Normally, you would see an ad here. Maybe you are using an ad blocker. I respect that, but this site relies on revenue from ads to continue. Maybe as an alternative you would consider making a donation on the Contribute page.
Normally, you would see an ad here. Maybe you are using an ad blocker. I respect that, but this site relies on revenue from ads to continue. Maybe as an alternative you would consider making a donation on the Contribute page.
Copyright © Sirius Publishing 2006-2019
Ok, you may be saying “novel idea so what?” It is essential for the success of this model that it sheds light on things that are currently difficult to explain. and crucially that it makes predictions that are capable of being proven wrong. Yes, that is correct. Something should be capable of being proven wrong, not proven correct.
What is important for the scientific method is that something has the potential to be proven wrong. Scientifically speaking you can never prove something right. There may always be other factors of which you are unaware that means your theory only appears to be right under current circumstances, but other circumstances may arise where the theory does not hold.
Conversely if your theory predicts that when you do such and such then a particular outcome will result, if you do not get that result then, barring shoddy experimentation you have definitely proven the theory wrong. Even if you do it 10 times and get the same positive result you have not proven it right. On the other hand, if you test the theory 100 times and still get an answer in line with your predictions then you are allowed to say that the theory appears to be right for the time being.
So the interesting bit should help us explain aspects of psychology and of human awareness that have so far been difficult to explain and by explain here we mean difficult to fit into a cohesive model. We shall also see if the model makes predictions which can be proven not to be true.