There was a day when people believed the Earth was the centre of the universe and the Sun and everything else went around it. Indeed those opposing this view were put to death at worst and ridiculed at best. That’s another story however as it’s now shown that the Earth, and other immediate planets, revolve around this Sun and the Sun indeed is on another pattern of cycles within the larger Universe.
Science is set on the premise of having an observation, then a scientist having a thought about what may be the reason for that observation, then this reason is created into what’s called a hypothesis. The definition of the word hypothesis is:
Hypothesis, something supposed or taken for granted, with the object of following out its consequences (Greek hypothesis, “a putting under,” the Latin equivalent being suppositio).
Also from Wiki (and as a scientist I agree with this extract): For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words “hypothesis” and “theory” are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research, in a process beginning with an educated guess or thought.
The scientific model, in the western way, sets about to prove that the opposite of the hypothesis is not true. This is called disproving the null hypothesis.
The theory is that if the null hypothesis is shown to be not true then the original hypothesis or thought must be true , or at least as true as what is known in that time.
But what about if you have 9+ possible reasons for something. The ‘proving’ that the opposite of one idea (hypothesis) is not true doesn’t provide a ‘truth’ that its opposite is true – as there many be many possible other ideas.
Western Science is set up that there is an idea / hypothesis that is tested and if what is observed matches the hypothesis then its called a theory (eg more likely to be ‘true’).
Theories are able to be (and meant to be) tested and refined in an on-going basis so there is an improvement in matching the theory with the observed.
But what happens when human nature gets involved!
Who wants to be the one (scientist) who says the previous scientists or peers are wrong ?
Who is un-indoctrinated enough to have the other 9+ ideas of ‘why it might be so’?
I was recently speaking with a friend and colleague who runs businesses as well and when a person has a ‘problem’ the process is to bring 9 possible solutions, irrespective of how crazy some may seem. Funny thing is that it can be the way-out ideas that result in a useful outcome.
Read beyond the mainstream papers, news, articles
Delve into the information, stories and facts from traditional peoples