It is impossible to make universal, all encompassing, statements about our experiences. We can observe and test such an insignificant part of all potential experiences, that it is not possible for any humanly devised knowledge system to make generalizations that are absolute. All our inductions must always be tentative and never final.
Science comes up with ideas about of its previous knowlege to explain something new about the Physical world. if these ideas are to represent a natural phenomena by theorethical formulation,then they are tested thru experimentation. This is basically the natural path of the scientific method which originated from any one of our ancestors with some common sense.
If the observer of the experiment is able to match the results with the prediction in the theory ,The results are then proving the theory to be correct.
However is it? Scientific fact are always open to question until another theory and tests prove other wise.
There is no absolute in Science; "all our equations are only appoximations."
Scientific facts and theories are developed to explain observations of our surroundings. These were made since a very long time ago. With time however, the precision and accuracy with which observations could be made was improved, new techniques and experiments were used. This made it necessary to change the scientific facts and theories to make them in line with and explain the latest observations while not contradicting past observations.
A clear example of this is the model of the atom.
J.J Thomson proposed the plum-pudding model of an atom, in which there were negatively charged particles (the plums) in a positively charged 'pudding'.
After the alpha-scattering experiment was made, Ernst Rutherford proposed that the model of the atom had to be changed to that consisting of a very small and dense positively charged nucleus with electrons orbiting around the nucleus in fixed defined shells.
With the birth of quantum theory, the model of the atom had to be changed again: The elementary particles of the atom were no longer neutrons, protons and electrons. The previously fixed and defined shells of the electrons orbiting the nucleus were changed into orbitals, which represent a space around the nucleus where there is a high probability of finding an electron.
The new model of the atom can still be changed in the future so that it can explain the observations from the experiments which we are or will perform.
improvements in math, physics, astronomy, Biology, and chemistry changed the opinions of people about life. Scientists constantly make new observations in order to help us in the future and instead they find details that prove previous theories wrong or change old ones.Scientists constantly make new observations in order to help us in the future and instead they find details that prove previous theories wrong. it was previously believed that losing a large amount of blood was a cure for multiple illnesses and that travelling on trains would cause brain damage. However over time scientists perform new experiments or repeat old ones in order to confirm the results and the theory of others which result in new theories or a change in old ones.
Its not exactly that they were wrong or that it changes, they just find new information.
Yes, scientific facts are absolute & unchanging.
Scientific knowledge will never be complete, there will always be questions that need answers.
There is no absolute knowledge in science that can never be disproven even in principle. It does sometimes turn out that scientists are wrong, and what they considered to be a fact turns out not to be one. I would add that it is more usual for scientists to revise theories, than to reject what was considered to be a fact, but it does happen.
scientific fact or scientific law
Theories
false
I believe not.
All in science, even facts, are tentative and subject to revision. It once was a fact that the earth was flat, but mow we know better and have a theory to explain the fact that the earth is a spheroid.
Unchanging over time or unable to be changed: "an immutable fact"
Unchanging over time or unable to be changed: "an immutable fact"
'Truth' is defined as: NOUN 1) the general notion of objectivity; what exists independently of the mind; the world as it is, regardless of human belief or knowledge about it 2) the correspondence or conformity of thought or language to fact or reality 3) a thought or statement that corresponds or conforms to fact or reality 4) the doctrines of a specified religion considered as divine revelation and to be absolute and unchanging 5) the empirical evidence obtained by observation and experiment as employed by the scientific method
Scientific knowledge will never be complete, there will always be questions that need answers.
Scientific knowledge is not absolute.
It can be called a constant or fixed value. If it is not a value but a cell reference then it can be called an absolute reference.
a scientific fact is called data.
A thesis is not a statement of absolute fact. A thesis is usually an opinion supported by a lot of quality research.
There is no absolute knowledge in science that can never be disproven even in principle. It does sometimes turn out that scientists are wrong, and what they considered to be a fact turns out not to be one. I would add that it is more usual for scientists to revise theories, than to reject what was considered to be a fact, but it does happen.
They can be any size. The only unchanging 'fact' which is true about all isosceles triangles is that two of them are equal.