Scientific Theory in Scientific Investigation,

Scientific Theory

In scientific investigation, a scientific theory is derived from a combination of scientific law and hypothesis. Scientific law, according to Jerry Wilson, is a "statement of fact." It is a generally accepted explanation of a phenomenon that is held as true and universal. Such statements do not need external proof, as they have been observed over years or even centuries to be true. According to Wilson, scientific law is required to be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They are the basis upon which all further scientific investigation is built.

Whereas scientific law is static and non-changing, hypotheses are dynamic and fluid; they change according to new findings or observations. Wilson refers to a hypothesis as an "educated guess" that the scientist basis upon an observation. As such, it explains a single observation for which there is no solid proof. Further experimentation and observation are then required to either support or refute the hypothesis. Hypotheses precede scientific theory.

A scientific theory is a proven hypothesis, which then enters the domain of scientific law. Wilson emphasizes that scientific theory cannot be created by a single scientist, as such theory needs to be based upon multiple verifications by detached groups of scientists and researchers. Only hypotheses are created by single scientists. The first requirement for a theory to be scientific is then the involvement of numerous observations made by multiple scientists and research teams. The hypothesis then becomes a theory that offers an explanation of observations that is based upon multiple verifications.

Like scientific law, scientific theory is generally accepted as true by the scientific community. As such, both scientific law and scientific theory can be used to make predictions and to advance technology. Scientific law is however a theory that has been solidified by centuries of observation and experience, such as the law of gravity. This law holds true for all space and time. A theory, on the other hand, is both more complex and dynamic than a law, explaining a group of phenomena that are related to each other, rather than a single event or observation. Wilson emphasizes that a scientific theory never becomes a scientific law. The latter is the basis of all scientific theory and investigation, while theories remain dynamic and complex.

As a complex system with many components, a scientific theory can be internally revised and improved without changing the basis of its fundamental truth. Examples of such scientific theories include the theories of evolution, relativity, the atomic, and the quantum theory (Wilson). The basis of truth for these theories has been proven beyond doubt, while many of their components are still under investigation to improve the theory as a whole. As such, Wilson states that theories can be modified and reconstructed, but they are rarely replaced.

To be scientific, a theory has to be submitted to the scientific method; this is a rigorous process of testing and hypothesizing before arriving at the final and fundamental theory. All scientific theory is based upon pre-existing scientific law. Wilson explicates the scientific process as a number of steps: first a phenomenon is observed. A hypothesis is then formed from the observation. The hypothesis is tested, and the findings published. The scientific community conduct independent testing to verify the published results, and the theory is constructed. This theory can then be used to predict future observations of the same phenomenon.

In order for a theory to be scientific, therefore, it has to be based upon scientific law, and be generally accepted by the scientific community. Numerous independent scientists must be involved in the process of creating the theory. Finally, the theory has to be derived from the entire scientific process, and it should be able to make predictions regarding future observations and processes that are related to the truth of the theory. A theory that does not undergo these processes remains a hypothesis.

2. Evidence and theory are related in the scientific process. When a hypothesis is constructed, finding evidence is instrumental in the process involved to establish the hypothesis as a scientific theory. Evidence plays a role during all the above-mentioned steps of the scientific process. During the observation phase, for example, the initial piece of evidence refers to the observation that leads to the construction of the hypothesis. The scientist continually searches for evidence from which to construct possible hypotheses. As such, the evidence serves as the basis for hypotheses. The evidence then precedes the hypothesis, just as scientific law precedes scientific theory. According to J. Stein Carter, all observation is based upon preceding scientific theories and laws. In this way, science is cumulative, and the scientist should be familiar with all the theory in his or her specific field in order to make observations and collect evidence that can serve as the basis for new hypotheses.

During the hypothesis phase, the hypothesis directly relates to the initial evidence as found during the observation phase. A single phenomenon or event is observed, which is then used as evidence for the initial hypothesis. The hypothesis is then tested by gathering further evidence. This is done either by experimentation or by finding further opportunities for observation. When sufficient evidence is collected to substantiate the hypothesis, it is published for the purpose of constructing a theory. As seen above, a theory is then constructed on the basis of further evidence gathered by independent scientists. The theory is accepted as a scientific theory when the general scientific community accepts it as true.

During the formation of a theory, there are therefore several cumulative phases of the relation of theory and evidence with each other. A single scientist makes a single observation and constructs a simple hypothesis. Further observations are made and evidence accumulates, and an initial theory is constructed, with more complex evidence, and with several scientists involved. As evidence grows, a hypothesis grows into a theory, and scientific knowledge concomitantly increases.

