You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
The function of science is to explain and predict. Scientists observe the world around them, gather the facts, and develop theories. What tests is a theory supposed to pass in order for it to become generally accepted? The theory must explain how a system works, and must incorporate all known facts about that system. The theory must be simpler than a previously accepted theory, for given two theories, both of which explain the same phenomena, a scientific principle holds that the simpler theory (being more probable) is better. Lastly, for a theory to be more than just descriptive, it must be able to predict events. It is this predictability that makes a successful theory. So, Einstein predicted from his theory that light waves were subject to gravitation and later observation confirmed this theory.
Yet, despite these stringent conditions, and despite the reputation for infallibility that has grown around science, there is a skeleton in science's closet. The skeleton is that no scientific theory has yet lasted. Why is this? It is because scientific theories are inductive—they are constructed to explain a set of known facts—they are not developed, as are mathematical proofs, out of the deductive process, going from the general to the particular (which is always true)—and as new facts are discovered, new theories are needed.
Three examples should suffice to illustrate the difficulties scientists find themselves enmeshed in: First: in attempting to explain why there is a preponderance of yellow stars (our sun is a yellow star) in the