Difference between revisions of "Scientific method"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(75 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
The '''Scientific Method''' is a procedure for the dispassionate inquiry into natural phenomena.  It involves the careful collection of data and the development of [[Theory|theories]] which organize those facts into [[Falsifiablity|falsifiable]] explanations.  Thus science is built up as a deliberately fragile structure, like a house of cards, that can collapse if any foundational principles are proven to be false. When theories move away from falsifiability and become dogmatic, such as assigning purely human causes for climate change, then we say they are not scientific.  
+
[[File:ScientificMethodflowchart.jpg|450px|right|thumb|Flow chart illustrating the steps to the Scientific Method]]
 +
The '''scientific method''' is the ideal process by which [[scientist]]s say [[scientific research]] should be conducted.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. Exploring Creation With General Science.</ref> It is a standardized process which involves asking questions, searching for answers, guessing a possible answer called a [[hypothesis]], and then evaluating that hypothesis by [[experiment]]s in a specific, rigid fashion. Most articles in scientific journals are formatted according to its steps.
  
−
==The four steps of the scientific method {{fact}}==
+
[[Science]] is an active process where systematic descriptions of reality continue to accumulate as scientists ask questions and use improved experiments and analysis to answer those questions. The goal of the scientific method is to test the validity of a [[hypothesis]] - a proposed description of reality. It is not a set of directions for making original discoveries and it does not set out the means that scientists must use in order for their research to succeed. The whole point is to compare the hypothesis with the [[fact]]s.
  
−
1. '''Careful observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.''' (I observe that a heavy steel ship floats on water)
+
Hans Storch wrote:
 +
:Data must be accessible to adversaries; joint efforts are needed to agree on test procedures to validate, once again, already broadly accepted insights.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/23/von-storch-op-ed-in-the-wsj-climategate-reveals-a-concerted-effort-to-emphasize-scientific-results-useful-to-a-political-agenda/ Hans Storch op-ed in WSJ]</ref>
  
−
2. '''Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.''' (I propose that it is the overall density of the ship, rather than its weight that determines if it floats)
+
==Steps of the Scientific Method==
  
−
3. '''Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict the results of new observations.''' (To see whether my hypothesis holds true, I predict that any object that is less dense than water will float and any object more dense than water will sink; I test various objects that are more or less dense than water by putting them in a tub.)
+
Although by no means conclusive, the following steps are used by a majority of scientists in their work:<ref>[http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/PHY_LABS/AppendixE/AppendixE.html]</ref>
 +
#Observation of phenomena
 +
#Formulation of an hypothesis
 +
#Predictions, using this hypothesis
 +
#Testing
  
−
4. '''Replication of the experiments and results by independent experimenters.''' (rather than take my word for it, my neighbors try the same experiment and look for any flaws in my methodology).
+
A science educator lists 11 steps and 3 supporting principles. [http://www.scientificmethod.com/]
−
Mathematical derivations are also commonly used to support a theory and predict results, but only an experiment can provide conclusive evidence (relativity, for example, could not have been predicted by math alone).  
 
  
−
==Scientific treatment of theories and facts==
+
===Observation===
 +
The scientist observes something interesting, and he wants to know how it happened.  He lays down the basic questions as to what is responsible for the phenomena he observed, and from there begins to form his hypothesis.
  
−
1) If a theory has no proof it remains an abstract concept, that will not be thought in schools.
+
In asking these questions scientists also look for research that has already been done on their topic to determine if they are duplicating a past experiment, doing something new, or building on a previous experiment.  Such research, although tedious and time-consuming, simply builds on the knowledge yet to be gained by the scientist’s questions.  
  
−
    Example: String theory in physics has not yet been proven.
+
===Hypothesis===
 +
A hypothesis is a statement of what the researcher thinks will happen in the experiment.  This is usually an educated guess using current theory and has to be testable and observable. It is a common mistake to let one's own [[scientific bias]] stop the process at this point, on the assumption that the idea is so logical that it needs no testing.<ref>[http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/PHY_LABS/AppendixE/AppendixE.html]</ref>
  
−
2) If a theory can never be proven or disproven it is not considered to be scientific and science 
+
===Prediction===
−
  will not study it.  
+
When designing the experiment, the researcher carefully controls as many [[variable]]s as possible. In most experiments there is a control group and a treatment group. The two groups are as similar as possible, but the treatment group is the one that experiences the variable the researcher is studying.
  
−
    Example: the existence of God(s) can never be proven or disproven by scientific experiments,
+
===Testing===
−
    and/or mathematical derivation.
+
[[Image:Muybridge horse .jpg|right|200px|thumb]]
 +
[[Image:Muybridge horse animated.gif|right|200px|thumb|Photographic study of a horse galloping (top) and its animated sequence, by Eadweard Muybridge, 1887.]]
 +
After the data are analyzed and written down, the scientist checks the results against the hypothesis; if the results have proven the hypothesis to be wrong, then it must be discarded.  Even if the hypothesis is not correct, conclusions can still be made and significant knowledge gained.  If the hypothesis is indicated to be correct, then the results are published and sent to other scientists within the field in question.
  
