Why did it take so long to develop the idea of formulating hypothesis that create predictions, then seeking observations that disprove the hypothesis?
Why did it take so long to develop the idea of formulating hypothesis that create predictions, then seeking observations that disprove the hypothesis?
becuase it comes from Protestant thought which was suppressed since the catholics maintained Aristotelian thought and burned heretics
>because it comes from Protestant thought
Nice myth. It was actually discovered during the Islamic Golden Age
they were aristotelean, not empiricists
Nice myth. Writing down observations like astronomy data was done thousands of years before sandBlack folk tried to translate Grecian writings. There was zero contribution from Muslims to modern science.
Early writers only referenced Greeks. Symbolic math before Galileo is from Arithmetica. In between we find only European contributions and references.
The lacked the math to economically formulate hypotheses.
It did not produce tangible benefits for ruling elites.
Why has it produced tangible benefits for rulings elites since ~1600 but not before then?
>This was invented in ancient greece
By who?
More centralization, standardization, and infrastructure so scientific method can be instrumentalized. Earlier than that, science would at most produce curiosities. The work of science is not merely mental, it involves physical resources and advanced institutions.
>By who?
If you want the first person who did something like that, then Thales. If you want the person when defined what it is, the. Aristotle. The biggest jump came with Euclid who introduced the concept of axiomatic methods and proof by logical deduction based from stetements that were set up by previous statements and founded upon axioms.
Euclid is also one of the first people to use proof by contradiction to show properties of equilateral triangles.
In general, just read Euclid's Elements if you don't want to stay an ignorant brainlet like OP and realize we did shit like that waaaay before Newton or other scientists
Jdud
>formulating hypothesis that create predictions, then seeking observations that disprove the hypothesis?
Because it's a very inefficient knowledge building technique. Suppose you founded a discipline based on proving your favourite most intuitive ideas and keep your abstracted ideal postulates small. Bam you have constructive mathematics which is the most epistemological sound discipline we ever invented (discovered?).
On the other hand when you keep making postulates based on physical phenomenon it can be abused with wishful thinking leading to moronicly delusional shit like Alchemy.
Modern science is not really built on null hypothesis proving except for a very small number of core conservation laws. The fundamental problem remains that induction is not a rigorous nor reliable argument. Therefore all empiricism is flawed, even if we've built up strong predictive power. However, that is precisely why the discipline's foundations has moved towards fields like Mathematical Physics which are fundamentally based on constructive deduction for our core conservation "laws" (through Noether's theorems etc.). Fundamentally it is still based on the extremely weak inductive evidence of "observation".
That might be a too much of a formal argument for you, but to simplify it I would recommend you read Aristotle; it's a bunch of disjointed guess work shit (almost all of it is wrong). There are no math formulas anywhere (this wasn't really a thing before Galileo and was mostly useless before Newton and Leibniz's Calculus), it sounds like your middle school bro's drunk philosophy. Other early writers in natural philosophy are much worse (what you see on wikipedia is a lie, modern historians using modern notations that are often not even verbally described in the original work, just vaguely on the same topic). Contrast that with early Enlightenment researchers who use powerful mathematical models to make predictions and test theories much more effectively.
The scientific method works by free association for hypothesis formation, and systematic falsification and criticism, not induction.
>The scientific method works by free association for hypothesis formation, and systematic falsification and criticism, not induction.
And how do you imagine a scientist can do "systematic falsification" without inductive reasoning?
How can you test any hypothesis at all without any observations?
>Why did it take so long to develop the idea of formulating hypothesis that create predictions, then seeking observations that disprove the hypothesis?
Did it? This was invented in ancient greece
most bongs were swamp monkeys led into enlightenment by the few geniusi in their nation.
rent free lol
a few geniuses outshine anything your country produced unless you happen to be greek
Cope and see the bong
Newton didn't even discover gravity or calculus first
>newtonian physics predates newton
ahh yes
we also have james clerk maxwell and ernst rutherford, jj thompson et al.
discovering the atomic model, the first subatomic particle, electromagnetics etc.
>I'm a brainlet who doesn't know who Kepler and Descartes are
Thanks for confirming it
>Also maxwell
Much less relevant than Gauß and Hertz
>Rutherford
Completely BTFO several years later by German scientist who ACTUALLY realized what was going on on the atomic level. These models are used to this day
>Kepler and Descartes are
Are you really bold enough to claim that Newtonian physics is due to Kepler and Descartes? You have no idea what it is then. You cannot have Newtonian physics without fluxions/FTC. Even if the latter is due to Leibniz only Newton applied to finally discovering the general laws of motion which underlie all dynamics.
>Much less relevant than Gauß and Hertz
He didn't say otherwise, but Maxwell was very important to physics.
>Completely BTFO several years later by German scientist who ACTUALLY realized what was going on on the atomic level. These models are used to this day
Germans like Schrödinger and Heisenberg completely dominate QM, but those classical models were needed before we could understand it.
im not even trying to make it a nationality thing, but you call us "swamp monkeys" when weve done the most for science out of any nation since ancient greece
>helium
Germans were the first to publish it
>Nitrogen
Discovered by a German, only confirmed by a britbong
Kek. Not even 3 elements in and already all blatant lies. You will notice this a lot with britbongs
Brits are always very honest about giving credit where credit is due right up to the limit where doing so would endanger give the very slight supposed lead they have over the French and Germans in any given field.