good science?

EdRegis at aol.com EdRegis at aol.com
Sat Apr 29 09:48:13 EST 1995


Michael L. Perdue (Fri, Apr 28, 1995) writes:

>I must also admit some confusion on "good science" 
>as the quest to disprove hypotheses.

I don't think I ever used the phrase "good science" in this discussion, but
in my view it is a mistake to view science as essentially a means for
disproving hypotheses.  

There is a distinction between the goal (or object) of science and the method
of reaching that goal (the methodology of science).  The goal of science is
to find the truth about nature.  Part of the method is certainly trying to
disprove hypotheses, but that's not the whole of it.  Restricting science to
a negative--the attempt to disprove--would rarely get us to the truth about
anything, although it would certainly generate lots of disproofs.

>how come he [Temin] got a prize?

Because he discovered a truth about nature.  If all he did was to disprove a
hypothesis, he probably would not have won the prize.

Ed
edregis at aol.com





More information about the Virology mailing list