−
3) If a theory can never be proven but it CAN be disproven by at least one repeatable scientific
+
Scientists must be able to take such published data and repeat the experiment.  This not only confirms the validity of the original hypothesis, but advances it to the level of a “[[theory]]”, which in science means an interpretation or explanation that is well-supported by evidence which is testable and tested.  A theory can also be falsified by evidence as well.
−
  experiment the theory will be considered to be false.  
 
  
−
    Example: YEC can be disproven through examining DNA which tells the biological history of
+
:A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis. [http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm]
−
    humanity (such as the [[Black Death]] in the 14the century and a near extinction of humanity
 
−
    around 70.000 B.C.
 
  
−
    Alternatively, this is an example of how the scientific method works:
+
A classic example of the Scientific Method being used stemmed from a simple bet.  In 1872 a [[railway|railroad]] baron named [[Leland Stanford]] made a wager that a [[horse|horse’s]] hooves do not touch the ground at some point in a [[gallop]]. To test the hypothesis, photographer [[Eadweard Muybridge]] [http://americanhistory.si.edu/muybridge/index.htm] was hired; he installed a series of trip wires which were rigged from a long wall about two inches from the ground, each one tied to a [[camera|camera’s]] shutter facing the wall; the experiment called for the horse to run past the wall, tripping the wires and getting a photo at each point.  The results were factual and conclusive: a horse at a running gallop does have all four hooves off the ground at some point.
  
−
    - From recent impacts (Siberia 1908) and space probes we know meteorites and asteroids often have
+
The agreement of an observation or experiment with a hypothesis does not on its own prove the hypothesis correct. It merely makes its correctness more likely. The hypothesis must agree with other aspects of the scientific framework of knowledge, and survive the test of repeated experiments by other people working independently. Over time, the accumulation of data will tend to confirm or refute a hypothesis.  
−
      a chemical composition which is rare on Earth.
 
−
    - A large crater has been found on the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico.
 
−
    - The soil near the crater contains significant amounts of chemical compounds common in
 
−
      meteorites.
 
−
    - The soil near the crater shows signs of a tremendous energy release, natural glass, etc...
 
−
    - We can calculate the energy that would be required to create a crater that size.
 
−
    - An impact of this scale has been found to be many times greater than that of a nuclear
 
−
      explosion.
 
−
    - We know an event like this would cause a mass extinction of which nature would need many 
 
−
    - thousands of years to recover.
 
−
    - We know the ecosystems of Earth are well balanced and prosperous (before the industrial
 
−
    - revolution anyway).
 
−
    - Therefore we know Earth has recovered from the meteorite impact.
 
−
    - Therefore we know the impact happened many thousands of years ago.
 
−
    - Therefore we know the Earth has to be many thousands of years old.
 
  
−
4) If a theory can be proven by at least one repeatable scientific experiment it will be considered a
+
Scientists may be influenced by their world-views to look for certain results that fit a preconception. The test of objectivity and rigor imposed on their work by the need for other scientists to replicate it tends to make the truth-seeking facility of the scientific method prevail in the long run,<ref>Wolfs, Frank L. H.?, [http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html Introduction to the Scientific Method]</ref> although this is difficult where the world-view is widespread.
−
  scientific fact.
 
  
−
    Example 1: The Earth is round because that shape is consistent with the laws of gravitation and
+
== Scientific truth ==
−
    the Earth's curvature can clearly be seen from high altitudes or space.
+
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up familiar with it.<ref>[[Max Planck]], [http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=072204D How Could the Consensus of Experts Be Wrong? - TCS Daily]</ref>
  
−
    Example 2: Relativity has been verified in at least two different ways:
+
== Journal article ==
  
−
    [http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment|Hafele-Keating experiment and later
+
*[https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5491675/ How to Conduct Scientific Research?], Nöro psikiyatri arşivi. 2017 Jun 1;54(2):97–98. doi: 10.5152/npa.2017.0120102
−
    experiments with more accurate clocks]
 
  
−
    [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html| GPS and relativity]
+
== See also ==
  
 +
*[[Analytical thinking]]
  
−
references: [http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html]
+
==Links==
−
[http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html]
+
*[http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/sci_meth.htm The Scientific Method, from Clermont College]
−
[http://biology.clc.uc.edu/Courses/bio104/sci_meth.htm
+
*[http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html Introduction to the Scientific Method]
−
[[category:science]]
+
*[http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml Science Buddies.org]
 +
*[http://www.biology4kids.com/files/studies_scimethod.html Biology for Kids]
 +
*[https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/plantgrowth/reference/Scientific_Method.html Example of the Scientific Method used, from NASA]
 +
*[http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/sci_meth.htm]
 +
 
