然而，自然科学的简单性也可能导致知识被抛弃。这方面的一个例子被简单的科学理论所取代，比如20世纪80年代的Fleischmann-Pons实验，它导致了冷聚变的明显发现。涉及到电解，这是一个梦的发现:“一个简单的实验，结果重塑了我们的理解”(冷聚变:一个科学行为的案例研究1)。Fleischmann-Pons的结果无法复制，因此没有得到验证。科学家们批评的“缺乏知识”物理和与专家拒绝合作,限制其访问共享和过去的知识融合(冷聚变:一个案例研究的科学行为5)。此外,急于发表,他们没有进行“简单和明显的实验”,提供了“关键证据”支持或削弱他们的假设,有一个缺乏可重复性(冷聚变:因此，Fleischmann-Pons实验虽然简单，但却无效，因为科学家们没有严格遵循科学方法。但是，他们问题的根源仅仅在于他们实验的简单性吗?实验受到了一些无关变量的影响，比如推理、同行评议和观察方面的缺陷。科学方法的缺陷对简单和困难的实验都有影响。因此，我的观点仍然有效:自然科学的知识之所以受到重视，主要是因为它的逻辑简单，因而具有适用性，但它通常是详细的、系统的努力的结果，这种努力可能被认为是困难的。
加拿大作业代写:科学理论
Yet, simplicity in the natural sciences may also lead to knowledge which is discarded. An example of this are superseded, simple scientific theories, such as the Fleischmann-Pons experiment in the 1980s, which lead to the apparent discovery of cold fusion. Involving electrolysis, it was a dream discovery: a “simple experiment with results that reshape our understanding” (Cold Fusion: A Case Study for Scientific Behavior 1). Unlike Feynman’s diagrams, the experiment was heavily faulted in almost all stages of the scientific method. Fleischmann-Pons’ results were unable to be replicated and hence not verified. The scientists were criticised to have a “lack of knowledge” of physics and “refused to collaborate” with experts, limiting their access to shared and past knowledge on fusion (Cold Fusion: A Case Study for Scientific Behavior 5). Furthermore, in a rush to publish, they did not conduct “simple and obvious experiments” which would have provided “key evidence” to support or undermine their hypothesis, and there was a lack of repeatability (Cold Fusion: A Case Study for Scientific Behavior 7). Hence, the Fleischmann-Pons experiment was simple, yet invalid, as in their simplicity, the scientists did not rigorously follow the scientific method. But, was the root of their problems solely the simplicity of their experiment? The experiment was influenced by extraneous variables such as flaws in reasoning, peer review, and observation. Faults in the scientific method effect both simple and difficult experiments. Therefore, my claim remains valid: predominantly, knowledge in the natural sciences is valued due to its logical simplicity, leading to applicability, but is usually the result of a detailed, systematic effort that could be seen as difficult.
