DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENTIFIC IDEAS

Submitted to Fulfill the Assignment of Philosophy of Science

Lecturer: Rika Rafikah Agustin, S.Pd, M.Pd.

Arranged
by Group 4

Humaira Nabila (1903967)

Ilfa Qurrota Aini (1903556)

M. Abiy Farras (1908539)

Rahma Hanifa (1905380)

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM ON SCIENCE

EDUCATION FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND
SCIENCE ECUCATION UNIVERSITAS PENDIDIKAN
INDONESIA
2020
 Table of Content

Table of Content..........................................................................................................................1
A. Definition of Scientific Ideas...............................................................................................2
B. Scientific Revolution............................................................................................................3
C. The Changes In Scientific Ideas.........................................................................................4
D. Produce Creative and Useful Scientific Ideas....................................................................5
References....................................................................................................................................7
Question and Answer..................................................................................................................8

1
A. Definition of Scientific Ideas
Science is all about understanding how the world works, but it's also a process.
Science is a systematic way of observing the world and doing experiments to
understand its structure and behavior. So a scientific idea is an explanation for how
something works, or the truth about some aspect of the world, that was figured out
using the scientific process.
Scientific ideas are far more reliable and more likely to be true than other
kinds of ideas, because they're based on evidence. Coming up with new scientific
ideas is all about gathering that evidence. For example, we used to think that light was
a wave. Then Albert Einstein and others collected evidence that light can also act like
a particle. It turned out that light was both a wave and a particle, and it can act like
both in different situations, but it was only through gathering more evidence that we
were able to figure that out.
Scientific ideas come from evidence, but it takes brilliant thinking to imagine
them. New ideas come from collecting evidence and looking at it to figure it out, but
often it isn't as simple as it sounds. Some of the biggest scientific leaps in history were
made by people who looked at the same evidence and drew conclusions that nobody
else had thought of, but which did a better job of explaining the data. For example, the
theory of relativity showed how Newton's laws of gravity were only a simplification,
and don't work at really high speeds. The equations for relativity were not obvious,
and so it took a lot of creative thinking to come up with.
But even when you have evidence and are able to explain that evidence with
clever thinking, the ideas aren't guaranteed to be accepted. For example, the idea that
earthquakes were caused by gigantic tectonic plates moving across the surface of the
earth was rejected and ridiculed. Only when evidence became stronger did people
start to accept it.
People come to work together to collect new evidence, and convince each
other of a new idea through their interactions. Scientists can be very argumentative,
and have strong opinions, so debate is an extremely useful way that scientific ideas
can be challenged. Ultimately they come to be widely agreed upon.
Scientists also use a method called peer review. When they complete papers,
presenting new ideas and evidence, those papers have to be read and critiqued by
other scientists before they can be published. This weeds out a lot of bad quality
research and builds on consensus in the community.

2
B. Scientific Revolution
Historiography is how historians have told history differently over time. The
trope of the scientific revolution is a useful tool for organizing events in our story, but
it also obscures other possible framings. In fact, the term of science wasn’t used in its
contemporary sense until the mid 1800s.
Philosopher, historian, and trained physicist Thomas
Kuhn had a lot of thoughts on what makes revolution in
science. In his books called The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions that published in 1962 he argued that different
sciences undergo revolutions when scientists gather enough
data that they explain using their current paradigm, or
unstated, world organizing theory about how the universe
works.
The books stated science has relative truth, so that whenever it has the
opportunity to be revolutionized, that is, when an old paradigm or theory can replace a
completely new paradigm or theory. The old paradigm will be abandoned as the new
paradigm comes. Therefore, it can be said that there will always be a paradigmatic
match in scientific struggles. Whenever that is each paradigm must be susceptible to
deviations (anomalies) from what is called normal science (normal science). Where
the best and newest paradigm will replace the old one. Conversely, if the new
paradigm is not strong enough and is not better than the old paradigm, the old
paradigm will still be used by the scientific community because it is still considered
relevant.
The example of scientific revolution is when Copernicus’s idea overturned the
idea devised by the second-century astronomer Ptolemy. In Ptolemy’s theory the sun
and planets orbited the Earth, which was later replaced by the idea of Copernicus that
states the sun is actually in the middle of the universe.
Phases of scientific changes as the result of various phases of paradigm
change:
1. Phase 1 – It exists only once and is the pre-paradigm phase, in which there is
no consensus on any particular theory. This phase is characterized by several
incompatible and incomplete theories. Consequently, most scientific inquiry
takes the form of lengthy books, as there is no common body of facts that may
be taken for granted. If the actors in the pre-paradigm community eventually

3
 gravitate to one of these conceptual frameworks and ultimately to a
widespread consensus on the appropriate choice of methods, terminology and
on the kinds of experiment that are likely to contribute to increased insights.
2. Phase 2 – Normal science begins, in which puzzles are solved within the
context of the dominant paradigm. As long as there is consensus within the
discipline, normal science continues. Over time, progress in normal science
may reveal anomalies, facts that are difficult to explain within the context of
the existing paradigm. While usually these anomalies are resolved, in some
cases they may accumulate to the point where normal science becomes
difficult and where weaknesses in the old paradigm are revealed.
3. Phase 3 – If the paradigm proves chronically unable to account for anomalies,
the community enters a crisis period. Crises are often resolved within the
context of normal science. However, after significant efforts of normal science
within a paradigm fail, science may enter the next phase.
4. Phase 4 – Paradigm shift, or scientific revolution, is the phase in which the
underlying assumptions of the field are reexamined and a new paradigm is
established.
5. Phase 5 – Post-Revolution, the new paradigm's dominance is established and
so scientists return to normal science, solving puzzles within the new
paradigm.
Science may go through these cycles repeatedly, though Kuhn notes that it is a
good thing for science that such shifts do not occur often or easily.

C. The Changes In Scientific Ideas

Scientists make various types of inquiries as they explore a topic. They
develop, test, and either discard or improve hypotheses. Scientists look for
relationships among different types of evidence and develop ideas that account for as
much of the evidence as possible.
Science is always an ongoing process. If new evidence is discovered that does
not support an idea or if scientists begin to think about old evidence in a new way,
then the idea can be overturned. An example is how scientific understanding of the
solar system has changed.
In the mid-1900s, scientists thought that the solar system was stable and
unchanging. They understood the motions of planets and moons very well. Scientists

4
 did not think that small objects in the solar system could cause large changes to
moons or planets, including Earth.
Over time, different types of scientists made observations that seemed
inconsistent with the idea of an unchanging solar system. Major challenges to this
idea developed from inquiries into topics that seemed unrelated, including
1. circular features on the Moon
2. rock layers on Earth
3. the extinction of the dinosaurs
Together, these inquiries provided evidence that the accepted idea could not
explain.
Scientists studying Earth’s moon noticed circular features on its surface. They
did not know if the features were caused by volcanoes or by collisions of smaller
objects with the Moon. Then, astronauts exploring the Moon brought back samples of
rock that showed that the features were from collisions, or impacts. Most of the
impacts had taken place a very long time ago. Spacecraft showed that other planets
and moons had been hit many times by small objects. By comparison, evidence of
impacts on Earth’s surface seemed rare. Just a few circular features on Earth were
shown to be caused by impacts. (Littell, 2006)

