• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Scientific Method

robinson

Banned
R
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
6,067
- Identifying a Problem (Can the Scientific Method be understood?)
-Forming a hypothesis (It is a phrase with many meanings, understanding difficult)
-Collecting and Analyzing Data (Do research, see links below)
- Designing and Performing Experiments (start discussions on science based Internet Forums)
- Formulating Conclusions about the Hypothesis (It is a phrase with many meanings, much disagreement about the meaning)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&safe=off&q="Scientific+Method"&btnG=Search

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

* 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
* 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
* 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
* 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
* 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
Click to expand...
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000

The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
Click to expand...
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

http://www.indiana.edu/~geol116/week1/meth copy.jpg
(starts with observation)

http://www.eas.slu.edu/People/RBHerrmann/Courses/EASA193F07 /Images/overview_scientific_method2.gif
(starts with "ask a question")

The steps of the scientific method are to:

* Ask a Question
* Do Background Research
* Construct a Hypothesis
* Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
* Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
* Communicate Your Results
Click to expand...
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml

The essential elements of a scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleavings, and orderings of the following:

* Characterizations (observations, definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)

* Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)

* Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from the hypothesis or theory)

* Experiments (tests of all of the above)
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Elements_of_scientific_method

Fnord said:
AH! Here it is! A forensics procedure I learned at the University:

...

1) Ask: Formulate and refine a question.
2) Research: Gather as much relevant data as possible.
3) Hypothesize: Assume a set of cause-and-effect rules.
4) Experiment and Observe: Determine what conditions result in which events.
5) Analyze: Sift through the experimental data for relevant clues, trends, and results.
6) Interpret: Decide if the experimental data supports the first hypothesis. If not, then return to step 1.
7) Publish: Submit your results for peer-group review. This means that chemists review the work of chemists, biologist review the work of biologists, et cetera.

I think that this is also called the "Scientific Method."
Click to expand...

Help a sister out. Is there any such thing as "The Scientific Method"?
 
Last edited:
robinson said:
- Identifying a Problem (Can the Scientific Method be understood?)
-Forming a hypothesis (It is a phrase with many meanings, understanding difficult)
Click to expand...
-Collecting and Analyzing Data (Do research, see links below)
- Designing and Performing Experiments (start discussions on science based Internet Forums)[/QUOTE]

Technical point - Designing and Performing Experiments should come before Collecting and Analyzing Data.

- Formulating Conclusions about the Hypothesis (It is a phrase with many meanings, much disagreement about the meaning)
Click to expand...

The way that you have set it up, this actually serves as your hypothesis. What you have done below serves as background research. The discussion that is generated by what you have offered up will generate the data for your analysis so that you will eventually be able to form a conclusion.

To that end...

The background research you have provided shows that the meaning is fairly consistent. They all seem to be describing the process I am familiar with.

Help a sister out. Is there any such thing as "The Scientific Method"?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Linda
 
EGarrett said:
You're not making any sense.
Click to expand...

Note: EGarrett seems incapable of understanding written English. Or definitions of Scientific Method (SM). Do research. Or just ask him why.

fls said:
Technical point - Designing and Performing Experiments should come before Collecting and Analyzing Data.
Click to expand...

Note: Statement conflicts with several definitions of how SM works. Several quoted in OP.

fls said:
The discussion that is generated by what you have offered up will generate the data for your analysis so that you will eventually be able to form a conclusion.
Click to expand...

Note: Conclusion presented with no research, experiments, data, hence hypothesis presented as conclusion. Not scientific, by any definition. No evidence that discussion will lead to valid data.

fls said:
The background research you have provided shows that the meaning is fairly consistent. They all seem to be describing the process I am familiar with.
Click to expand...

Note: Ironic statement. Is it humor? Error? Research needed. Gather more data.

"The background research you have provided shows that the meaning is fairly consistent" - Conclusion based on research fits no definition of SM.

Can background research be considered enough to satisfy requirements?
 
Can background research be considered enough to satisfy requirements?
Click to expand...

I vote yes. A hypothesis could be made to explain previous observations. In this case, care must be taken not to bias your hypothesis for a preferred interpretation. See evolution for an example.
 
robinson said:
Note: EGarrett seems incapable of understanding written English. Or definitions of Scientific Method (SM). Do research. Or just ask him why.
Click to expand...
Burying your point in parentheticals and unformatted bullet points instead of complete sentences is not written English.
 
The scientific method is nothing more than a system of rules to keep us from lying to each other. - Ken Norris
 
robinson said:
Note: Statement conflicts with several definitions of how SM works. Several quoted in OP.
Click to expand...

You are mixing up 'data collected for the purpose of hypothesis formation' with 'data collected for the purpose of hypothesis testing'. Either your stated study design of "start discussions on science based Internet Forums" is correct, or the order of your statements is correct, but they cannot both be correct.

