Is it legitimate science for biologist or any other scientist to claim the existence of things and processes t

Question

1.Gregor Mendel never saw a gene yet he concluded that these heritable factors were responsible for inheritance in peas. Is it legitimate science for biologist or any other scientist to claim the existence of things and processes they can not actually see? Why or why not?

Answer 1

Something doesn't necessarily have to be seen to be "observed". That may sound weird, but there are plenty of reliable methods available to gather information on systems other than sight, and sight is in no way superior to other senses and rationalizations. However, it's not really science if there is no testable evidence. So, in summation, heat transfer = science; string theory =/= science.

Answer 2

Yes it is, given that the line of reasoning to get there is sound. Mendel didn't just wake up one day and proclaim that something called a "gene" caused traits to appear in peas. His research led him to the conclusion that genes existed. Given the technology at the time he could very well have been wrong but that's how science works, you take the evidence you have and create the best explanation you can that fits it. Later generations of scientists, using better technology, come along and either improve your theory or disprove it all together.

Black holes are another example. Until recently they were postulated to exist based on various experimental and mathematical evidence. Even though one had never been seen, and technically we still haven't "seen" one, the evidence strongly suggested that it would exist and, in fact, they do.

Answer 3

Yes it is "legitimate" in the theoretical/hypothetical sense. As long as these assumptions are provable in an experiment or through other methods.

For example, quantum physicists and elementary particle physicists had to hypothesize many particles' existence before they could even see what they were doing. It's like working blind. They hypothesize their existence due to mathematical necessity (to explain the results of an experiment) Yet many of these particles have now been proven to exist, while others are still in hypothetical state (like the graviton).

Finally, Gregor Mendel NAMED the hypothetical attribute of plants' hereditary information "genes". He didn't need to "see" them, his concept of them is very different from the concept of genes we have today. He never claimed the existence of anything too farfetched, for they are now proven to exist, and if we weren't to do these assumptions and later test them, we would live in a world filled with the "faith" that it is flat. No, scientists, and people in general MUST do science. We do it every day. You, me, we go and find things out, thus acquiring knowledge directly.

Answer 4

What is "seeing?" If you mean do they actually have to see it with the naked eye than no, but if they can prove existence through empirical data then yes they can say it exists. Really I would say they just "saw" it in a different way.

Answer 5

It is called a theory. It must be based on observations, however. It was not bunk science to try to explain things, even things that cannot be seen.