Scientific theories are formed based on observation and experience, and are supposed to be revised or discarded if they don’t match observations. However, the example of Isaac Newton shows that theories can serve as a tool to reinterpret observations and guide progress. Rather than simply being discarded, theories guide new developments and have an important impact on scientific progress through their role as paradigms.
Scientific theories are also the lens through which we see the world. They don’t just explain natural phenomena; they have a profound impact on the way we understand and interpret reality. Scientific theories reflect the knowledge and mindset of an era and are important tools for human intellectual inquiry and development. Without them, we would have great difficulty systematically understanding complex natural phenomena or developing new technologies. Scientific theories themselves provide a window into the world, and through that window we can better understand and even predict the world.
It is often assumed that because science is based on observation and experience, any scientific theory must be modified or discarded if it is inconsistent with observations. Scientific theories, which are formed based on empirical facts, exist to describe and predict natural phenomena. Therefore, when a theory’s predictions don’t match actual observations, the theory becomes useless. According to this view, observations are what make a theory live or die.
However, the relationship between observation and theory is not always so one-sided. “Take the example of Isaac Newton. “Isaac Newton published theories about gravity and motion that earned him respect and acclaim almost unprecedented in the history of science. However, at the time, Newton’s theories did not agree with all observations. Astronomers pointed out that the motions of the moon predicted by Newton’s theories did not match observations. Nevertheless, Isaac Newton did not revise or abandon his theories. Rather, he advised astronomers to reevaluate their observations, taking into account the many factors that affect lunar behavior. Astronomers followed Newton’s advice and modified their observations, and as a result, were forced to admit their errors.
“Almost a century after Newton’s theory was published, astronomers again realized that the orbit of Uranus was not where Newton’s theory predicted. Still, they didn’t doubt Newton’s theory, so they came to believe that there must be another planet affecting Uranus’ orbit. They calculated the position and mass of that planet based on Newton’s theories, tracked it, and discovered that it was indeed Neptune. This is an example of a theory leading to a new development. Examples like this are not uncommon in the history of science, where scientists did not easily abandon their theories just because observations contradicted them.
“Isaac Newton’s theory was clarified and refined by many scientists who believed in it, and it has gone down in scientific history as an outstanding achievement. Authoritative scientific theories like these serve as what Thomas Kuhn calls paradigms. A paradigm is a set of beliefs, values, and techniques shared by members of a community of scientists. Paradigms define problems worthy of scientific inquiry, provide problem-solving models for scientists to employ, and serve as criteria for discerning the validity of research findings. The existence of paradigms in science is almost absolute, and scientists actively defend and protect them. So when observations are made that are inconsistent with the paradigm, rather than questioning the theory, scientists try to reinterpret the observations and resolve the inconsistencies through new experiments.
However, when the number of observations that contradict the theory increases, the paradigm is in crisis. This leads to a period of chaos, when new theories emerge to interpret these observations and compete with each other. Scientists don’t abandon the old paradigm until one theory wins and becomes the new paradigm. Of course, some people think that scientists’ refusal to abandon existing scientific theories, even in the face of counterexamples that show them to be incorrect, is not rational, but it is not unreasonable. Scientific theories are tools to see the world, and it is impossible for a scientist to see the world without tools.