D. Produce Creative and Useful Scientific Ideas

Roberta Ness released a book in 2012 entitled “Innovation Generation: How to
Produce Creative and Useful Scientific Ideas”. She wrote this book to help young
scientist develop their creative thinking. Ness wrote her Idea with the acronim “PIG
In MuD” where “P” stands for “Phrase the question based upon interest, observation,
and knowledge” which seems to be the most important step. “I” is “Identify the
frames and find alternatives.” “G” is “Generate all possible solutions.” “In” is for
“Incubate,” “M” is “Meld your best idea back into the process of normal science,” and
“D” is “Disseminate your innovative finding.
The first method is “Phrase the question based upon interest, observation, and
knowledge”. Research problem based on our interesting help us to keep our
motivation to continue the research. The second method is “Identify the frames and
find alternatives”. Means try to look the case from different point of view. The third
method is “Generate all possible solutions”. People tend to settle on the first idea that
comes to mind because it feels intuitive and natural. But people should engage in

5
divergent thinking, an approach that requires generating as many solutions as
possible, including the implausible, unusual, and bizarre. Weird ideas serve as foils
that throw the useful ideas into relief.
Next method is “Incubate”. Taking a break from a problem and letting it
simmer on the mental back burner seems to foster insights and creative
breakthroughs. Usually there are times when we can’t thingking. It is signal from our
brain to take a rest and refresh. Next method is “Meld your single best idea back into
the process of normal science”. Science has a lot of good ideas that don’t pan out.
Researchers must evaluate their best idea using the methods and practices that other
scientists in their field will find persuasive. The last method is “Disseminate your
innovative finding”. An innovative idea won’t stick if people don’t hear about it. By
cultivating public-speaking, writing, and sales skills, researchers can promote their
innovation in the market of ideas.

6
 References
CrashCourse. (2018, July 2). The Scientific Revolution: Crash Course History of
Science #12. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzo8vnxSARg

Littell, M. (2006). McDougal Littell Science Florida: Teachers Edition Grade 7 Life
Science .

Ness, R.B. (2012). Innovation Generation, How to Produce Creative and Useful
Scientific Ideas. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-
989259-4.

Wood, D. (2003, - -). How Scientific Ideas Change. Study.com.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/how-scientific-ideas-change.html

7
Question and Answer

1. What is the differences between the scientific ideas, scientific laws and scientific
theory? What is come first? (Nimas Ayu Lestari)
A scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't
explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. The explanation of a
phenomenon is called a scientific theory. Scientific ideas is about how something
happen. There is no order because all of them is using data. Scientific ideas can be the
reason of scientific theory and scientific law existing and it is vice versa.

2. Why human develop science? (M. Fahriza)

Because Science is one of the most important aspect in humanity life, and in
the always changing and evolving world science is needed for human to keep up with
the nature and environment.

3. What is the example of third phase or crisis periode? (Mira Amelia)

The crisis period is a time when the existing paradigm has many anomalies or
irregularities in a theory, if the anomaly can be solved then the paradigm will not
change and if the paradigm can be broken it will be replaced with a new
paradigm.The example of the crisis periode is when the theory of Ptolemy that stated
the sun and plantes orbited the earth overturned by the theory of Copernicus that
stated the sun is in the central of the universe.

4. What is the relation between scientific ideas and scientific explanation? (Shofa
Nabilah)
Scientific ideas is explanation for how something works meanwhile scientific
explanation is a reason for something on the principles of science.So the scientific
ideas is explain of how question and scientific explanation answet the why question in
scientific procces.

5. There is any scientific ideas can’t be accepted? (Sausan Fauziyyah)

There probably are since scientific ideas need a concrete base for them to be
accepted. So there are probably many rejected scientific idea because of lack of
concrete base for them to be accepted by the others.

6. The scientific ideas is objective or subjective? Why? (Dela Fitriani)

The scientific ideas is objective. It’s because scientific idea is part of
scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge is purely objective, and it is
an objective description of the real structure of the world.

7. How about the process of brainstoarming to explore the new knowledge? (Zahra
Faizah)
Brainstorming can help our ideas out because brainstorming combines a
relaxed, informal approach to problem solving with lateral thinking. It encourages
people to come up with thoughts and ideas, after the idea comes out we must make
the evidence about our idea to make it scientific idea. Because if our idea is not based
on the evidence it can be stated scientific ideas.