Scientific Inquiry Works

Pierre Duhem, the French physicist, wrote of the two parts involved in scientific experiments - that is, of the observation of phenomena and the interpretation of the observations - that what a scientist "transmits" to us is "not a recital of of observed facts" but rather "abstract symbols which accepted theories permitted him to substitute for the concrete evidence he had gathered."

What is interesting by this statement is that with each attempt at scientific inquiry the observation is actually accompanied with an already-in-place intepretation of the observation, which is based upon the system of science to which the scientist subscribes - that is, a physicist doing experiments within physics will intepret the data in accordance with the system upon which he stands.

Furthermore - and this is Duhem's striking statement - according to the logic of theory testing, if a new theory test fails, the whole system or any part of it is subject to being erroneous.

Typically, the work of scientific inquiry seems to be one of exactitude. Duhem argues, however, that the "demonstrative value of experimental method is far from being so rigorous or exact." He goes on to say that the scientist can "never subject an isolated hypothesis to experimental test, but only a whole group of hypotheses."

In other words, scientific inquiry is inherently bound up in itself.

Why, then, do we seem to advanced so far in different sciences? What of huge successes and redefinitions of the world around us?

Duhem's answer to his problem is that scientists must rely on convention, that is, they rely on their own "good sense" in the determination of which theories to include and which to throw out.
So, we have huge successes and great advancements because we agree to have them? The answer seems counter-intuitive.

My thought on the matter is this: With regard to scientific experiments and inquiry, in study and observation, scientists have hunches about where to go and what to do next. They press further than the logic allows - literally. They do so with trust that advancements have indeed been in accordance with correct scientific principles. How did these principles come to be?

I think these hunches are inspired by God. The "good sense" is the light of Christ found in every person - believer or non-believer. The rain falls on the just and on the unjust.

So, God is the author of progress and He is liberal in His mercies - and, indeed, the progress has sped up in this dispensation, ever since the veil was pulled back and He and His Son appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in 1820.