Aetixintro wrote:Hi
Sorry, I just want to add something. I have inserted the abbreviation, HDM, in a past post. Here is the explanation as given by Encyclopædia Britannica,
http://search.eb.com/.
Hypothetico-Deductive Method - Procedure for the construction of a scientific theory that will account for results obtained through direct observation and experimentation and that will, through inference, predict further effects that can then be verified or disproved by empirical evidence derived from other experiments.
Developed by Sir Isaac Newton during the late 17th century (but named at a later date by philosophers of science), the hypothetico-deductive method assumes that properly formed theories arise as generalizations from observable data that they are intended to explain. These hypotheses, however, cannot be conclusively established until the consequences that logically follow from them are verified through additional observations and experiments. In conformity with René Descartes' rationalism, the hypothetico-deductive method treats theory as a deductive system in which particular empirical phenomena are explained by relating them back to general principles and definitions. The method, however, abandons the Cartesian claim that those principles and definitions are self-evident and valid; it assumes that their validity is determined only by the exact light their consequences throw on previously unexplained phenomena or on actual scientific problems.
Here is also a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetic ... tive_model.
First of all, I would like to admit my mistake
all I had read about HDM was about P.C. software and not science. I didn't even know that this scientific approach existed....
In general I agree with this approach. My only question is: Can this method be adjusted to meet the needs of every science and be applied systemically and repeatedly? If so, why hasn't it been used by all sciences? Can this method form a precise guideline which can be used by anyone who would like to use it? Is it restricted to the philosophical field or can it be practically applied in every science?
The method I would like to suggest (if I am allowed to
) is prototype, in the sense that it hasn't been expressed verbally in the past, by any science or scientist. In spite of all that, it is used on a daily basis by the theoretical sectors of many normal sciences e.g. by biologists). I don' t claim that it is the only one nor that it is the easiest, but
i) it is the most common- usual, since it is used in every science,
ii) it can be generalized and used by all theoretical sectors and
iii) it can be improved, since
all the factors that participate in it can be tested and improved, because they will be brought forward and expressed verbally and precisely. If the quality of a factor is improved, automatically the performance of the procedure is raised.
In fact, the goal is not to present a stereotypic way to produce theories, but to reveal the factors that participate in the theoretical procedure and determine (by means of their quality) the quality of the final outcme,so that anyone can locate, test and improve them. The knowledge of the above will give us a change to improve every theoretical factor and thus improve the effectiveness of the theoretical procedure.
Furthermore, the method is based on the utilization of knowledge and data that
already exist. In other words, it shows how we can use what we know in order to find what we do not know. The title of the method is "Reconstitution of a complex theoretical total out of its components". The method is the same which is used in the production of any complex total, adjusted to the needs of the theoretical sector. Tis method is known and ordinary, in the sense that it is used successfully in the production of every complex product, but it has never been expressed verbally so that it can be conciously used.
