Scientific theories, which most people consider as ‘fact,’ almost invariably

prove to be inaccurate. Thus, one should look upon any information

described as ‘factual’ with skepticism since it may well be proven false in
the future.”

Modern science is built on theories. They help us find solutions to those problems that were not
solved before. However, from time to time we may hear or read in scientific journals that some
popular theory was denied. This rises question if all theories that we have today or had earlier are
always valid. I think that an answer on this question is like a double-edged sword. However, I
tend to assert that majority of theories should be met with some sense of skepticism.
The best example about how theories may be reputed once is theory about our Universe.
Singularity theory prevails nowadays. However, that was not the case a couple of centuries ago.
Up to 18th century God creation theory prevailed. It can be mostly explained by church
intervention into scientific world in 16th and 17th centuries. But, with secularization of society,
people tried to look for new theories about universe. Finally, in mid of 20th century scientists
elaborated singularity theory that was supported by evidence. As we can see now, God creation
theory is weakened, but not reputed.
Important issue in analyzing any theory is technology development. When we talk about ground-
breaking discoveries, they tend to be revised constantly. However, let’s remember the prevailing
theory about molecule structure. Big hydronic collider helped scientist to undermine many
theories and postulate new ones. This became possible only because of technology development.
So, it is wise to say that the more sophisticated technologies we get, more theories we may
abandon. Big hydronic collider helped scientists undermine prevailing earlier theory that
molecules consisted of only Bosson Higs (or God’s particles), elements that give mass to objects.
But now we have new theory that something inside these particles gives mass. So, we have got a
new theory. So we can expect that in future when we develop better equipment and faster
computers we may look deeper into Bosson Higs.
However, it is not wise to make a strong assumption that all theories should be treated as
potentially false. Let’s recall Einstein’s relativity theory that is still valid. It is almost impossible
to predict if one can disapprove it or improve. But this theory still holds. In this case, theory
cannot be undermined because of its inherent correctness. We may assume that with
technological development or by a mere coincidence someone will find new evidence that
undermines Einstein’s theory. But it is almost impossible as almost all physical laws that we
study at school are built on this theory. So, unless we stop following traditional physical law, we
will exist in Einstein’s world of relativity.
In conclusion I want to say that theories should be met skeptically. But people should be careful
with such approach. If we talk about fundamental theories that still exist and no one can prove
them to be false, then maybe they should become axiomas. On the other hand, new theories are
always met with skepticism as people by their nature don’t want to change something so much.
Technology development as well as social changes may help people discover new theories and
revise existing ones.
The following appeared in a memorandum from the owner of the Juniper
Café, a small, local coffee shop in the downtown area of a small American
city:
“We must reduce overhead here at the café. Instead of opening at 6 a.m.
weekdays, we will now open at 8 a.m. On weekends, we will only be open
from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m. The decrease in hours of operations will help save
money because we won’t be paying for utilities, employee wages, or other
operating costs during the hours we are closed. This is the best strategy for
us to save money and remain in business without having to eliminate jobs.”

The owner of the Juniper Café, a small, local coffee shop in the downtown area of a small
American city is concerned with current costs of his business. As an owner he wants to increase
profitability of his business and considers reducing working hours of the café. Although from
owner’s point of view this decision may seem to be reasonable, it has many inherent flaws that
undermine his reasoning. Specifically, assumption that working less in the morning of weekdays
and closing earlier on weekends is very disputable issue. Also, he doesn’t consider other ways to
boost profitability of his business and doesn’t evaluate the cost structure itself.
First of all, decision to change working hours may seem reasonable if it is adjusted to clients’
needs. From memorandum we cannot make a conclusion if people tend to visit the shop exactly
from 8am on weekdays and from 9am to 4pm on weekends. It can be case that people visit shop
before their jobs, which means before 8am. In this case, the shop will just lose more money than
save. Also, closing at 4pm in the evening makes the same problem. Mostly, people want to go to
shops, theatres or restaurants in the evening, as during daytime they try to be at home or are busy
on private affairs. To resolve this problematic issue, the owner should understand when people
visit his shop. If they come out of opening hours, then this decision will only make worse.
Another big flaw in owner’s reasoning is that he saves more money paying less for utilities,
employee wages and other operating costs. This statement can be weakened in the same way as a
statement about working hours. From economic point of view, it is reasonable to look when the
shop has the more visitors and higher paychecks. If the shop is closed during the most profitable
opening hours, income for the shop drops more than costs. This leads to lower profits, what the
owner is trying to fix. In is worthy again to analyze which hours are the best to work in terms of
income.
Also, it is worthy to mention owner’s narrow-mindedness, as he managed to find only one way
to reduce costs. There are many other ways to increase profits or reduce costs. Let’s start from
costs. It can be possible that the shop has outdated equipment that consumes a lot of electricity.
Making some investments, electricity bill can be lowered. Also, we don’t know wage structure in
the shop. For instance, if the owner pays a fixed wage, then it would be reasonable to think about
moving to floating wages which depend on average clients’ paycheck. Utilities are mentioned in
memorandum. But which utilities it is stated about we don’t know. What if these utilities are not
necessary in the shop and can be dropped away? Finally, it can be an issue of customer
preferences. We know nothing about shop products. Maybe clients want to taste something new.
It would be wise to expand range of products.
In conclusion we can see that there are many flaws in owner’s reasoning that undermine his
decision. To proceed with such decision, the owner should at first analyze time when his shop
has majority of clients. Also, it is worthy to revise other methods to reduce costs, for instance,
develop product range. And finally, he should evaluate current costs and look if they can be
reduced without influence on working hours.