The Scientific Empirical Method
The term empirical method is defined as being 'based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.'
The following set of rules defines the empirical method: -
It is a method of testing and referring against one’s experience through observation and experiment.
Great leaps in science are made by scientists well versed in two or more scientific disciplines and see connections between them. That’s when areas in one field of study become amazingly applicable to those in the other. We witness this occurring today when electricity and magnetism are applied to astrophysics.
Previously, the many astrophysics theories were solely based on the ‘belief’ that gravitational interactions dominate the Universe. With the application of electricity and magnetism, astrophysical phenomena are being looked at in a new light.
What if Statements
“What if” ideas are NOT science. Anyone can develop a “what if” statement that leads to other “what ifs.” They are NOT science because they are NOT verifiable facts. For instance, today, astrophysicists postulate the existence of unseen entities to explain particular observations. They invent dark matter and dark energy to explain the physics of spiral galaxy rotation—these “what ifs” are merely speculation.
Good science demands many reasons and confirmed scientific observations as the foundation for theories and hypotheses.
“It's impossible to verify or confirm a scientific theory,” said the philosopher Karl Popper.
It's only possible to disprove a theory. No number of observations can confirm a hypothesis. However, just ONE contradictory observation is all that’s needed to refute a hypothesis.
“Good tests falsify theories,” Popper said. The line separating real science and pseudoscience is in the willingness of scientists to make testable predictions. Any theories failing these tests must be rejected.
Discarding a pet theory is sad but necessary. According to the late American physicist Richard Feynman, it makes no difference how good an argument is or how smart the theorist. If it DISAGREES with experiment, it's WRONG.
What astroscientists ought to do is to go into the lab and test their hypotheses.
Unfortunately, today’s astroscientists seem to ignore the empirical scientific method and opt to use the much easier deductive logic-based method.
Mathematics is NOT science. It's a sequence of logical steps deriving proof leading to a final statement consistent with the initial one. Sets of axioms and the use of logic do NOT necessarily associate with reality. Unless, of course, they can be demonstrated to be associated with it by observation and experiment.
You are now MUCH wiser.