It 's true that she was the first Italian to introduce the scientific method?
Yes, I was the first to formally introduce the scientific method, with which it has a set of criteria still valid: I think the book of nature is written in accordance with mathematical laws and understand them you need to experiment with the objects that it makes available to us. Later they will say that I have implemented a Scientific Revolution, that is a radical change, not a circular path where every time you return to the starting point, but a veritable explosion of human thought, thanks to you today as you come to the computer. Even today, modern science makes no distinction between the theoretical and experimental aspect, what do you think?
Neither one nor the other, are dominant, as it is part of the scientific method a theoretical model that explains an experimental observation advances and future observations. One of the basic points is the reproducibility of the experiments, namely the possibility that a given phenomenon can be replicated and studied in laboratories around the world.
is true that it is not always possible to reproduce some experimental observations of nature?
Yes, it is true, In fact, for example, in some sciences such as astronomy or meteorology, it is not possible to reproduce many of the observed effects and then resort to observations and digital simulations. Another example is the 'evolution of Charles Darwin, which would require to be verified by directly observing time so long as to be reproducible in the laboratory (except bacteria), in which case the experimental tests are based on generations, the fossils and experiment with micro-organisms whose reproductive cycles are extremely short.
His contemporary was Francis Bacon, who was he?
right, was my contemporary Francis Bacon, however, which belongs inductivist current, which then also join Newton. Bacon tried to build a rigorous method to which he wanted to bring all description and statement about the world and through which they can avoid the prejudices that hinder a real perception of the phenomena of nature.
short, we can describe this scientific method?
The scientific method proceeds in conformity with meaningful experiences and necessary demonstrations, one and the other supplementing and correcting each other, giving rise of scientific evidence, which does not consist in the bare and empty in the passive observation or theory. Experience is the scientific experiment. Aristotle also held in great account of the observation. I said myself that Aristotle puts the sensible experience to all speeches. In fact, while he writes to estimate the heavens unalterable, because none has seen something new generarvisi or dissolve the old, is implicitly makes clear when he had seen one of these accidents would have rated the opposite and placed on it, as appropriate, the sensible experience in natural speech. But my experiment is very different from the observation of Aristotle. Aristotle's observation is close to the experience of common sense, while the experiment is the methodical nature of the question, which presupposes a language in which to formulate questions and vocabulary to read and interpret the answers. My experience is a synthesis of scientific observation and rigorous reasoning. In my experiment, the mind is not passive, makes assumptions, extracts with severity of consequences and then goes to see if they are given or not in reality. The mind is not subject to scientific experience, makes and designs. And made to see if his assumption is true. The perceived reality is the result of a planned experiment, is an attempt to force nature to answer. We can summarize the scientific method with the pattern shown above.
Yes, I was the first to formally introduce the scientific method, with which it has a set of criteria still valid: I think the book of nature is written in accordance with mathematical laws and understand them you need to experiment with the objects that it makes available to us. Later they will say that I have implemented a Scientific Revolution, that is a radical change, not a circular path where every time you return to the starting point, but a veritable explosion of human thought, thanks to you today as you come to the computer. Even today, modern science makes no distinction between the theoretical and experimental aspect, what do you think?
Neither one nor the other, are dominant, as it is part of the scientific method a theoretical model that explains an experimental observation advances and future observations. One of the basic points is the reproducibility of the experiments, namely the possibility that a given phenomenon can be replicated and studied in laboratories around the world.
is true that it is not always possible to reproduce some experimental observations of nature?
Yes, it is true, In fact, for example, in some sciences such as astronomy or meteorology, it is not possible to reproduce many of the observed effects and then resort to observations and digital simulations. Another example is the 'evolution of Charles Darwin, which would require to be verified by directly observing time so long as to be reproducible in the laboratory (except bacteria), in which case the experimental tests are based on generations, the fossils and experiment with micro-organisms whose reproductive cycles are extremely short.
His contemporary was Francis Bacon, who was he?
right, was my contemporary Francis Bacon, however, which belongs inductivist current, which then also join Newton. Bacon tried to build a rigorous method to which he wanted to bring all description and statement about the world and through which they can avoid the prejudices that hinder a real perception of the phenomena of nature.
short, we can describe this scientific method?
The scientific method proceeds in conformity with meaningful experiences and necessary demonstrations, one and the other supplementing and correcting each other, giving rise of scientific evidence, which does not consist in the bare and empty in the passive observation or theory. Experience is the scientific experiment. Aristotle also held in great account of the observation. I said myself that Aristotle puts the sensible experience to all speeches. In fact, while he writes to estimate the heavens unalterable, because none has seen something new generarvisi or dissolve the old, is implicitly makes clear when he had seen one of these accidents would have rated the opposite and placed on it, as appropriate, the sensible experience in natural speech. But my experiment is very different from the observation of Aristotle. Aristotle's observation is close to the experience of common sense, while the experiment is the methodical nature of the question, which presupposes a language in which to formulate questions and vocabulary to read and interpret the answers. My experience is a synthesis of scientific observation and rigorous reasoning. In my experiment, the mind is not passive, makes assumptions, extracts with severity of consequences and then goes to see if they are given or not in reality. The mind is not subject to scientific experience, makes and designs. And made to see if his assumption is true. The perceived reality is the result of a planned experiment, is an attempt to force nature to answer. We can summarize the scientific method with the pattern shown above.
