There are no final answers in good science. Early astronomers, in order to match their observational data, added epicycles ( sort of orbits within orbits, no known to be utterly fictional ) to the orbits of the planets. This was a reasonably good theory and everyone believed it for several hundred years until better observations showed the epicycles weren't working as well as they should. To correct for the observed errors additional epicycles upon epicycles were added. This also worked well for a while until better data showed up.
In what would be in the future be termed a paradigm shift, Copernicus threw out the old system and replaced it with a solar system with the sun in the center and the planets, including Earth, in circular orbits. Naturally the church was sort of pissed off by Copernicus publically declaring the Earth to be nothing more than just another planet, but astronomers saw the value. Unfortunately it wasn't too long until observations proved the system wasn't as great as it could be, and Johannes Kepler, using Tycho Brahes data, deduced orbits weren't circles, they were elipses. Throw in Newtons work and you had a system that lasted around 300 years. Then errors in the orbital times of the outer planets cropped up and along came Einsten with Relativity equations and the system is currently working fine again. At least for now. No one knows when new data will require changes in an existing theory or whether a paradigm shift is about to occur. Science doesn't offer answers, it is a system of constant testing and change. Ideas which become well established are known as Theories, but they are not sacred. Find one thing seriously wrong with a theory, and reputations are up for grabs.
2007-09-04 09:01:00
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because there are several steps that need to be taken (very often in a specific sequence.)
This step by step procedure is called:
The Scientific Process,
The Scientific Method or
Scientific Procedure.
Science has been defined as a specific method or logic of inquiry. This definition suggests that the method of science is somehow unique and different than other methods of inquiry or that it has specific rules or characteristics that have to be followed. These characteristics, while necessary to distinguish science, are not limited to the realm of science.
The reason the process is so knit-picky is because, in order for a test to be considered as scientific, it must be REPEATABLE.
.
2007-09-04 16:05:55
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
because it's a process of experimenting and testing to see if the results support the hypothesis. Years ago, people thought that a single hair left alone in water would eventually grow into a snake. Everyone believed it was so, so nobody bothered to test it to see if it was true. The process of investigating this scientifically showed that this was false.
2007-09-04 15:28:16
·
answer #3
·
answered by Ralfcoder 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Because it's shorter than saying/writing "a sequence of events that take place", etc.
2007-09-04 19:24:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by Wayner 7
·
0⤊
0⤋