The scientific method ensures that the system of building knowledge respects what has been built already; what continues to prove existing theory is retained, what breaks it is further investigated.
The further investigation aspect has to do with replicability. A scientific experiment should be able to be tested repeatedly, otherwise it is merely a one-off activity that cannot do much to established knowledge.
But replicability is often taken for granted. Our experiments assume that our version of time is continuous, ever-lasting and indefinite.
Can we help it?
Even under the assumption that time is continuous, things change over time. Value increases or decreases based on prevailing circumstances.
Does this change affect any part of the scientific method?
There is a clause in proofs - "ceteris paribus" or "all other things being equal" - that is a slight fix for the assumption that time will not change value. But this clause is also the extra, unexciting part of proofs.
Why, then, are we convinced that tomorrow will come and we can continue as we have done today?
The further investigation aspect has to do with replicability. A scientific experiment should be able to be tested repeatedly, otherwise it is merely a one-off activity that cannot do much to established knowledge.
But replicability is often taken for granted. Our experiments assume that our version of time is continuous, ever-lasting and indefinite.
Can we help it?
Even under the assumption that time is continuous, things change over time. Value increases or decreases based on prevailing circumstances.
Does this change affect any part of the scientific method?
There is a clause in proofs - "ceteris paribus" or "all other things being equal" - that is a slight fix for the assumption that time will not change value. But this clause is also the extra, unexciting part of proofs.
Why, then, are we convinced that tomorrow will come and we can continue as we have done today?
Comments
Post a Comment