Logical standard, logical standard
Scientific theory must be self-consistent, that is, it can be logically consistent, at least it can be self-explanatory, and it cannot be inconsistent. Scientific theory must be self-consistent, that is, it can be logically consistent, at least it can be self-explanatory, and it cannot be inconsistent.
Scientific theory must be concise, without unnecessary assumptions and conditions, leaving a way out for future failures, that is, it must be concise, without unnecessary assumptions and conditions, leaving a way out for future failures, that is, it must conform to the principle of Occam's razor. Occam's razor principle.
Razor principle
Ocham's Razor Ocham's Razor is called Ocham's Razor, which was put forward by William of Occam, a logician in14th century and a Franciscan monk (about 1285 to/). Ocham's Razor Ocham's Razor is called Ocham's Razor, which was put forward by William of Occam, a logician in14th century and a Franciscan monk (about 1285 to/). In Proverbs Note 2 (15), he said, "Don't waste more things, but do what you can do well with less things". (Wikipedia, Occam Razor, 29/Jan/2009) In Proverbs Note 2 (15), he said, "Don't waste more things, but do what you can do well with less things." (Wikipedia, Occam Razor, 2009 1 29/month)
Occam's razor principle can be summarized as: Don't add entities if it is not necessary. Occam's razor principle can be summarized as: Don't add entities if it is not necessary. As a famous nominalist, ockham opposed realism and thought it unnecessary to set up universal entities other than individual things, because these entities were neither logical nor self-evident and lacked empirical evidence. As a famous nominalist, ockham opposed realism and thought it unnecessary to set up universal entities other than individual things, because these entities were neither logical nor self-evident and lacked empirical evidence. This view promoted empirical science to get rid of the shackles of theology, and was valued by later logical empiricism, especially extensionists. This view promoted empirical science to get rid of the shackles of theology, and was valued by later logical empiricism, especially extensionists. (Wikipedia, Occam Razor, 2009 1 29/month)
For scientists, Occam's razor principle has a more common expression: when you have two competitive theories that can reach the same conclusion, the simple one is better. For scientists, Occam's razor principle has a more common expression: when you have two competitive theories that can reach the same conclusion, the simple one is better. There is also a more common strong form of this expression: if you have two principles that can explain the observed facts, then you should use the simple one until you find more evidence. There is also a more common strong form of this expression: if you have two principles that can explain the observed facts, then you should use the simple one until you find more evidence. The simplest explanation of the phenomenon is often more correct than the complicated explanation. The simplest explanation of the phenomenon is often more correct than the complicated explanation. If you have two similar solutions, choose the simplest one. If you have two similar solutions, choose the simplest one. An explanation that requires the least assumptions is most likely to be correct (or in this form of self-affirmation: keep things simple! )。 An explanation that requires the least assumptions is most likely to be correct (or in this form of self-affirmation: keep things simple! )。 (Wikipedia, Occam Razor, 2009 1 29/month)
Ockham's Razor gave us a suggestion: If both theories can explain this phenomenon, then we should adopt a simpler one. Ockham's Razor gave us a suggestion: If both theories can explain this phenomenon, then we should adopt a simpler one. ("Other things being equal, a simple solution is the best." ) There are two main sayings in the world now: there is God and there is no God. ("Other things being equal, a simple solution is the best." ) There are two main sayings in the world now: there is God and there is no God. Since it is assumed that there is no God and there will be no influence within the observable range, this principle suggests that we take the one without God. Since it is assumed that there is no God and there will be no influence within the observable range, this principle suggests that we take the one without God. As for whether there is a god? As for whether there is a god? We don't know about the Austrian razor, but since it doesn't matter whether it is useful or not, it is obviously more economical to assume that there is no god. We don't know about the Austrian razor, but since it doesn't matter whether it is useful or not, it is obviously more economical to assume that there is no god. (Wikipedia, 2009)
3. Scientific theory must be falsifiable, not correct under all circumstances, nor can it be corrected. 3. Scientific theory must be falsifiable, not correct under all circumstances, nor can it be corrected. Falsifiability is a necessary condition for science, but falsifiability is a necessary condition for science, but
Is not a sufficient condition. Is not a sufficient condition.
