THE SCIENCETIFIC EXPLANATION

    Are we should keep belief as a belief? Those beliefs don’t have exact explanation and some of them may be some one ‘s personal view. they are going forward with generation to generation. But important thing is if we can give acceptable explanation for incidence that happen. Throughout this article, it is going to see weather is it possible that give those incidences to scientific explanation, what is the scientific method, importance of scientific met herd, what is logic, Explanation Vs. Confirmation. "Reality" Vs."Efficacy" It will not be able to achieve easy, but important thing is if we can achieve however. It is non other than reality. This also small effort to realize it.

INTRODUCTION 

    Science and scientific knowledge achieved high status in twentieth-century Western societies, yet there continues to be disagreement among scientists and those who study science (historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science) about the meaning of scientific explanation. Indeed, the use of the word "explanation" has been the subject of heated debate (Keat and Urry 1982). One way to make sense of science is to "reconstruct" the logic scientists use to produce scientific knowledge. The reconstructed logic of science differs from what scientists actually do when they engage in research. The research process is seldom as clear, logical, and straightforward as the reconstructed logic presented in this article makes it appear. 

2.1 Scientific Method  

    Scientific method, mathematical and experimental technique employed in the sciences. More specifically, it is the technique used in the construction and testing of a scientific hypothesis.
The process of observing, asking questions, and seeking answers through tests and experiments is not unique to any one field of science. In fact, the scientific method is applied broadly in science, across many different fields. Many empirical
sciences, especially the social sciences, use mathematical tools borrowed from probability theory and statistics, together with outgrowths of these, such as decision theory, game theory, utility theory, and operations research. Philosophers of science have addressed general methodological problems, such as the nature of scientific explanation and the justification of induction. 

"REALITY" VS."EFFICACY" 

    The two terms "reality" and "efficacy" are very often used synonymously, but this does not exactly correspond to reality and has also led to a dualism "realism vs. idealism" in the "realism debate" (see below). The ontological concept of reality is more likely to be associated with things that have an effect / interaction. These are mostly physical entities that can be observed and measured as phenomena. For this reason, physicalism (Place / Smart) also likes to withdraw to this position in order not to be associated with related materialism (Cambridge Platonists: More / Cudworth). Materialism is also based on the concept of reality, but still contains the "tastes of metaphysics", which unfortunately leads to strong, unfounded resentment in scientific circles to this day. For both camps, naturalism, on the other hand, represents a great foundation for the selfimage of the natural sciences, which is often referred to in controversies.

 EXPLANATION VS. CONFIRMATION 

    The first step in clarifying the notion of scientific explanation is to draw a sharp distinction between explaining why a particular phenomenon occurs and giving reasons for believing that it occurs. My reason for believing that the moon turns coppery during total eclipse is that I have observed it with my own eyes. I can also appeal to the testimony of other observers. That is how the proposition that the moon turns coppery during a total eclipse is confirmed,1 and it is entirely different from explaining why it happens. Consider another example. According to
    contemporary cosmology all of the distant galaxies are receding from us at high velocities. The evidence for this is the fact that the light from them is shifted toward the red end of the spectrum; such evidence confirms the statement that the other galaxies are moving away from our galaxy (the Milky Way). The fact that there is such a red shift does not explain why the galaxies are moving in that way; instead, the fact that they are receding explains—in terms of the Doppler effect2—why the light is shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. The explanation of the recession lies in the "big bang" with which our universe began several billion years ago; this is what makes all of the galaxies recede from one another and, consequently, makes all of the others move away from us.  

 This is the conclusion of my article..

If we can give explanation for happening incidents will be good. It is entirely different from explaining why it happens. The ontological concept of reality is more likely to be associated with things that have an effect / interaction. Materialism is also based on the concept of reality, but still contains the "tastes of metaphysics". However, there are some kind of things that cannot explain according to the scientific method, such as reborn, end of the universe, etc. In that case, we can conclude that there are some kind of things that fail such method. 

This is the End of my article. Thank you very much for paying your valuable time to read this article.

*** THE END ***