Notes

Remember to search up the problem of falsification and the scientific method organized into philosophical argument.
Here is the scientific organized into a logical philosophical argument:
p1. Hypthesis states that If [Hypothesis], then [Observation]
C1. If observations do not match hypothesis, hypothesis is wrong.
C2. Hypothesis is true if observations support it. Take the analogy If it rains, then the ground will be wet. If the ground is wet, would you assume it’d be raining? No, because it is equally possible that someone dumped a bucket of water on the ground. The same is valid for If the hypothesis is true, then the observations will exist. Just because the observations exist does not mean the hypothesis is true - it could have been true that a different hypothesis was in lead of the causation. Counterargument: Hypothesis -> Observation is not the same as Rain -> Wet Ground - the hypothesis doesn’t cause the observation, it merely states an association between one and the other. And these associations are exclusively supported by induction.


p1. The variable condition is the only condition in the system that changed. Proved by horn 1.
p2. Changes in systems are caused purely by changes in conditions. Proved by horn 2.
C1. The variable condition caused the change in system.

h1.
p1. Identified grue list of conditions.
p2. All conditions are observed and tracked without change throughout entire experiment, except for 1 variable.
C1. Only 1 variable has changed.

h2.
p1. Properties (condition), like the mass or type of matter in the system, determine how the matter will interact. This fact is proved by the direct observations of atoms and molecules.
p2. How the matter interacts determines the observations of the system.
C1. Changes in the system are caused purely by the change in condition.