Like a theory, evidence is not static. After the theory is formed and accepted by the scientific community, it continues to be investigated. New evidence may be uncovered that invalidates or improves certain components of the theory. In this way, evidence influences the way in which the theory manifests itself. New evidence is built upon existing evidence for the theory.

Evidence is also used in the prediction stage. An existing theory and its concomitant evidence forms a platform from which future hypotheses and theories can be created. From this, new evidence is once again required to substantiate these new hypotheses and theories.

Evidence is therefore vital to the existence of a theory. At the same time, theories are necessary for the existence of evidence. The two compliment each other, and cannot exist without each other. As a dynamic combination, theory and evidence grow together to improve as time passes. As scientific processes of investigation improve, theories may improve by uncovering new evidence and forming new hypotheses.

Evidence and theory build together from the beginning of the scientific process. Beginning in simplicity, with a single observation, evidence and theory each take a path of growth to form the ultimate form of the theory.

This is the scientific process upon which all the scientific knowledge of the world is built.

The relationship between evidence and theory is particularly important. The growth in number of new hypotheses has been exponential as research tools and technology have improved. In this way, the information explosion is concomitantly an explosion in discovery, new theory, and improved evidence.

3. Evaluating a scientific theory is basically concerned with scientific validity. In order to determine this, a theory should be subjected to tests to evaluate the validity of its processes and components. A hypothesis is for example the basis of a theory, and should be the first component of evaluation. The hypothesis was initially found to be valid, and therefore used to construct more data upon which a theory could eventually be built.

The number of scientists involved in the construction of data and theory should be examined. The greater the community of scientists involved, the more likely it is that the theory is valid. The involvement of several independent scientists strengthens a theory by means of various perspectives. In this way, the theory can also grow in complexity, which can also be used as an indicator of validity.

Theories that are significantly complex have undergone the test of scrutiny and time, and can therefore deemed to be valid. In this way, time is also a component that must be taken into consideration. A fairly new theory is likely to still undergo changes and developments on a significant scale. If a theory has been constructed several decades ago, it is more likely to be commonly accepted by the scientific community. Because the level of scientific knowledge today is significant, it is unlikely that many theories will be discarded or replaced altogether. Particularly, older theories tend to be more solid than new ones.

The amount and nature of evidence provided for the proof of a theory should also enjoy consideration. Once again, time is an indicator. When a significant amount of evidence for a theory is readily available, the theory tends to be older and concomitantly more accepted by the scientific community. If there are significant gaps in the evidence, the theory can benefit from further investigation.

The same is true of the complexity level of the theory is not very high. More components can then be added by further investigation.

A theory can also be evaluated according to its ability to serve as an indicator of future phenomena. This makes a theory applicable to further scientific investigation, and furthermore also allow for further development in the theory itself. If the theory is for example a consistently accurate predictor of future events or phenomena, it can be viewed as valid. If it however proves inaccurate in one or some of its predictions, further evidence and modifications will be necessary.

Furthermore, theories can be evaluated in terms of the analytical and the empirical approach. The former refers to the structure of the theory, while the latter refers to its overall strength. When testing the components, complexity, and formation of the theory, the analytical approach is therefore taken, while the theory's ability to function in the scientific world, such as to make predictions, takes the empirical approach.

In the scientific community, theory evaluation is a very important component of investigation and discovery. The information age lends itself perfectly to scientific growth - information and evidence are readily available via the Internet, while contacts can easily be made and maintained via the online platform. In this way, the scientific community forms a much more consistent whole in order to make more rapid and valid future discoveries.

This consistent community can also more easily test hypotheses and evaluate theories in order to ensure that human knowledge develops and grows in a valid and consistent way. Scientific theory connects scientific law as established for centuries, with future hypotheses and theories. They create a platform for further scientific investigation, and in this way allow the world to become a richer and healthier environment for humankind.

Theory evaluation therefore entails the various components within a theory, and also the way in which it functions in the scientific world.

4. Before exploring what a science of psychology should study, it is useful to examine the nature of psychology itself. Psychology focuses on the study of the mind. The mind is a very complex system of nerves and cells that directly affect not only physical processes, but also nonphysical processes such as behavior and emotion. Psychology studies the mind by examining the manifestations of the mind in terms of behavior.

Psychology as a science should then apply the scientific process to the study of the mind by means of observable behavior. A behavioral manifestation is for example observed and a hypothesis formed. More evidence is gathered and published. The psychological community then substantiates and accepts the hypothesis as theory, and use it as a basis for further investigation. Psychology is a particularly rich field in which to apply this, as human behavior is a very complex and diverse field.