(161) The sideration is not carried out in terms of scientific procedure, but of general philosophical theory, and this position is underlined by the fact that it is opposed to a particular point of view of Dr Whewell. So it seems that the purpose of judgment is to get an appropriate stimulus, because when the stimulus and response are aligned, activity is resumed. But if this reconstruction and reaction were to follow in one fell swoop, would there even be a clearly defined act of judgment? In such a case, there would be no judgment, right and no reason to do so. There would simply be a voluntary transition from one area of activity to another; We should have changed our response simply and easily to meet the new requirements. On the one hand, our subject would not have become a clearly recognized date to be dealt with; On the other hand, there would be no ideal method to build it. [4] Activity After analyzing the results, a hypothesis can be rejected or modified, but it can never be proven to be 100% correct. For example, the theory of relativity has been tested several times so that it is generally accepted as true, but there might be a case that has not been encountered where it is not true. For example, a scientist may hypothesize that a particular variety of tomato is red. During the research, the scientist then finds that each tomato of this species is red. Although his results confirm his hypothesis, there could be a tomato of this kind anywhere in the world that is not red. Thus, his hypothesis is true, but it may not be true 100% of the time.

( 152) Or here too, the identification of the new individual and the discovery of characteristics that contradict the first hypothesis seem to go hand in hand. A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that eventually move to scientific laws when enough data and evidence has accumulated. A theory does not turn into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. Remember, theories are explanations and laws are patterns that we see in large amounts of data that are often written as an equation. A theory will always remain a theory; A law will always remain a law. The most common event is when theory is interpreted – and sometimes even happily embraced – as meaning something that has less truth value than other scientific principles. (The word law applies to principles that are so entrenched that they are almost never questioned, such as the law of gravity.) ( 148) objective validity of a subjective combination of ideas. Royce emphasizes a process of imitation and states that in judgment, we try to represent it through the ideas that go into it. Ideas are imitative in their nature.

Sigwart`s view of the verdict is that we are saying something about something in it. For him, judgment is a synthetic process, while Wundt looks at its nature analytically and believes that concepts, rather than uniting or combining them into a whole, separate them from an overall idea or presentation. Instead of merging parts into a whole, it separates the whole into its components. Bradley and Bosanquet both believe that in judgment, ideal content comes in relation to reality. Bradley says that the reality in every judgment is nuanced by a symbolic idea. Ideal content is recognized as such and refers to a reality beyond the plot. This is the essence of judgment. Bosanquet seems to perceive a closer relationship between idea and reality, because although he says that judgment is the “intellectual function that defines reality through meaningful ideas,” he also tells us that “the subject is both inside and outside judgment, since reality is both inside and outside my consciousness.” Origin of the hypothesis.— In our analysis of the judging process, we have tried to show that the predicate occurs when a line of activity fails in the direction of an established habit. When the old habit is verified by the inability to cope with new conditions (i.e., if the situation is such that it stimulates two habits with different goals), the problem is to find a new method of reaction – that is, to coordinate contradictory tendencies by constructing a single goal – that will make the existing situation work. As we have seen in the case of a judgment, when the habit has been tested, has become ideal, an idea, so that the new habit is first formalized as an ideal means of reaction and is the hypothesis with which we try to build new data.

In our study of how this formulation is made, that is, how the hypothesis is developed, it will be useful to take some of the currently accepted statements at their origin and show how these statements relate to the proposed analysis. In scientific reasoning, these are two completely different things In this study by Darwin, the contradictory explanations for the sinking of stones appear in the main question of the formation of plant mold by earthworms. Facts that did not agree with the old theory of the sinking of stones were addressed by this new theory. But the theories had something in common, namely the disappearance of stones or other objects: they differed in their subsequent determination of this disappearance. In this case, it may seem that the facts contrary to the current theory of the sinking of the stones were not considered deviant until the earthworm hypothesis was put forward; the conflict between new facts A hypothesis is very preliminary; it can be easily changed. The operationalization of a hypothesis refers to the process of making variables physically measurable or verifiable, para. B example if you are about to study aggression, you can count the number of blows given by participants Since this occasional use eliminates the distinctions maintained by the scientific community, the hypothesis and theory tend to be misinterpreted, even if they are in scientific contexts – or at least, contexts that allude to scientific studies without making the critical distinction that scientists use to weigh hypotheses and theories. “Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence could change them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language, a theory means an idea or speculation.

This is not the case in science. In science, the word theory refers to a complete explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about unobserved phenomena. “The predicate is essentially hypothetical. – If we look in a brief summary at the types of judgments we have examined, we find in the explicit scientific judgment a fairly well-defined subject that we seek to determine further. Different proposals come up with different degrees of plausibility. Some will die as soon as they arise. Others benefit from temporary recognition. Some are explicitly tested with the resulting acceptance or rejection. The acceptance of a single declaration implies the rejection of another declaration. During the verification or testing process, the newly advanced assumption is recognized as more or less dubious.

In addition to the hypothesis, which is applied provisionally, the possibility of others is recognized. In disjunctive judgment, it is assumed that these possible reactions are limited to certain clearly defined alternatives, while they are not as clearly highlighted in less explicit judgments. However, in the various forms of judgment, from the most complex and deliberate to Venn, does not attempt to formulate in depth logical distinctions, relationships and operations as parts of the “act of transition from the unknown to the known”. He recognizes the relationship of reflection to a historical process that we have called here “reconstruction” and the origin and value of hypothesis as a tool in motion, but does not carry his analysis in a systematic form. Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles that can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Scientific laws and theories are usually well supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. .