Nokea
Most scientists agree that while the scientific method is an invaluable methodological tool, it is not a failsafe method for arriving at objective truth. It is debatable, for example, whether a hypothesis can actually be confirmed by evidence.
When a hypothesis is of the form “All x are y,†it is commonly believed that a piece of evidence that is both x and y confirms the hypothesis. For example, for the hypothesis “All monkeys are hairy,†a particular monkey that is hairy is thought to be a confirming piece of evidence for the hypothesis. A problem arises when one encounters evidence that disproves a hypothesis: while no scientist would argue that one piece of evidence proves a hypothesis, it is possible for one piece of evidence to disprove a hypothesis. To return to the monkey example, one hairless monkey out of one billion hairy monkeys disproves the hypothesis “All monkeys are hairy.†Single pieces of evidence, then, seem to affect a given hypothesis in radically different ways. For this reason, the confirmation of hypotheses is better described as probabilistic.
Hypotheses that can only be proven or disproven based on evidence need to be based on probability because sample sets for such hypotheses are too large. In the monkey example, every single monkey in the history of monkeys would need to be examined before the hypothesis could be proven or disproven. By making confirmation a function of probability, one may make provisional or working conclusions that allow for the possibility of a given hypothesis being disconfirmed in the future. In the monkey case, then, encountering a hairy monkey would slightly raise the probability that “all monkeys are hairy,†while encountering a hairless monkey would slightly decrease the probability that “all monkeys are hairy.†This method of confirming hypotheses is both counterintuitive and controversial, but it allows for evidence to equitably affect hypotheses and it does not require infinite sample sets for confirmation or disconfirmation.
According to the passage, what effect does encountering an automobile with eighteen wheels have on the hypothesis 'All automobiles have only four wheels'?
Correct Answer: C
Rationale: Encountering an automobile with eighteen wheels contradicts the hypothesis that all automobiles have only four wheels. This contradicts the initial hypothesis, proving it to be false. The passage explains that when evidence disproves a hypothesis, it directly contradicts the hypothesis, leading to its disproof. In the context of the monkey example provided, encountering a hairless monkey out of many hairy monkeys disproved the hypothesis 'All monkeys are hairy.' Therefore, the presence of an automobile with eighteen wheels disproves the hypothesis that all automobiles have only four wheels. Other choices are incorrect because encountering such an automobile directly contradicts the initial hypothesis, leading to its disproof, rather than proving it, raising its probability, or decreasing its probability.