Forget about the term 'science' or 'scientific method for a moment'. Forget about all the scientific jargon and imagine the following scenario:
I was in a dark jungle late one night where I was attacked by a relatively large creature. I could not make out what the creature was nor its shape and form, but such size is not known to inhibit that jungle. Nevertheless, I manage to escape with only a scratch on my shoulder.
The following day I hired a team of investigators to uncover the mystery of this incident. As investigators do, they start of with speculations based on the story I told and the scratch mark on my shoulder. One speculation is that the creature was a large dog, another is that it could be a tiger, and the last speculation is that it was a bigfoot, none of which is known to inhibit the jungle.
The next stage is to see if they can put their speculation to the test. In the case of the 'dog-speculation', yes they can. They can obtain a specimen, a dog, and get it to scratch piece of animal flesh, usually that of pigs, of similar composition to my shoulder and then compare that scratch mark with the scratch mark on my shoulder.
Hence, this speculations is a Hypothesis - a testable speculation.
As of the second speculation, the 'tiger-speculation', we can also obtain a specimen and perform the same test. Both the 'dog-speculation' and 'tiger-speculation' are testable hypotheses.
How about the third speculation - bigfoot? Can we test this? Can we obtain a specimen, a bigfoot, and get it to scratch a flesh of similar composition to my shoulder and compare the results? No. Because we don't have a specimen. We never captured a live or dead bigfoot.
This speculation is a Conjecture - a non-testable speculation.
Both dogs and tigers are properties of the speculation based on discovered and studied upon life forms. The other property of the speculation, include the scratch itself which is also definitive and measurable. Hence this makes the speculation testable, a hypothesis.
Bigfoot is an alleged life form defined by the characterisation we give them as opposed to and not based on an actual captured specimen but rather on eye witness accounts and testimonies only. This makes it an arbitrary concept as opposed to a measurable definitive property. Hence this makes the speculation non-testable, a conjecture.
If something is based on an arbitrary concept, it is not testable. If it is not testable, it isn't provable. If it isn't provable, it wouldn't be reasonable give this conjecture equal credibility as proven factual information.
Those who assume that others being dismissive out of simple closed mindedness simply have not placed sufficient effort into this and other processes of reasoning.
Some seem to be quick to dismiss the credibility when others speak of arbitrary concepts such as bigfoot, ghosts, fairies, vampires, leprechauns, and so on. For some, this may be because they have placed sufficient rationalistic and reasoned thought before hand to notice the obvious, that these are conjectures and that it is unreasonable and irrational to give them equal credibility as proven factual information. Those who assume that they're being dismissive out of simple closed mindedness simply have not placed sufficient effort into this and other processes of reasoning to determine the credibility of the claims they're making.
Succeeding related article:
What Lay People Should Know about The Scientific Method – The Investigative Process
 |
|
| Tweet |
|