Only by observing this condition would the results of our work be regarded as fully conclusive and as having elucidated the normal course of the phenomena.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I cannot help but think that great results would have been obtained had my views been thought better of; yet I am much inclined to accept the present condition as for the best.
Nevertheless, as is a frequent occurrence in science, a general hypothesis was constructed from a few specific instances of a phenomenon.
You have to test your hypothesis against other theories. Certainty in the face of complex situations is very dangerous.
In so far as such a theory is empirically correct it will also tell us what empirical facts it should be possible to observe in a given set of circumstances.
Indeed, every true science has for its object the determination of certain phenomena by means of others, in accordance with the relations which exist between them.
Refining is inevitable in science when you have made measurements of a phenomenon for a long period of time.
Whenever known and sufficient causes are available, it is anti-scientific to discard them in favour of a hypothesis that can never be verified.
Certainly, it may bring to light such a deeper knowledge of the structure of matter as to constitute a veritable discontinuity in the progress of science.
The hypothesis may be put forward, to be tested by the s subsequent investigation, that this development has been in large part a matter of the reciprocal interaction of new factual insights and knowledge on the one hand with changes in the theoretical system on the other.
There are two possible outcomes: if the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery.