kosmos chapter 1

The engine of scientific discovery is facts that an individual considers for themselves to be “truths.” The basis of discovery is disagreement, in the sense that when an opinion is stated the immediate requirement is to prove the opinion. I think that this is where the vagueness of scientifically justified facts are up for discussion. Peer review can be a crucial element in the sense that generally majority rules, yet not necessarily the resolute. The methodology required for scientific advancement, is continued questioning. If theories were never substantiated then there is no establishment of general fact, and if facts are never refuted then learning would cease to exist. Additionally, once a fact is proven and established the yearning to specify in more detail leads to increased material to study. The fact that the comprehension of such intricate subject material requires investment is just to state that understanding requires knowledge of basics. I feel that the most important part of scientific experimental methodology is not the final result, rather what can be learned in the process. The most provable aspect of an experiment does not necessarily have to be what a hypothesis was testing, and discovery only occurs in the absence of fear.