 +
==References==
 +
*Campbell, Reece, Taylor, Simon, et al. ''Biology: Concepts and Connections'' 5th edition; Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ (2005)
 +
<references/>
 +
[[Category:Science]]
 +
[[Category:Methodology of Science]]

Latest revision as of 14:15, August 3, 2025

Flow chart illustrating the steps to the Scientific Method

The scientific method is the ideal process by which scientists say scientific research should be conducted.[1] It is a standardized process which involves asking questions, searching for answers, guessing a possible answer called a hypothesis, and then evaluating that hypothesis by experiments in a specific, rigid fashion. Most articles in scientific journals are formatted according to its steps.

Science is an active process where systematic descriptions of reality continue to accumulate as scientists ask questions and use improved experiments and analysis to answer those questions. The goal of the scientific method is to test the validity of a hypothesis - a proposed description of reality. It is not a set of directions for making original discoveries and it does not set out the means that scientists must use in order for their research to succeed. The whole point is to compare the hypothesis with the facts.

Hans Storch wrote:

Data must be accessible to adversaries; joint efforts are needed to agree on test procedures to validate, once again, already broadly accepted insights.[2]

Steps of the Scientific Method

Although by no means conclusive, the following steps are used by a majority of scientists in their work:[3]

  1. Observation of phenomena
  2. Formulation of an hypothesis
  3. Predictions, using this hypothesis
  4. Testing

A science educator lists 11 steps and 3 supporting principles. [3]

Observation

The scientist observes something interesting, and he wants to know how it happened. He lays down the basic questions as to what is responsible for the phenomena he observed, and from there begins to form his hypothesis.

In asking these questions scientists also look for research that has already been done on their topic to determine if they are duplicating a past experiment, doing something new, or building on a previous experiment. Such research, although tedious and time-consuming, simply builds on the knowledge yet to be gained by the scientist’s questions.

Hypothesis

A hypothesis is a statement of what the researcher thinks will happen in the experiment. This is usually an educated guess using current theory and has to be testable and observable. It is a common mistake to let one's own scientific bias stop the process at this point, on the assumption that the idea is so logical that it needs no testing.[4]

Prediction

When designing the experiment, the researcher carefully controls as many variables as possible. In most experiments there is a control group and a treatment group. The two groups are as similar as possible, but the treatment group is the one that experiences the variable the researcher is studying.

Testing

 
 
Photographic study of a horse galloping (top) and its animated sequence, by Eadweard Muybridge, 1887.

After the data are analyzed and written down, the scientist checks the results against the hypothesis; if the results have proven the hypothesis to be wrong, then it must be discarded. Even if the hypothesis is not correct, conclusions can still be made and significant knowledge gained. If the hypothesis is indicated to be correct, then the results are published and sent to other scientists within the field in question.

Scientists must be able to take such published data and repeat the experiment. This not only confirms the validity of the original hypothesis, but advances it to the level of a “theory”, which in science means an interpretation or explanation that is well-supported by evidence which is testable and tested. A theory can also be falsified by evidence as well.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis. [4]

A classic example of the Scientific Method being used stemmed from a simple bet. In 1872 a railroad baron named Leland Stanford made a wager that a horse’s hooves do not touch the ground at some point in a gallop. To test the hypothesis, photographer Eadweard Muybridge [5] was hired; he installed a series of trip wires which were rigged from a long wall about two inches from the ground, each one tied to a camera’s shutter facing the wall; the experiment called for the horse to run past the wall, tripping the wires and getting a photo at each point. The results were factual and conclusive: a horse at a running gallop does have all four hooves off the ground at some point.

The agreement of an observation or experiment with a hypothesis does not on its own prove the hypothesis correct. It merely makes its correctness more likely. The hypothesis must agree with other aspects of the scientific framework of knowledge, and survive the test of repeated experiments by other people working independently. Over time, the accumulation of data will tend to confirm or refute a hypothesis.

Scientists may be influenced by their world-views to look for certain results that fit a preconception. The test of objectivity and rigor imposed on their work by the need for other scientists to replicate it tends to make the truth-seeking facility of the scientific method prevail in the long run,[5] although this is difficult where the world-view is widespread.

Scientific truth

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up familiar with it.[6]

Journal article

See also

Links

References

  • Campbell, Reece, Taylor, Simon, et al. Biology: Concepts and Connections 5th edition; Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ (2005)
  1. ↑ Wile, Dr. Jay L. Exploring Creation With General Science.
  2. ↑ Hans Storch op-ed in WSJ
  3. ↑ [1]
  4. ↑ [2]
  5. ↑ Wolfs, Frank L. H.?, Introduction to the Scientific Method
  6. ↑ Max Planck, How Could the Consensus of Experts Be Wrong? - TCS Daily
Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_method&oldid=2147981"