In this blog post, we explore whether scientific theories are modified or discarded based on observations, or whether they actually drive new developments by reinterpreting observations.
Scientific theories are our window on the world. They do more than simply explain natural phenomena; they deeply influence how we understand and interpret reality. Scientific theories reflect the knowledge and ways of thinking of their time and are important tools that drive human intellectual inquiry and development. Without these tools, we would face great difficulties in systematically understanding complex natural phenomena or developing new technologies. Scientific theories provide a window through which we can view the world, and through this window, we can understand the world more clearly and, ultimately, predict it.
It is commonly believed that science is based on observation and experience, so any scientific theory that does not match observational results must be revised or discarded. Scientific theories, formed based on observed facts, exist to describe and predict natural phenomena. Therefore, when the predictions of a theory do not match actual observational results, the theory is deemed useless.
According to this view, observational results serve as the criterion for determining the validity of a theory. However, the relationship between observation and theory is not always so one-sided. Let us consider the example of Isaac Newton. Isaac Newton presented theories on gravity and motion, earning unprecedented respect and praise in the history of science. However, at the time, Isaac Newton’s theories did not align with all observational results.
Astronomers pointed out that the moon’s motion predicted by Isaac Newton’s theory did not match observational results. Despite this, Isaac Newton did not revise or abandon his theory. Instead, he advised astronomers to consider various factors influencing their observations of the moon and to observe again. Astronomers followed Isaac Newton’s advice, revised their observational methods, and ultimately had to acknowledge their errors.
Nearly a century after Isaac Newton’s theory was published, astronomers once again discovered that Uranus’s orbit deviated from the position predicted by Isaac Newton’s theory. Nevertheless, they did not doubt Isaac Newton’s theory. They concluded that there must be another planet influencing Uranus’s orbit. Based on Isaac Newton’s theory, they calculated the position and mass of this planet and tracked it, ultimately discovering a new planet called Neptune.
This is an example of how theory can lead to new developments. In the history of science, there are many examples of scientists who did not easily abandon their theories simply because they were contradicted by observations. Isaac Newton’s theory was refined by many scientists who trusted it and has been recognized as an outstanding achievement in the history of science. In this way, authoritative scientific theories play the role of what Thomas Kuhn calls a paradigm.
A paradigm refers to the totality of beliefs, values, and techniques shared by members of the scientific community. Paradigms define problems worthy of scientific inquiry, provide models for problem solving, and serve as criteria for determining the validity of research results. The existence of paradigms in science is almost absolute, leading scientists to actively defend and protect them. Therefore, when observations inconsistent with a paradigm emerge, scientists tend to reinterpret the observations or conduct new experiments to resolve the inconsistency rather than question the theory itself.
However, when observations that contradict a theory accumulate, the paradigm faces a crisis. This leads to a chaotic period where new theories emerge to interpret such observations and compete with one another. Even then, scientists do not abandon the existing paradigm until one theory prevails and establishes itself as a new paradigm. Of course, some people argue that scientists’ refusal to abandon existing scientific theories, even in the face of counterexamples that seem to prove the theory wrong, is utterly irrational. However, it is not entirely unreasonable to label this attitude as irrational. This is because scientific theories are tools for understanding the world, and it is impossible for scientists to perceive the world without such tools.
