Читать книгу This is Philosophy of Science - Franz-Peter Griesmaier - Страница 36

Suppose you found a theory which you consider to be pretty convincing. Others don’t agree. What can you do? One thing to do is of course to show that the theory accounts for all the data – evidence – that are relevant to it. In particular, you are in good shape if you can show that your theory correctly predicts data that have not been collected yet. For example, suppose that a theory explains reductions in the Earth’s temperature in terms of periods of volcanic activity during which emitted material reflects solar energy. Suppose further that in 1979, a scientist predicted that after an eruption of 0.5 to 1.0 cubic miles of ejecta, global temperatures would drop by 0.1 degrees Celsius. And then came the eruption of Mount St. Helens which spewed 0.7 cubic miles of material into the atmosphere – and the Earth cooled by 0.1 degrees. Well, the theory would be looking pretty good! How exactly does this process work – what is its logic, as it were?