In order to shake a hypothesis, it is sometimes not necessary to do anything more than push it as far as it will go.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
In science, each new result, sometimes quite surprising, heralds a step forward and allows one to discard some hypotheses, even though one or two of these might have been highly favored.
You can't prove any hypothesis, you can only improve or disprove it.
Hypotheses should be subservient only in explaining the properties of things but not assumed in determining them, unless so far as they may furnish experiments.
It is also a good rule not to put overmuch confidence in the observational results that are put forward until they are confirmed by theory.
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.
Whenever known and sufficient causes are available, it is anti-scientific to discard them in favour of a hypothesis that can never be verified.
You have to test your hypothesis against other theories. Certainty in the face of complex situations is very dangerous.
When an idea reaches critical mass there is no stopping the shift its presence will induce.
When all is said and done, science actually takes hard work and a willingness to sometimes find out that your most cherished hypothesis is wrong.
When the basic status of a theory is clear, and all that needs to be cleared are details, you can collaborate. But if the main structure of a hypothesis isn't established, and you want to change the paradigm - like it was the case in the 1960s - it's better to work alone.
No opposing quotes found.