0
Is any hypothesis that is not scientific necessarily unreasonable?
Wiki User
∙ 10y ago
A particular fact being scientific is just a matter of observations. However, we are not aware of all the facts in the universe. So, if a hypothesis is not scientific by today's standards, it does not mean that it is entirely unreasonable. Things which were thought to be unreasonable centuries ago and perfectly within reason now - just look at an aeroplane.
Wiki User
∙ 10y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
When using the scientific method what must be tested as focus of any experiment?
hypothesis
What is the difference between a hypothesis a scientific theory and a scientific law?
A hypothesis is any concept concerning understanding something, anything. A (scientific) theory is a hypothesis which has been tested and found (so far) to be true. A "scientific law" is just a thumb-nail description of a theory (its never complete).
Is a scientific hypothesis accepted if there is no way to demonstrate the hypothesis wrong?
A scientific hypothesis is not accepted if there is no way to demonstrate the hypothesis wrong. In fact, if there is no way to demonstrate the hypothesis wrong, then it is unfalsifiable and unscientific. For example, if I hypothesize that an all-powerful being created the Universe, there is no way to demonstrate that this hypothesis is wrong. One might argue that none of the natural laws of science require the intervention of an all-powerful being, but then I would simply argue that is because the being designed things that way. Because I can come up with any unfalsifiable explanation for any objection not only is there no way to demonstrate that my hypothesis is wrong, there is also no scientific reason or evidence to believe it is right.
What steps are taken by scientists in developing a scientific law or theory?
When scientists develop a scientific law or theory they follow the scientific method. They first develop a hypothesis and then test their hypotheses in order to record any reactions or occurrences. Once they have performed enough tests to either prove or disprove their hypothesis they can state a scientific law or theory.
Does scientific inquiry often begin by drawing a conclusion?
No... scientific inquiry begins by coming up with a question. From there you develop a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, alter your hypothesis if need be, test again, etc. Only after you have data that supports your hypothesis (if it ever does) do you draw any conclusions. If your data consistently does not support your hypothesis, no matter how it is modified, you may draw conclusions about your basic contentions as well. YES BUT..... what should you ask yourself in drawing a conclusion about an experiment?
Is any hypothsesis that is not scientific necessarily unreasonable?
No, that is not necessarily the case, because not everything is about science. Science is incredibly useful, but it is not everything. For example, I might make a hypothesis about what I want to eat for dinner. I think I might like a dry wine to go with my pork. This is not a scientific issue, it is just an issue of my personal taste. It has no scientific answer. But it is not unreasonable.
How does the existence of organisms in hot springs relate to the scientific hypothesis of how life forms arose on earth?
That's a bit of a nonsense question. The existence of life is consistent with *any* and *every* hypothesis that tries to explain the existence of life, scientific or not. The existence of life is the very thing that the hypothesis is trying to explain, so necessarily the hypothesis assumes it and must therefore be consistent with it. The same goes for the *kind* of life we find on Earth: since any scientific hypothesis must explain the life we find here, such a hypothesis must necessarily be consistent with the life we find.
Are aquatic apes real?
No. There is no scientific evidence to support the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. Nor are there any scientific papers in any reputable, peer reviewed scientific journals that support this hypothesis. After the last proponent to support this hypothesis, Hardy 1960(marine biologist), the main prominent proponent of it is Elaine Morgan who is not a scientist but a screenwriter.
What is always involved in a scientific inquiry?
Any scientific inquiry necessarily involves observation and reasoning.
Using the scientific method what must be tested as the focus of any experiment?
hypothesis
Using the scientific method what must be tested as the focus of any experiment.?
hypothesis
When using the scientific method what must be tested as focus of any experiment?
hypothesis
What is the difference between a hypothesis a scientific theory and a scientific law?
A hypothesis is any concept concerning understanding something, anything. A (scientific) theory is a hypothesis which has been tested and found (so far) to be true. A "scientific law" is just a thumb-nail description of a theory (its never complete).
Is a scientific hypothesis accepted if there is no way to demonstrate the hypothesis wrong?
A scientific hypothesis is not accepted if there is no way to demonstrate the hypothesis wrong. In fact, if there is no way to demonstrate the hypothesis wrong, then it is unfalsifiable and unscientific. For example, if I hypothesize that an all-powerful being created the Universe, there is no way to demonstrate that this hypothesis is wrong. One might argue that none of the natural laws of science require the intervention of an all-powerful being, but then I would simply argue that is because the being designed things that way. Because I can come up with any unfalsifiable explanation for any objection not only is there no way to demonstrate that my hypothesis is wrong, there is also no scientific reason or evidence to believe it is right.
What is another scientific model of the universe besides Big Bang Cosmology?
The Steady State Hypothesis WAS the only SCIENTIFIC alternative to Big Bang Cosmology. It is now been rejected by all but a fringe of scientists. No other hypothesis makes any serious claim to scientific support.
What steps are taken by scientists in developing a scientific law or theory?
When scientists develop a scientific law or theory they follow the scientific method. They first develop a hypothesis and then test their hypotheses in order to record any reactions or occurrences. Once they have performed enough tests to either prove or disprove their hypothesis they can state a scientific law or theory.
Can you please emphasize the scientific method?
The Scientific Method first starts with formulation of a question. Any question that is testable will do. The next step is to come up with an educated guess about your question. After the guess is made a prediction about the hypothesis (usually whether it is correct or not) is made. You then next test your Hypothesis using an experiment. After you test your Hypothesis you Analyse the data to discover whether or not the prediction about the Hypothesis is, or is not, supported.
