Theory and Science

A theory is, simply, an explanation. However, it is an explanation that is based on data, observations, equating to empirical evidence, and is dependent upon hypotheses put forth in the beginning, in order for the information founded to be grounded upon relevant grounds of inquiry. Any form of empirical evidence, thus, has to be collected based on widely accepted principles of research methods. Hypotheses would be formulated intelligently, that is, questions that are based on either healthy skepticism or rational inquiry.

Healthy skepticism and rational inquiry are in fact the basis of science. The ultimate goal in science is to better our understanding about the universe, and to reduce or remove mystery and confusion that may compromise us from searching for improved understanding of the universe. Further into the goal of science, it must be able to make accurate and useful predictions about the universe. Nevertheless, healthy skepticism does not mean simply to question everything's reliability and credibility, but rather, to be sceptical in ways that furthers our understanding. Healthy skepticism questions the truth of a theory, not but judging the conclusion of the theory, or what the theory predicts, but rather, the evidence supporting the theory. When question ing the evidence, check the reliability of the source and the accurateness of the evidence. Then, when a theory is formulated, the total evidence supporting the theory must outweigh contrary theories for it to accepted as a better explanation of a specific issue. Science is all that. To be specific, science is a branch of knowledge that involves a systematic aquisition of empirical evidence. Science is dependent upon skeptics, but requires the presence of visionaries - individuals of whom who may choose ultimately to accept, modify, or remove a theory. With skeptics around, evidence supporting a theory can be checked for errors and may in fact improve our unstanding about something. Therefore, a scientific theory is dependent upon healthy skepticism and rational inquiry.

But what if some scientific theory is formulated that, in the end, calls into question all the evidence that experts of their own fields have collected? What if it creates greater mystery and reduces our understanding of the universe and everything in it? Is this a good scientific theory?
Certainly not. A theory must not only be logical, refutable and simple (according to the criteria of adequacy), it must, in fact, give us greater understanding about ourselves and the universe - if it were ever to be considered as scientific.

What we need is critical thinkers. These are people of whom look at the evidence at hand, whether it be vocal or written, and carefully assess the adequateness, logic, reliability, accurateness etc. of the evidence. If we do not formulate theories through a critical thinking process, theories are as good as useless, because for all you know, the evidence that supposedly supports the conclusions and predictions of the theory may be based on bad evidence.