There are different formulations of it. The basic idea is: - Making an observation (that inspires a problem). - Generating a hypothesis to explain the observation. - Testing the hypothesis by performing an experiment. From a hypothesis, we infer an observational consequence. We produce the hypothesis and search the consequence. If the consequence is observed, the hypothesis is confirmed. If the consequence is not observed, the hypothesis is disconfirmed. - If the hypothesis is falsified, an other hypothesis should be generated and tested. - If the hypothesis is verified it becomes a theory. Confirmation (The piece fits) What is confirmation? We predict observations (O) that are consequent to a hypothesis (H). If the predictions turns out to be correct, they confirm the hypothesis. If H, then O O Therefore, (Probably) H Problem: This is a simplified account: confirmation is not verification
puts forward a scientific hypothesis and then tests the hypothesis by doing an experiment, and the experiment shows, all by itself, whether the hypothesis is correct. Duhem pointed out that in the history of the universe there has never been an experiment that could singlehandedly verify or falsify a hypothesis. The reason is that there are always too many auxiliary assumptions that have to be made to bring the hypothesis into contact with the experimental apparatus. Hypotheses do sometimes get disconfirmed, outright refuted if you like, but only because the scientists involved are holding certain other assumptions fixed, assumptions that are disputable and may even be quite wrong. Suppose we are doing an astronomical study, and we are verifying and refuting things by making observations through complicated telescopes. In using such telescopes, the astronomers are assuming virtually all of optical theory, and countless other things besides.
Howard, D.]., Gengler, c., 8zJain, A. (1995). What's in a name? A complimentary means of persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 200-211. Howard, D.]., Gengler, c., 8zJain, A. (1997). The name remembrance effect. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 801-810. Howe, M. L. (2003). Memories from the cradle. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12,62-65· Hunt, J. M., Domzal, T. J., 8z Kernan,]. B. (1981). Causal attribution and persuasion: The case of disconfirmed expectancies. In A. Mitchell (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 9). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research. James,]. M., 8z Bolstein, R (1992). Effect of monetary incentives and follow-up mailings on the response rate and response quality in mail surveys. Public Opinion QuarterlY, 54, 44 2-453. Johnson, C. S. (1972). Fraternities in our colleges. New York: National Interfraternity Foundation. Johnson, D. W. (2003)
annaabi.ee 
