originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: chr0naut
No I mean, If I say I predicted that the moon will disappear. What does this sentence imply?
a) the moon disappeared (already)
b) the moon will disappear (in future)
remember, I wrote predicted.
It does not have to do with your post but since you´re mother language is english, I thought I´d ask you.
Oh, I misunderstood.
By definition of the scientific method: observation comes first, leading the scientist to formulate a theory as to how the observed may happen.
The scientist then tries to determine if the theory is correct.
One of the initial tasks is usually (especially in physics) to model the situation mathematically and then calculate things that would happen as a
result of the process of the theory. By reducing the process of the theory down to numbers and equations, confusion as to word meanings can be
avoided. It has been argued that this reductionist thinking is invalid in the light of a chaotic and complex reality, but it does fit the scale of our
Then, the mathematical model can guide us as to what to expect for our experimental results and can also guide the design of the experiment so as to
increase its specificity. These expected results are the predictions
of the theory.
The scientist would then perform the experiment and verify the results. New experiments with different values and designs are repeated to either
strengthen confidence, reduce experimental error or disprove the theory.
This process feeds back into the start to build further theory on the basis of other tested theory.
Note that for many reasons, classical scientific method is not always followed. Like in music, where great artists often break the rules and produce
works of genius, sometimes scientists don't follow the rules and they come to understandings that are not systematic and incremental (Einstein's GR &
SR are a bit like that). This usually means that we don't have the ability to test the theories directly but must work towards confidence in the
theory by other methods.
E.g: like with the Higgs Boson, we cannot absolutely prove the particle, because we are talking a high energy, random, quantum event. We can repeat
the experiment until statistically, the theoretical particle signal and energy level is significant enough to be proven.
By the way, if English is not your first language, you are still quite articulate in it.
edit on 29/1/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)