Scientific theory must have a clear application category, which can only be applied under certain conditions and in certain fields, rather than omnipotent and omnipotent. Scientific theory must have a clear application category, which can only be applied under certain conditions and in certain fields, rather than omnipotent and omnipotent.
There is no package. There is no package.
2. Empirical criteria 2. Empirical standard
Scientific theories must have predictions that can be tested by experiments or observations, not just fantasies. Scientific theories must have predictions that can be tested by experiments or observations, not just fantasies.
In fact, there have been confirmed predictions that a scientific theory can not only be falsified, but also has never been confirmed, otherwise such a theory is invalid. In fact, there have been confirmed predictions that a scientific theory can not only be falsified, but also has never been confirmed, otherwise such a theory is invalid.
The test results must be independent and repeatable by others, not a quick sale, or only this one has no branches. Only you can make that result, and other researchers can't repeat it. You have to blame others for being inferior to you. The test results must be independent and repeatable by others, not a quick sale, or only this one has no branches. Only you can make that result, and other researchers can't repeat it. You have to blame others for being inferior to you.
There should be some standards to distinguish between true and false data. What is normal, what is abnormal, what is systematic error, and what is accidental error should be clearly distinguished, rather than arbitrarily explaining the results according to your own needs. There should be some standards to distinguish between true and false data. What is normal, what is abnormal, what is systematic error, and what is accidental error should be clearly distinguished, rather than arbitrarily explaining the results according to your own needs.
3. Sociological standards 3. Sociological standards
From the perspective of sociology, a scientific theory must be able to solve known problems. If it can't be done, there is no need for this theory to exist. It is necessary to put forward new problems that scientists can do further research and models to solve these problems, that is, it must also be able to make testable predictions, otherwise it is useless; It is necessary to make a practical definition of the newly proposed concepts, rather than some non-existent pseudo-concepts, such as "Qigong field" and "the feeling between man and nature". From the perspective of sociology, a scientific theory must be able to solve known problems. If it can't be done, there is no need for this theory to exist. It is necessary to put forward new problems that scientists can do further research and models to solve these problems, that is, it must also be able to make testable predictions, otherwise it is useless; It is necessary to make a practical definition of the newly proposed concepts, rather than some non-existent pseudo-concepts, such as "Qigong field" and "the feeling between man and nature".
4. Historical standard 4. Historical standard
Historically, a scientific theory must be able to explain all the data explained by the old theory, that is to say, you can't just choose the favorable data and ignore the unfavorable data, otherwise it will be worse than the old theory; We must be compatible with other effective parallel theories, we must not ignore the existence of other theories, we must not be self-contained or even exclusive, and we must overthrow all scientific theories. Historically, a scientific theory must be able to explain all the data explained by the old theory, that is to say, you can't just choose the favorable data and ignore the unfavorable data, otherwise it will be worse than the old theory; We must be compatible with other effective parallel theories, we must not ignore the existence of other theories, we must not be self-contained or even exclusive, and we must overthrow all scientific theories. For example, if "scientific creationism" is to replace the "old" theory of evolution, it should not only explain all the data that have been well explained by the theory of evolution, but also ignore other disciplines of modern biology and achievements in astronomy, geology, physics and chemistry that are very compatible with the theory of evolution. For example, if "scientific creationism" is to replace the "old" theory of evolution, it should not only explain all the data that have been well explained by the theory of evolution, but also ignore other disciplines of modern biology and achievements in astronomy, geology, physics and chemistry that are very compatible with the theory of evolution. Similarly, some people claim that "human science" is the most advanced science, so it should not only contain the research results of modern medicine, but also conflict with parallel disciplines such as physics, chemistry and biology. Similarly, some people claim that "human science" is the most advanced science, so it should not only contain the research results of modern medicine, but also conflict with parallel disciplines such as physics, chemistry and biology.
Reference materials, reference materials