CASE STUDY - THE ATOM

Imagine what it must have been like back in time not too long ago, before the science of particle physics came about. How could you possibly know what the smallest piece of anything is if it's impossible to see with your own eyes? Yet after experimenting with chemistry for so very long, many scientists were led to believe that there must be some 'fundamental' particles that everything is composed of. Something that can no longer be subdivided; a hypothetical particle that we might call an 'atom' (meaning indivisible)

Hypothesis: I theorize that the atom might exist

Our hypothesis appears to be acceptable in that it doesn't make any unsupported assumptions that do not extend from what is currently supported by the Scientific Method. So now that we have a qualifying hypothesis, we need to accumulate evidence to determine the validity of it.

Color Table:

Strong counter-evidence Weak counter-evidence Not useful Weak evidence Good evidence Strong evidence Not applicable

First-hand Evidence

Type of Evidence Our instincts consider this to be.. The Scientific Method considers this to be..

Tangibility
Can't physically sense an atom whatsoever. Even technology can't help us to see, hear, taste, smell, or directly touch these atoms, for these quantifications lose their meaning at this small scale. ..not applicable ..not applicable

Influence
We appear to be able to control these hypothetical particles through magnetism, plus we can smash them into other particles to create new particles and/or energy, all which seem to be verified by measuring the mass and energy of these particles as they influence their environment. Also, consistent predictions of the nature of these particles when measured by very sensitive equipment can be verifiably and consistently reproduced. ..too complex. What is all this thing-a-ma-bob thingy? Is that a cat? ..compelling evidence. Though it takes quite a bit of education to be able to understand how these experiments can validate the hypothesis, these 'detection' experiments have proven themselves to be very conclusive in testing the existence of the atom.

Interpretation
It would seem an ultimate 'particle'-like object that has many discrete forms (the different elements) must exist in order to explain the witnessed phenomena over a large myriad of experiments. ..a pretty cat. ..compelling evidence. A ton of data produced by thousands of scientific experiments all seem to strongly support the theory of the atom.

Intuition
The atom is a tiny ball composed of even tinier balls that in varying combinations of these tinier balls will form the different types of matter in our universe ..really really boring. ..a reasonable guess based upon deductive reasoning from a great many experimental observations. It may be highly accurate to say the atom exists, but until we have the technology to look directly at them (not just detect their influence on their environment), we can't know exactly what an atom truly 'is'.

Desire
I'd like the atom model to be accurate so we can move forward in science, but I'd be just as content to disprove it for the same reasons. ..not applicable since no emotions are involved. ..not applicable since no emotions are involved.

Second-Hand Information Credibility

Type of Information Our instincts consider this to be.. The Scientific Method considers this to be..

Distinguished Source
An unimaginable number of scientific establishments, and individual scientists, wholeheartedly endorse the existence of the atom. ..very convincing. I would repeat this information because these scientists are supposed to be really good at these types of things. ..strong support that it exists.

Agenda Source
No source has anything to gain from whether I believe this object exists or not. ..not applicable. ..not applicable.

Mass Support
The atom theory is globally-adopted by virtually everyone. ..extremely reliable. ..not reliable. The popular adoption of the atom theory by the masses, doesn't necessarily add any merit to the theory.

Hearsay, Rumor, or Opinion
Imagine if I never heard about the atom before, and my neighbor told me about it one day ..might be true. He's always talking about science and stuff. ..not reliable. Without the above evidence to support the atom theory, this information doesn't have much credibility.

First-hand Evidence
Type of Evidence	Our instincts consider this to be..	The Scientific Method considers this to be..
Tangibility Can't physically sense an atom whatsoever. Even technology can't help us to see, hear, taste, smell, or directly touch these atoms, for these quantifications lose their meaning at this small scale.	..not applicable	..not applicable
Influence We appear to be able to control these hypothetical particles through magnetism, plus we can smash them into other particles to create new particles and/or energy, all which seem to be verified by measuring the mass and energy of these particles as they influence their environment. Also, consistent predictions of the nature of these particles when measured by very sensitive equipment can be verifiably and consistently reproduced.	..too complex. What is all this thing-a-ma-bob thingy? Is that a cat?	..compelling evidence. Though it takes quite a bit of education to be able to understand how these experiments can validate the hypothesis, these 'detection' experiments have proven themselves to be very conclusive in testing the existence of the atom.
Interpretation It would seem an ultimate 'particle'-like object that has many discrete forms (the different elements) must exist in order to explain the witnessed phenomena over a large myriad of experiments.	..a pretty cat.	..compelling evidence. A ton of data produced by thousands of scientific experiments all seem to strongly support the theory of the atom.
Intuition The atom is a tiny ball composed of even tinier balls that in varying combinations of these tinier balls will form the different types of matter in our universe	..really really boring.	..a reasonable guess based upon deductive reasoning from a great many experimental observations. It may be highly accurate to say the atom exists, but until we have the technology to look directly at them (not just detect their influence on their environment), we can't know exactly what an atom truly 'is'.
Desire I'd like the atom model to be accurate so we can move forward in science, but I'd be just as content to disprove it for the same reasons.	..not applicable since no emotions are involved.	..not applicable since no emotions are involved.

Second-Hand Information Credibility
Type of Information	Our instincts consider this to be..	The Scientific Method considers this to be..
Distinguished Source An unimaginable number of scientific establishments, and individual scientists, wholeheartedly endorse the existence of the atom.	..very convincing. I would repeat this information because these scientists are supposed to be really good at these types of things.	..strong support that it exists.
Agenda Source No source has anything to gain from whether I believe this object exists or not.	..not applicable.	..not applicable.
Mass Support The atom theory is globally-adopted by virtually everyone.	..extremely reliable.	..not reliable. The popular adoption of the atom theory by the masses, doesn't necessarily add any merit to the theory.
Hearsay, Rumor, or Opinion Imagine if I never heard about the atom before, and my neighbor told me about it one day	..might be true. He's always talking about science and stuff.	..not reliable. Without the above evidence to support the atom theory, this information doesn't have much credibility.

We had a hard time getting our instincts involved in this experiment. They either didn't understand how the evidence contributed to supporting the existence of the atom, or they just didn't care. Thankfully there was a bunch of second-hand information available, something the instincts can recognize, and this was able to convince them that the atom exists. On the other hand, with less green, the Scientific Method came in with much weaker support for the existence of the atom than the instincts, as well as less support than it had in our previous 'Ball' case study, yet, there's still enough substantial evidence for it to still fully endorse the atom theory as 'highly probable'.

Instinctual Conclusion

The atom most likely exists, but who cares?

Scientific Method Conclusion

Lot's of diverse and compelling evidence makes this theory highly probable to be true. Though, our future technologies may reveal that the atom is nothing like we theorize it is today.