Naučni dokaz

Naučni dokaz je evidencija koja služi za podršku ili suprotstavljanje naučnoj teoriji ili hipotezi,^[1] iako naučnici takođe koriste dokaze na druge načine, kao što je kada primenjuju teorije na praktične probleme.^[2] Očekuje se da takvi dokazi budu empirijski dokazi i da su interpretativni u skladu sa naučnim metodom. Standardi za naučne dokaze variraju u zavisnosti od oblasti istraživanja, ali snaga naučnih dokaza se generalno zasniva na rezultatima statističke analize i snazi naučnih kontrola.

Koncept naučnog dokaza[уреди | уреди извор]

Dok se fraza „naučni dokaz“ često koristi u popularnim medijima,^[3] mnogi naučnici i filozofi tvrde da zaista ne postoji takva stvar kao što je nepogrešiv dokaz. Na primer, Karl Poper je jednom napisao da „U empirijskim naukama, koje nam jedino mogu pružiti informacije o svetu u kome živimo, dokazi se ne pojavljuju, ako pod 'dokazom' mislimo na argument koji jednom zauvek utvrđuje istinu teorije.""^[4]^[5] Albert Ajnštajn je rekao:

Naučnom teoretičaru nije za zavideti. Jer, priroda, tačnije eksperiment, je neumoljiv i ne baš prijateljski sudija njegovog rada. Nikada ne kaže „da” teoriji. U najpovoljnijim slučajevima kaže „Možda”, a u velikoj većini slučajeva jednostavno „ne”. Ako se eksperiment slaže sa teorijom, to za potonju znači „možda”, a ako se ne slaže to znači „ne”. Verovatno će svaka teorija jednog dana iskusiti svoje „ne“ — većina teorija, ubrzo nakon začeća.^[6]

Međutim, za razliku od ideala nepogrešivog dokaza, u praksi se može reći da su teorije dokazane prema nekom standardu dokaza koji se koristi u datom istraživanju.^[7]^[8] U ovom ograničenom smislu, dokaz je visok stepen prihvatanja teorije nakon procesa istraživanja i kritičke evaluacije prema standardima naučne zajednice.^[7]^[8]

Reference[уреди | уреди извор]

^ 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]