Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis . Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with scientific method . Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls. Emphasis on hypothesis testing as the essence of science is prevalent among both scientists and philosophers.For example: And: However, philosophers have noted that testing hypotheses by confronting them with new evidence does not account for all the ways that scientists use evidence. "Discussions about empirical evidence have tended to focus on epistemological questions regarding its role in theory testing ... even though empirical evidence also plays important and philosophically interesting roles in other areas including scientific discovery, the development of experimental tools and techniques, and the application of scientific theories to practical problems." For example, when Geiger and Marsden scattered alpha particles through thin gold foil, the resulting data enabled their experimental adviser, Ernest Rutherford, to very accurately calculate the mass and size of an atomic nucleus for the first time. Rutherford used the data to develop a new atomic model, not only to test an existing hypothesis; such use of evidence to produce new hypotheses is sometimes called abduction (following C. S. Peirce). Rutherford's interpretation of the Geiger–Marsden experiment is also mentioned as an example of abduction in: Social-science methodologist Donald T. Campbell, who emphasized hypothesis testing throughout his career, later increasingly emphasized that the essence of science is "not experimentation per se" but instead the iterative competition of "plausible rival hypotheses", a process that at any given phase may start from evidence or may start from hypothesis.Campbell, Donald T. (1984) "Foreword". In This idea is further discussed in several chapters in: Other scientists and philosophers have emphasized the central role of questions and problems in the use of data and hypotheses.For example: One article from the issue is: See also: And from a scientist's perspective:
Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis , although scientists also use evidence in other ways, such as when applying theories to practical problems. "Discussions about empirical evidence have tended to focus on epistemological questions regarding its role in theory testing ... even though empirical evidence also plays important and philosophically interesting roles in other areas including scientific discovery, the development of experimental tools and techniques, and the application of scientific theories to practical problems." Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with scientific methods . Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls. Emphasis on hypothesis testing as the essence of science is prevalent among both scientists and philosophers.For example: And: However, philosophers have noted that testing hypotheses by confronting them with new evidence does not account for all the ways that scientists use evidence. For example, when Geiger and Marsden scattered alpha particles through thin gold foil, the resulting data enabled their experimental adviser, Ernest Rutherford, to very accurately calculate the mass and size of an atomic nucleus for the first time. Rutherford used the data to develop a new atomic model, not only to test an existing hypothesis; such use of evidence to produce new hypotheses is sometimes called abduction (following C. S. Peirce). Rutherford's interpretation of the Geiger–Marsden experiment is also mentioned as an example of abduction in: Social-science methodologist Donald T. Campbell, who emphasized hypothesis testing throughout his career, later increasingly emphasized that the essence of science is "not experimentation per se" but instead the iterative competition of "plausible rival hypotheses", a process that at any given phase may start from evidence or may start from hypothesis.Campbell, Donald T. (1984) "Foreword". In This idea is further discussed in several chapters in: Other scientists and philosophers have emphasized the central role of questions and problems in the use of data and hypotheses.For example: One article from the issue is: See also: And from a scientist's perspective:
R
.
, although scientists also use evidence in other ways, such as when applying theories to practical problems. "Discussions about empirical evidence have tended to focus on epistemological questions regarding its role in theory testing ... even though empirical evidence also plays important and philosophically interesting roles in other areas including scientific discovery, the development of experimental tools and techniques, and the application of scientific theories to practical problems."
R
method
methods
D
"Discussions about empirical evidence have tended to focus on epistemological questions regarding its role in theory testing ... even though empirical evidence also plays important and philosophically interesting roles in other areas including scientific discovery, the development of experimental tools and techniques, and the application of scientific theories to practical problems."