Note: Conclusion presented with no research, experiments, data, hence hypothesis presented as conclusion. Not scientific, by any definition. No evidence that discussion will lead to valid data.
Click to expand...

This is based on your stated study design. Does this mean that your stated study design was incorrect? You did not intend "discussions on science based Internet Forums" to generate the information you would use to test your hypothesis? If you correct this, it would probably help people to provide whatever it is you are looking for.

Note: Ironic statement. Is it humor? Error? Research needed. Gather more data.

"The background research you have provided shows that the meaning is fairly consistent" - Conclusion based on research fits no definition of SM.

Can background research be considered enough to satisfy requirements?
Click to expand...

That you seem to think that the different examples you have given are describing different things, it suggests that you may not be the best person to make that evaluation. In order to determine whether a description fits the described object, one has to know what the described object looks like. A trivial example of this is the story of the six blind men and the elephant - to them, it looks like the descriptions are inconsistent, but to the person who can see the elephant, they all make sense. This isn't an ideal example, because you want each description of the scientific method to generally include the key concepts, but I hope you get the idea.

Maybe you need to refine your question to something like "Can descriptions of the Scientific Method be easily understood by someone who is unfamiliar with the process?" This may even be more useful than your original question which is too easily demonstrated by finding a few people who consider the descriptions you provided understandable and consistent (and you've already got one).

Linda
 
I don't think science is in the details; it's just a mode of explanation:

explanation via controlled observation, and natural selection on the explanation based only on its validity.

You get to pick what you observe and control based on whatever biases (i.e., interests) you have. Generate an explanation based on all this. Whether the explanation survives though depends on how well it explains reality.
 
Can you use "The Scientific Method" to determine what "The Scientific Method" is?
Click to expand...


Yes, you can compare the results of several different methods and find which one produced a better toaster (I like toast). The scientific method grows organically out of common sense. Come up with an idea and test it against the facts or with an experiment. That's all. The rest is is just details about rigourously elminating the explanatory possibilities and properly documenting/verifying results to establish credibility.

Help a sister out. Is there any such thing as "The Scientific Method"?
Click to expand...



You don't see a common theme in the definitions you listed?


Is there a sutext I'm missing here? Is Robinson anti-science?
 
PingOfPong said:
Yes, you can compare the results of several different methods and find which one produced a better toaster (I like toast).
Click to expand...

Compare the results? Better Toaster? So you are saying there are different scientific methods?

The term "better" is a value judgment. Just like "better toast" is. The choice a person makes, in regards to what they consider better, might be studied, but the scientific method can not help decide what "better" means.

PingOfPong said:
You don't see a common theme in the definitions you listed?
Click to expand...

I see a lot of common terms, but the order, as well as the number, are different depending on who you ask.

A "scientific method" can't change from person to person, depending on what you believe.

The obvious fact so far, is that nobody has posted what they believe "the scientific method" is.

fls made a stab at trying to correct something, without realizing her opinion conflicted with half the definitions in the OP.

The two diagrams, from science courses, also disagree.

http://www.indiana.edu/~geol116/week1/meth copy.jpg starts with observation, then analysis, then hypothesis

http://www.eas.slu.edu/People/RBHerrmann/Courses/EASA193F07/Images/overview_scientific_method2.gif starts with "ask a question", then "do background research", then hypothesis

Linda would have us believe "Designing and Performing Experiments should come before Collecting and Analyzing Data".

The few examples in the OP are just a small sample of the many different ways people present "The scientific method".
 
cgallaga said:
The scientific method is nothing more than a system of rules to keep us from lying to each other. - Ken Norris
Click to expand...

More importantly, the scientific method is a system of rules to keep us from lying to ourselves.

Or, to quote Feynman: "The first principle [of science] is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool ... After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists."

- Dr. Trintignant
 
The choice a person makes, in regards to what they consider better, might be studied, but the scientific method can not help decide what "better" means.
Click to expand...

The value judgement of tastebuds is measureable. Consumers vote with their feet. Consumer choice could be related to moisture content and carbonazation thereby defining the physical meaning of what is better in the consumer's opinion. That's my hypothesis. Piece of cake... err, toast.

A "scientific method" can't change from person to person, depending on what you believe.
Click to expand...

Where is this rule written? Like I said, there's theme in all the definitions you provided: Hypothesize, experiment, observe, and analyze. The scientific method is a heuristic not instructions for changing a tire.

The goal of science is understanding which can be evidenced by application to technology (better toast, yum!). This is one way methods can be refined.

I guess you're an anti-toastalitarian. Fine, here's a better example. Many diseases are either cured or not cured. Science has worked wonders in medicine.
 
Last edited:
fls said:
Yes. If you want to get up-to-speed, I can suggest some reading material, but it's not necessary.



He has a fairly eccentric approach.

Linda
Click to expand...

He like to play around with Woo ideas,and seems to have certain resentment against authority. The problem is that is a dangerous combination, and sooner or later you will get burned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom