Science Essay Example

  • Category:
    Philosophy
  • Document type:
    Coursework
  • Level:
    Undergraduate
  • Page:
    1
  • Words:
    673

Post hoc ergo propter hoc means that since an event happened after another it must have been caused by that first event. Scientists have found that this sentiment is not necessarily true. They are able to look into what was the true cause rather than believing that two events that happen in a sequence means that the second was caused by the first. There may be a different causation for the second event other than the first event which can be found on further examination. It may lead to incorrect conclusions because the true cause is ignored for what seems to be the most visible cause. The phrase “correlation does not imply causation” does not mean that the first event is definitely not the cause but although it seems to correlate means that more investigation is necessary.


Occam’s Razor is the principle that means that when trying to solve a problem the hypothesis that has the fewest assumptions should be the one that is first tested. Basically, it can be seen that the simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation. In the scientific method, a scientist designing an experiment will want to follow Occam’s Razor. That would mean that they would be starting with the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions to test. This would allow the testing to become more complicated over time rather than starting with a complicated experiment. This is because the more complicated experiments may be unnecessary if a simpler answer is found to be the correct answer.


It is important that a scientific hypothesis is falsifiable because it means that it is able to be disproven through the scientific method. Some scientific hypotheses may not be able to be tested with current technology, but the fact that there is a possibility that it can be falsifiable is what is important. A scientific hypothesis that is not falsifiable is something that is not true science because it is unable to be examined by the scientific theory, such as intelligent design. A hypothesis must be able to be disproved by experimentation or observation in order to be scientific.

There are several of the philosophies of Aristotle that were adopted by the Roman Catholic Church in the late Middle Ages. One was that elements were made out of air, fire, earth and water rather than atoms. Also, his theory of geocentricity was preferred by the Church over heliocentricity, along with his views on ethics and the ethical person. Any of his theories that did not refute the teachings of the Bible were adopted by the Church. This went to the point where other theories, such as Galileo’s heliocentricity, were considered heresy. In some ways, it made sense that the Roman Catholic Church would cling to Aristotle’s theories because of how his ethical thoughts reflect the basis of the Church in living a good life. Also, that God in heaven above Earth would be the center of the universe over the sun as seen in the heliocentric theory. This was significant because of the influence the Church had on the world itself and learning at the time which did not allow for correct theories to be taught, experimented with and discussed.

Inductive reasoning is closely related to the scientific method where an observation leads to a hypothesis that is tested. Inductive reasoning tends to be open-ended and an exploratory experience. This is moving from something specific, the observation to the general theory that is created from the observation. Deductive reasoning is when a theory is determined first and then observations are made to determine if the theory is correct. This type of reasoning moves from something general, the theory, to specifics of the observations that are working to determine the truth of the theory. Hubble’s Law of the expanding universe was the product of inductive reasoning to explain the redshift that was observable. Einstein’s theory of static universe was the product of deductive reasoning as he applied his equation of general relativity to gravity to explain how space would not contract or expand.