Theory, Science, and Philosophy

As philosophy looks broadly at answering questions relating to the universe and how we fit in such a grand stage, questions that are often addressed by philosophers can seem “far removed from practical concerns” (Godfrey-Smith, 2003, p. 1). This pragmatic component (its practicality) is what differentiates philosophy from science. Science is narrower in focus, and compared to philosophy, addresses more immediate and local needs. This doesn’t discount the value of philosophy; it only identifies that science must provide practical solutions to today’s problems before being considered worthwhile. In science, there is an expectation of producing results, of solving problems, and of improving our understanding and knowledge.

As a process to test our understanding of the world around us, scientific research helps to solidify our understanding as well as adjust our knowledge when it is incorrect (Jaccard, 2010). One key determinant to this knowledge creation through scientific research is the process of developing and testing theories. For the scientific process requires both, the development of a theory and the testing of that particular theory, in order to determine if the theory is accepted as an adequate explanation to a phenomenon, above and beyond that of previously tested theories. As stated by Jaccard (2010), “scientific theories do not constitute science until they are (or at least can be) subjected to empirical testing” (p. 27). This point is highlighted by Popper’s statement: “a theory is scientific to the degree to which it is testable” (Popper, 1985, p. 123).

A theory published through peer-reviewed processes begin the first stage of a theory becoming accepted as a plausible explanation of a phenomenon. The next step is to test this plausible explanation. By testing a theory, one can either confirm or disconfirm the theory as a valid explanation of the phenomenon. This confirmation process, method of verification, or testability (Godfrey-Smith, 2003) provides evidence for the possibility of a theory showing “observational evidence that would count for or against the proposition [theory] in question” (p. 27). If empirical tests show that the theory does not provide an acceptable explanation, researchers modify the theory, followed by further testing. This cyclical process is referred to the research cycle in its most basic form. The goal of this research cycle, according to Popper, is to produce “theories of even richer content, of higher degrees of universality, and of higher degrees of precision” (Popper, 1985, p. 164).