Science is not just a list of facts. Science is a complex process of questioning, hypothesizing, observing, measuring, experimenting, calculating, modelling, theorizing, reproducing and institutionalizing inquiry. Scientific knowledge changes, but changes do not prove arbitrariness. In fact, the capacity for revision is the strength of science. 37.1 The characteristics of a science The philosophical question is what is the criterion that separates science from non-science. The use of the only Many astronomical findings are made without direct controlled experiments. It is just that the mathematics Many areas of biology are observational, rather than mathematical. Karl Popper insisted on the rebuttal of scientific claims that possible evidence would disprove. However, the history of actual science shows that theories are not immediately discarded upon a single failed observation; instruments, supporting hypotheses, and data and methods are also examined. 37.2 Coon and the scientific paradigm Thomas Kuhn discusses the crisis and paradigm-shifting of general science in the history of science. It would be wrong to call this idea that science is only fashion. Paradigms provide social and conceptual frameworks; however, the acceptance of new theories is not merely a power struggle; the effectiveness of problem-solving, prediction, interpretability, data, and research are crucial. 37.3 Scientific realism and instrumentalism When science deals with electrons, genes, quarks, curved spacetime or other indirect objects, the question arises whether all objects really are: are theories merely successful computational devices? Scientific realism says that successful theories often capture some aspect of the actual structure of the world. The instrumentalist view cautions that predicate- failure does not automatically prove absolute metaphysical truth. Parallel philosophy accepts not infallibility but evidence-based belief in the dispute. 37.4 Observations and Theories All we see are the facts: the sentence is simple. Scientific observation is connected to instruments, measurement methods, concepts, and background theory. However, this does not imply that the facts are arbitrary. Different teams can test one-two claims using the same tools, recursion, public statistics, and critical methods. 37.5 Reasons for Arrival and Uncertainty Science looks for causal explanations, not just correlations. Causality is investigated by controlled experiments, natural experiments, statistical models, mechanistic explanations, and various methods. Hume 's advent-problem serves as a reminder that the conclusion from the past to the future is not philosophically sound. Modern science does not hide uncertainties; it organizes them by probability, confidence-interval, error, recursion, and independent verification. 37.6 Science and Values Science can tell which policies reduce pollution, which drugs are effective on average, and which technologies increase risk. But risk alone is justified; our interests are primary; we must make sacrifices; our ethical questions do not end with data alone. Facts inform value judgments. values do not cancel out facts. 37.7 Scientism and anti-science One extreme says that only science can answer all meaningful questions. Another says that epistemology is also an ideology, and therefore not a specific epistemological authority. Both of these are not right. The empirical method of science is extremely powerful in the questions of the natural world, disease, matter, biological processes, climate, and technological influence. But the question of justice, beauty, rights, the meaning of life and religious experience does not end with laboratory- assessment alone. Pūrvapakṣa (Prima Facie View): Science has changed, so why rely on science today? Uttarapakṣa (Response): Changing can be a sign of improvement not failure. Reliability is built from the ability to perform tests, independent reviews, and revisions, rather than from infallibility. 37.8 Interpretation and forecasting and control Scientific theories do not simply summarize observed phenomena; they propose causes or structures, predict new outcomes, and sometimes enable interventions. These three functions are not the same. A model may give correct predictions but may misinterpret the reasons.A historical science may give strong explanations without precise control. The assessment of science will vary by subject. Planetary motion, disease distribution, geological history, and social behavior cannot be examined in the same laboratory. Multiplicity of law not evidentialism Transparent measurement and error-correction will be required in every field. 37.9 Theory-based observations What scientists see is influenced by the equipment, training, and concepts. Telescope images need the principle of reading signals, not simple visualizations of microscopic samples or data sheets. For this reason, the concept of constructed facts is not simple. But principle-dependence is not an arbitrariness of facts. Separate apparatus and independent teams create external pressure on blind trials and successful prediction theory. The world will not give all the results according to my language. Critical realism accepts both mediation and objective resistance. 37.10 Fragmentability and its Limitations According to the theory of refutability, scientific claims will take such a risk that possible observations will disprove them. This principle distinguishes science from claims that match every result. However, a failed prediction may rely on assumptions, devices, or measurement errors rather than just core principles. So scientific practice does not immediately give up on a theory on a test. Retesting involves looking at alternative explanations and the evidence as a whole. Flexibility may be justified. it is inappropriate to defend the principle of continuous exception. How boundaries are drawn is also a matter of history and community decision. 37.11 The paradigm and the scientific transformation The scientific community works within common examples, questions, tools and standards. In times of crisis, the old paradigm may lose its power and new paradigms organize problems in new ways. A change would be not only to add new facts but also to change the way the relevant facts are shown. The conclusion that paradigm-debating makes science only politics is wrong. Proof, problem-solving, accuracy and effectiveness play a real role, although the decision is not entirely mechanical. History shows the human institution of science. not denying its achievements. 37.12 Saying the uncertainty in public Scientific findings are often accompanied by probabilities, error thresholds, and conditions. In public discourse, if this limitation were removed, the conclusion would look like an infallible commandment; if the limitation were merely repeated, even useful knowledge would be useless. Proper language distinguishes between main findings and confidence levels, major uncertainties, and the outcome of the decision. Uncertainty is not the cause of inaction. Caution may be appropriate in the face of incomplete knowledge if the potential harm is severe and irreversible. Decision making is not done by science alone; cost and fairness come into play. However, a correct presentation of the factual basis is a prerequisite for ethical judgment. Chapter Conclusion Parallel philosophy does not deify or discount science. Science is one of the best public methods of understanding the physical world. not the only source of moral value. Chapter Bibliography Karl Popper — The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Thomas S. Kuhn — The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Carl G. Hempel — Philosophy of Natural Science. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy — “Scientific Method”; “Scientific Realism”. Part V — Social and Political Philosophy