Measuring the scientific character of a theory?

Scientific characters / attributes of a theory include:

Dear Rudi Darson

For good science-and-theory:

It is basically "proven observation(s)", that is, shown-consistently replicable, IN definite and equally or better CLEARLY-defined CONTEXT(S), and/or clear thus-provable SETS of such observations which are as replicable AND in the other ways, just noted, like that (and so also one has beginning replicablility going forward with continued replicability): This is the sign of true or very good empiricism, BUT ALSO good and necessary empiricism (a minimum, required empiricism) will always involve a FULL and clear (seen as UN-arguable OR very likely becoming UN-arguable) bases for all concepts, constructs, and everything in any model AND, this means: any and ALL that (concepts, etc.) are defined IN/with (or at least have their clear origin/inception IN) directly observable OVERT phenomena . It is at that basic level that one must be concerned with verifiablity/falsifiability, NOT ONLY verifiablity/falsifiability IN SOME AGREED-UPON WAY regarding hypotheses, though it will include THAT (with truly good hypotheses) in the larger good context as well.

(One should note that, with this outlook, the experiment is not necessarily the "divine" way of research; in many cases, even when possible, it can be a mere adjunct to observational research necessary for a fuller needed perspective; and, while the experiment may at times be great (when possible), they need not be involved in even some of the best, most-necessary, inclusive research. And, observations will ALWAYS be the "threads that bind" in any case. This outlook should be a sufficient outline to know that the experiment IS NOT "THE scientific method".)

(There should be NO concepts, much less ANY model, before such good observations; one should consider anything else ""trash" -- and there is a lot of this latter sort of "stuff" in Psychology and the social sciences.)

[ (There is no reason to believe that any philosopher (even Popper) likely has the "whole story" on any empirical matters -- they are not sufficiently "connected". ) ]

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

نتمنى لكم التوفيق في جهودكم العلمية

Of course it is important to test a theory by trying to contradict certain statements of this theory with rational arguments. If this contradiction succeeds, the theory will have to be improved, if the contradiction does not succeed but is perfectly reasonable, then this strengthens the robustness of the theory.

Dear Hein Retter , can I conclude that one criterium is robustness of the theory through testing of statements of the theory by contradicting it?

Measuring the scientific character of a theory?

Scientific characters / attributes of a theory include:

Dear Rudi, it's best if you give a concrete example for your question. Theories always have a certain appeal to the general public. But you have to check under which conditions and in which way the binding nature of the statement is limited.

Statements about experiments, at least in psychology, are often made under assumptions of probability theory. In the beginning you determine yourself which risk you want to take, for example, if you want to predict the future educational path of pupils, then the more I take only the really "good" pupils for admission to a higher educational path, the more secure I can make a statement. In doing so, however, I run the risk of disadvantaging pupils who are very good in their abilities but who do not show this in their performance at the moment. Seen in this light, one must be clear about the risk one prefers to take: strict or less strict selection. But this is just one example (which I myself once had to deal with). There are many other scenarios where you are faced with certain decisions.

Dear Hein, maybe we can look at astrology and ask the question: Why is astrology or the claims made by it not considered scientific?

Is it because of the lack of the conditions mentioned by Han Ping Fung : a scientific theory must be supported with empirical evidence, must be falsifiable/justifiable, must have ability to serve as foundation for other researchers, the claims made must be repeatable, discoverable/depictable?

Is the measure of scientificness, the quality of being science, in all fields of science the same or does it differ per field?

Hi,

Every theory proposed would be constructed on the basis of the experimental observations, conclusions, facts proven by contemporary researchers. Since science evolves constantly and keeps changing, every theory remains arbitrary until a researcher comes up with a contradictory explanation.

A good theory is consistent with established facts and evidence. I should have a focus that is broad, useful to understanding a phenomenon in many situations. It should be relatively simple establishing relationships between propositions. It is in the nature of a theory to be constantly tested. Some theories, such as those developed using grounded theory as a research method, are generated from scientific methodologies. That type of beginning is derived from science which increases its scientific nature.

What do you mean exactly

Dear Mundher Kh. Jabbar , is your question intended for me?

Yes , Mr. Rudi Darson , because I want know the aim that we need in our studies and your question

Well Mr. Mundher Kh. Jabbar you have to answer the question what science is and what the properties are of a 'scientific' theory. You can consult scientists such as Popper, Kuhn, Habermas, Lakatos, Feyerabend or other writers about scientific theories or what is acceptable (current) in your practice. When does a theory meets the threshold of being scientific?

How will your ''scientific theory'' look like without data? As it is sometimes said that ''without data, you are just like any other person with an opinion''. Should be supported by reasonable and methodologically collected data, i think.

Dear Difo Voukang Harouna , can a scientific theory also start without data to support it?

Sometimes, it all start from an imaginary hypothesis which can be tested and later be improved by other scientists or even sometimes rejected with scientific proof by other scientists…..

Indeed, theory can start from hypothesis without significant data to support it and even when empirical research is carried out, questions have to be formulated, sometimes based on a hinge or on hypothesis which can be falsified or not.

My opinion is that any scientific theory is an explanation of one of the natural aspects that occupy people's minds where that scientific aspect can be tested and verified repeatedly under special conditions using experiments and others can be evaluated by abductive reasoning...