Study+guide+2

Q5. What is falsification and why is it important?

Flasification is concerned with being able to prove a theory wrong. Rather than just finding evidence to prove a theory, it is also possible to find evidence that can //disprove// a theory. Science needs to be testable, and to be able to find something wrong with a theory is important. (I know from watching endless episodes of Mythbusters, they are always talking about 'disproving a myth' or achieving a 'negative result'!!). Karl Popper argued that a hypotheses could not be "scientific" unless it could be falsifiable.

I agree with what Kellie has written and would like to add that in trying to prove a hypothesis correct, the agreeable experimental results may be coincidental. I've seen this on a number of occasions at work and as a technician overseen by a scientist used to wonder why there was no excitement on getting agreeable data but rather attack on the experiment and data from all angles. Also, in trying to prove a hypothesis incorrect, more variables might be explored and outliers in experimental data may not be considered to be experimental error but rather, real values.

Karen I always find the idea of falsification interesting. I think most scientists would agree that to be considered scientific, it must be possible to prove a hypothesis false (otherwise it is belief isn't it?). But the vast majority of experiments, or so it seems to me, are designed to seek evidence that supports a hypothesis. So we ask 'if this is true, then it follows that A should do B' and set about testing whether A really does B. Nevertheless, if A does not do B we have falsified, or at least raised doubts about, the hypothesis and this is the critical point, ie it must be possible to define experiments that could prove the theory false. Scientists rarely set out to repeat anothers work (although this is another basic tenet of science), we only do so if we find that A does not do B (and very very very occasionally unearth a fraud). I only once set out to prove a fellow scientist's hypothesis wrong, and it was not a pleasant experience. Mary

Q6. Explain the difference between scepticism and cynicism The student allocated this question has withdrawn from the subject. It is now open to all. Mary

A1 Scepticism and cynicism to me are closely related terms in that they both express doubt about something, be it moral, ethical, religious, scientific etc. However cynicism has, for me, a connotation of sarcasm or even critical malevolence disguised as wit, whereas sceptisism connotes a genuineness in belief about the doubt. That's my considered reaction. My first thought was that the difference was how my mood was on the day! (lol).

Denis

A2 To be sceptical is to question whether something is true or not. In contrast cynicism implies that the belief is that something is not likely to be true. The difference is in attitude. A cynic approaches an occurrence with a closed mind and pre-determined negativity whereas a sceptic is able to be convinced but remains open-minded and questioning, objectively.

Gretta Urquhart