10506-012-9132-9. „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.”
^ ^а ^б Walton, Douglas N. (2016). Argument evaluation and evidence. Law, governance and technology series. 23. Cham; New York: Springer-Verlag. стр. 224. ISBN 9783319196268. OCLC 919080389. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19626-8. „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.”

[1] Taper, Mark L.; Lele, Subhash (2004). „The nature of scientific evidence: a forward-looking synthesis”. Ур.: Taper, Mark L.; Lele, Subhash. The nature of scientific evidence: statistical, philosophical, and empirical considerations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. стр. 527—551 (547). ISBN 0226789551. OCLC 54461920. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226789583.003.0016. „Scientific evidence is generally taken to be anything tending to refute or confirm a hypothesis.”

[SEPTO-2] Boyd, Nora Mills; Bogen, James (14. 6. 2021). „Theory and observation in science”. Ур.: Zalta, Edward N. 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."

[3] See, for example, „Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific proof humans are dominant cause of warming climate”. Fox News Channel. 28. 2. 2014. Приступљено 19. 3. 2014.

[4] Popper, Karl (2011) [1966]. The Open Society and Its Enemies (5th изд.). Routledge. стр. 229—230. ISBN 978-1136700323.

[5] Theobald, Douglas (1999—2012). „29+ Evidences for Macroevolution”. TalkOrigins Archive. Приступљено 19. 3. 2014.

[6] Gaither, Carl (2009). Gaither's Dictionary of Scientific Quotations. New York: Springer. стр. 1602. ISBN 978-0-387-49575-0.

[WaltonZhang2013-7] а ^б Walton, Douglas N.; Zhang, Nanning (мај 2013). „The epistemology of scientific evidence”. Artificial Intelligence and Law. 21 (2): 173—219 (214). doi:10.1007/s10506-012-9132-9. „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.”

[Walton2016-8] а ^б Walton, Douglas N. (2016). Argument evaluation and evidence. Law, governance and technology series. 23. Cham; New York: Springer-Verlag. стр. 224. ISBN 9783319196268. OCLC 919080389. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19626-8. „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.”

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]