Dr Minos Talgia

The method’s uniformity made it simple to use- an inquiry was asked, information about it was collected, and an educated guess was made- called a hypothesis. The experiment was conducted, and after the scientist would analyse the data, and the experiment after several trials for conformation was concluded. The same procedure for any experiment was a favoured by scientists, and it was quickly adapted, “... A new way of science emerged. Scientists began to observe the world around them and to develop ideas about why things happened” (Document 7). Scientists learned from older scientists and their mistakes, and learned from each other, bouncing ideas and theories around, until they reached a solid answer. This way of thinking affects scientists today, who use the same method as it was written originally, to discover more about sudden explosions of extraordinary light that could destroy Earth, even from billions of light years away, like blazars and quasars, or complex uncountably infinite paradoxes, like supertasks. By asking the right questions and learning from others, humanism also became a foundation the Scientific

There is a popular belief that aliens walked the Earth in ancient times, and these theories have created quite a stir in the scientific community. Ancient alien theorists, like Erich von Daniken and Zecharia Sitchin, believe that extraterrestrials came to earth thousands of years ago. Some hypothesize that ancient aliens are responsible for ancient technological wonders, and that they helped to shape human civilization. Furthermore, the belief that ancient gods were in fact aliens, misinterpreted as gods by the ancient people. As it turns out, there is quite a bit of evidence to support some of these ancient alien theories. However, it is all subject to interpretation, as it has not been validated. Evidence used to support the ancient

When observation comes into play, testing a hypothesis and following the steps in the scientific method can prove to be more difficult than one presumes. Observation can cause error or provide uncertainty when pursuing science. The selected nature of perception indicates that there is always a possibility of overlooking a factor of the experiment that is potentially relevant or even crucial. For example, Van de Lagemaat showed that Mercury deviated from the orbit. This was predicted by Newton’s Laws. To explain this deviation, astronomers developed the notion that there was an undiscovered planet called Vulcan. Some of the astronomers even claimed that they had seen this planet. It was later found out that the undiscovered planet did not exist at all. To explain Mercury’s deviation, Einstein developed the theory of relativity years later. Both selectivity, overlooking a possible factor about space, and expectations, influencing what we can see, are suggested in contributing

Empirical knowledge is integral in developing or explaining theories of science. A scientific theory, in the first place, relies on a body of factual information

The science that is connected with planet earth encompasses geosciences or earth science among others. Containing old histories, this is considered as a part of planetary science while it possesses holistic and reductionist approaches in the science of the planet Earth. This discipline can cope with lithosphere, atmosphere, biosphere or hydrosphere. Quantitative understanding has been developed by the scientists to understand the ground systems with the tools by mathematics, physics, chronology, biology, chemistry alike that help to know how the universe is evolved.

Discoveries can manifest themselves in many ways and can be evoked by one's curiosity, necessity or wonder. The

The journal is peer reviewed and published at the University of Oxford, so the resource is credible. The sole purpose of this article is to show how scientists

It makes no difference if the theory explains old facts differently from the earlier theory, just that they are explained. This necessity guarantees the accumulative development of science. Despite a new theory explaining new facts, if there is no explanation for the old ones then there are no considerations of finalized advancement and no immediate replacement of them (Stanovich, 2007). What will occur will be both the old and new theory coexisting as probable ideas until a new theory abdicates them null and void? Leading us astray is the breakthrough model of scientific research by suggesting that new findings violate the principle of connectivity (Stanovich, 2007). This suggestion deems risky because by abandoning the connectivity principle, the primary beneficiaries are purveyors of counterfeit science and incredulous theories. Notorious are headlines that lead off with “New Breakthrough.” Theories such as these acquire most of their interest and publicity by claims that they are astoundingly new. The next deception is to cast out past information by asserting them impertinent. The reason being given, that such information does not yet exist due to the newness of the theory. This breeds an environment of pseudoscience. Better explained is by the evolutionary theory the ghost of creationism, with its connectivity display of such different areas of science as morphology,

What is Science? When it comes to the word ‘science’ most of the people have some kind of knowledge about science or when they think of it there is some kind of image related to it, a theory, scientific words or scientific research (Beyond Conservation, n.d.). Many different sorts of ideas float into an individual’s mind. Every individual has a different perception about science and how he/she perceives it. It illustrates that each person can identify science in some form. It indicates that the ‘science’ plays a vital role in our everyday lives (Lederman & Tobin, 2002). It seems that everyone can identify science but cannot differentiate it correctly from pseudo-science and non-science (Park, 1986). This essay will address the difference between science, non-science and pseudo-science. Then it will discuss possible responses to the question that what should we do when there is a clash between scientific explanation and non-scientific explanation. Then it will present a brief examination about the correct non-scientific explanation.

Knowledge can be produced using a variety of different methods. However, in the natural sciences sense perception through observation is used primarily. This can be seen through the work of researchers who often observe the results of experiments and trends in order to analyze different phenomena and perspectives. While there are many scientific methods based on scientific thinking using logic and predictability, the idea that

Science is the knowledge gained by a systematic study, knowledge which then becomes facts or principles. In the systematic study; the first step is observation, the second step hypothesis, the third step experimentation to test the hypothesis, and lastly the conclusion whether or not the hypothesis holds true. These steps have been ingrained into every student of science, as the basic pathway to scientific discovery. This pathway holds not decision as to good or evil intention of the experiment. Though, there are always repercussions of scientific experiments. They range from the most simplistic realizations of the difference between acid and water to the principle that Earth is not the center of

Although it is irrefutable that both Aristotle and Isaac Newton are great scientists and have made phenomenal contributions to scientific development, their scientific methods vary to a large extent. With reference to Scientific Method in Practice, Aristotle investigated the world by using inductions from observations to infer general principles and deductions from those principles to conduct further observational research (Gauch, 2003), while in Isaac Newton's Scientific Method, the author describes Newton’s method as aiming to turn theoretical questions into ones which can be explained by mathematical ideas and measurement from phenomena, and to establish that propositions inferred from phenomena are provisionally guides to further research

After that theory scientists started Wondering about this theory and a lot of Scientists made up Models and conducted Experiments to Explain this Theory. In this report we will put our self’s inside Each scientist’s Shoe and see What has he discovered.

In reality, many scientists were skeptical of both UFOs and of alien life in general; they contended that interstellar travel would be easy for advanced civilizations, so the lack of overt contact disproved alien existence. Yet most UFO opponents do believe alien life exists out in the universe, just not here. So they defend the near impossibility of interstellar travel, which contradicts a considerable portion of the scientific community (Thompson, 1990).

We live in a strange and puzzling world. Despite the exponential growth of knowledge in the past century, we are faced by a baffling multitude of conflicting ideas. The mass of conflicting ideas causes the replacement of knowledge, as one that was previously believed to be true gets replace by new idea. This is accelerated by the rapid development of technology to allow new investigations into knowledge within the areas of human and natural sciences. Knowledge in the human sciences has been replaced for decades as new discoveries by the increased study of humans, and travel has caused the discarding of a vast array of theories. The development of