Scientists never claim that a hypothesis is "proved" in a strict sense (but sometimes this is quite legitimately claimed when using popular language), because proof is something found only in mathematics and logic, disciplines in which all logical parameters or constraints can be defined, and something that is not true in the natural world. Scientists prefer to use the word "corroborated" rather than "proved," but the meaning is essentially the same. A highly corroborated hypothesis becomes something else in addition to reliable knowledge--it becomes a scientific fact. This type of reliable knowledge is the closest that humans can come to the "truth" about the universe (I put the word "truth" in quotation marks because there are many different kinds of truth, such as logical truth, emotional truth, religious truth, legal truth, philosophical truth, etc.; it should be clear that this essay deals with scientific truth, which, while certainly not the sole truth, is nevertheless the best truth humans can possess about the natural world).
Another name for empirical evidence is natural evidence: the evidence found innature. Naturalism is the philosophy that says that "Reality and existence (i.e. theuniverse, cosmos, or nature) can be described and explained solely in terms of naturalevidence, natural processes, and natural laws." This is exactly what science tries todo. Another popular definition of naturalism is that "The universe exists as sciencesays it does." This definition emphasizes the strong link between science and naturalevidence and law, and it reveals that our best understanding of material reality andexistence is ultimately based on philosophy. This is not bad, however, for, whethernaturalism is ultimately true or not, science and naturalism reject the concept ofultimate or absolute truth in favor of a concept of proximate reliable truth that is farmore successful and intellectually satisfying than the alternative, the philosophy ofsupernaturalism. The supernatural, if it exists, cannot be examined or tested by science,so it is irrelevant to science. It is impossible to possess reliable knowledge about thesupernatural by the use of scientific and critical thinking. Individuals who claim to haveknowledge about the supernatural do not possess this knowledge by the use of criticalthinking, but by other methods of knowing.
To succeed in this science course and, more specifically, to answer some of thequestions on the first exam, you should be familiar with a few of the concepts regardingthe definition of science, scientific thinking, and the methods of science. Most textbooksdo an inadequate job of this task, so this essay provides that information. Thisinformation in its present form is not in your textbook, so please read it carefully here,and pay close attention to the words in boldface and the definitions in italics.
It is a popular assumption that a "proper" theory ofdesign would be "scientific" (a very contentious andeffectively meaningless termbecause of overuse) and would be more or less the same as a"design science". It would:
The American Heritage Dictionary defines a as, "a tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation." This means a hypothesis is the stepping stone to a soon-to-be proven theory. For a hypothesis to be considered a scientific hypothesis, it must be proven through the scientific method. Like anything else in life, there are many paths to take to get to the same ending. Let's take a look at the different types of hypotheses that can be employed when seeking to prove a new theory.