Changes

*Proper scientific methodology usually requires four steps:  

*Proper scientific methodology usually requires four steps:  

*#Observation. Objectivity is very important at this stage.

*#Observation. Objectivity is very important at this stage.

*#The inducement of general hypotheses or possible explanations for what has been observed. Here one must be imaginative yet logical. Occam's Razor should be considered but need not be strictly applied: Entia non sunt multiplicanda, or as it is usually paraphrased, the simplest hypothesis is the best. Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.

*#The inducement of general [[hypotheses]] or possible explanations for what has been observed. Here one must be imaginative yet [[logic]]al. [[Occam's Razor]] should be considered but need not be strictly applied: ''Entia non sunt multiplicanda'', or as it is usually paraphrased, the simplest hypothesis is the best. Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.

*#The deduction of corollary assumptions that must be true if the hypothesis is true. Specific testable predictions are made based on the initial hypothesis.

*#The [[deduction]] of [[corollary]] assumptions that must be true if the hypothesis is true. Specific testable [[prediction]]s are made based on the initial hypothesis.

*#Testing the hypothesis by investigating and confirming the deduced implications. Observation is repeated and data is gathered with the goal of confirming or falsifying the initial hypothesis.

*#Testing the hypothesis by investigating and confirming the deduced [[implication]]s. [[Observation]] is repeated and data is gathered with the goal of confirming or [[falsifying]] the initial hypothesis.

*Pseudoscience often omits the last two steps above. [http://www.catchpenny.org/patho.html]

*[[Pseudoscience]] often omits the last two steps above. [http://www.catchpenny.org/patho.html]

The difference between this 4-step process and what the article says, is that this one recommends drawing conclusions from the hypothesis. The scientist then compares each conclusion with the facts. Any facts which contradict a conclusion invalidate the hypothesis.

The difference between this 4-step process and what the article says, is that this one recommends drawing [[conclusion]]s from the hypothesis. The [[scientist]] then compares each conclusion with the facts. Any facts which contradict a conclusion invalidate the hypothesis.

Logically, it works like this:

Logically, it works like this:

*Hypothesis: the moon is made of green cheese.

*Hypothesis: the [[moon]] is made of green cheese.

*#If this is true, then the spectrum of light coming from the moon should match the spectrum for green cheese.

*#If this is true, then the [[spectrum]] of light coming from the moon should match the spectrum for green cheese.

*#Astronomer X did a spectral analysis of moonlight and found that it did not match green cheese.

*#[[Astronomer]] X did a spectral analysis of [[moonlight]] and found that it did not match green cheese.

*#Therefore, the hypothesis is untrue.

*#Therefore, the hypothesis is untrue.

If you want an example that isn't so light-hearted, we could list the criteria used by medical researchers to determine whether a particular germ causes a disease. Such factors as:

If you want an example that isn't so light-hearted, we could list the [[criteria]] used by medical [[researcher]]s to determine whether a particular [[germ]] causes a [[disease]]. Such factors as:

*Does the disease ever occur without the presence of the germ (or at least antibodies indicating its presence)?

*Does the disease ever occur without the presence of the germ (or at least [[antibodies]] indicating its presence)?

*Does the germ ever appear without the diserase manifesting? If so, how much? Is there a threshold?

*Does the germ ever appear without the disease manifesting? If so, how much? Is there a [[threshold]]?

I think this was used in determining whether ''e. coli'' bacteria in water makes people sick.  

I think this was used in determining whether ''[[e. coli]]'' [[bacteria]] in [[water]] makes people sick.  

Sorry I don't have all the details at hand - I'm not a card-carrying scientist - but I think I've captured the essentials. Can we work together as "science writers" to fix up the article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry I don't have all the details at hand - I'm not a card-carrying scientist - but I think I've captured the essentials. Can we work together as "[[science writer]]s" to fix up the [[Conservapedia:article|article]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)