scientific methodology

scientific

• Has three key stagess: 

• Observation (the collection of empirical evidence) 

• Hypothesis (based on empirical evidence gathered from observation) 

• Experimentation, repeated testing and formulation of a law 

• Scientists use both inductive and deductive reasoning  

• Both of these methods have the possibility of going wrong 

• No inductive argument can ever be proof because we can never be sure that we have done all possibly observations 

• With deduction, the conclusion is right only if the premises are right 

• Although neither inductive or deductive arguments are infallible, most people regard scientific findings as reliable 

SM STRENGTH: empirical verification and predictability + counter

• Karl popper and falsification 

• HOWEVER: Kuhn 

• Kuhn challenges the idea of a linear, objective progression of science. 

• He argues that science is conducted within "paradigms"—frameworks of understanding that shape what is considered valid evidence. 

• Scientific revolutions (e.g. Newtonian to Einsteinian physics) show that empirical verification may depend on the prevailing paradigm. 

• while empirical data strengthens scientific reliability, Kuhn suggests that what counts as evidence is often shaped by subjective frameworks, limiting the objectivity of the method 

SM WEAKNESS: limitation to observable phenomena 

• The scientific method can only investigate empirical, testable phenomena. This excludes metaphysical, ethical, and subjective experiences. 

• Swinburne argues that religious and moral truths often lie beyond empirical verification. 

• For instance, the existence of God or the soul cannot be tested in a laboratory but are still meaningful and rationally discussable. 

• Love, consciousness, or the experience of qualia cannot be fully captured in scientific terms. 

SM WEAKNESS: prob of induction

• Science relies heavily on inductive reasoning—drawing general laws from specific observations—but this logic is not guaranteed to be true 

• Hume questioned whether the future will necessarily resemble the past 

• Just because the sun has risen every day does not logically guarantee it will rise tomorrow. 

• Thus, scientific laws are probabilistic, not certain 

SM COUNTER to prob of induction

• Popper accepts the problem of induction but suggests deductive falsifiability as an answer. 

• Scientists should attempt to disprove theories, not confirm them. 

• Science advances by eliminating falsehoods, not by proving truths. 

•  While induction underpins much of science, Popper’s shift to falsification provides a philosophical workaround, though critics argue it oversimplifies how science actually progresses.