Scientific method
From EvoWiki
| See Scientific method in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. |
Contents |
The Scientific Method
The scientific method is a sequence or collection of processes that are considered characteristic of scientific investigation and the acquisition of new scientific knowledge based upon physical evidence. Many formulations of the Scientific Method exist, along with more than a few interpretations of what it actually is. Ranging from general descriptions of 'the Philosophy of Science' to specific step-by-step recipes, they all contribute something to one's knowledge about the topic at hand without producing a concise explanation. Anyone who isn't relentless and obsessive about such things can easily walk away without having their question answered.
The Recipe
- Observe some aspect of the universe.
- Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed, and that is falsifiable.
- Use the hypothesis to make predictions that are falsifiable.
- Test those predictions by experiments or further observations; if these experiments and observations falsify your hypotheses or predictions, rinse and repeat.
- Repeat entire process, refining hypothesis, prediction, and experiments to improve the correspondence between your hypothesis and observable reality.
When a Hypothesis Grows Up
At some point, one must presume that the hypothesis and observable reality become indistinguishable at the limits of our ability to observe. Ideally, when a hypothesis reaches this point, it becomes a Theory; in actuality, it becomes a theory when a large portion of the best known thinkers in the given discipline that the hypothesis relates to agree that it has completed a significant level of correspondence with observable data. The more verified predictions a hypothesis produces without falsification, the higher degree of esteem is placed in it. However, it's worth noting that opinions vary as to what constitutes 'falsification'. For instance, some claim that quantum experiments have falsified some aspects of the Theory of Relativity; while others claim that some relativistic findings have falsified quantum mechanics. Neither appears to be the case - or perhaps they're both just so doggone useful in their various applications that they're held onto for practical reasons while we wait for something better to show up.
This brings us to the reality of the situation, which is that hypotheses are often promoted to theories when they are merely the best current explanation; everyone involved may be aware that they do not predict without falsification every observable datum; as such, many people may be researching those gray areas and refining the theory, even while it's being taught as the best explanation.
The Reality of the Situation
In reality, scientists are individuals, and as such, have a certain tendency to 'do things their own way'. This drives the Scientific Method into the category of 'guideline' and 'ruler'; We can apply it when we want to evaluate the methodology of a given bit of knowledge, or when we decide to validate our own findings, but the steps may be out of order, or have more or fewer components. As I noted before, the explanations of the Scientific Method range from 14 steps in a veritable recipe for determinism to one liners like "Think about stuff and test to see if you're wrong".
A lot of factors outside the realm of science can influence what the 'best explanation' for given observations may be. Finding funding for research can be difficult if your hypothesis contradicts what is 'already known'. The media can influence such things heavily by 'popularizing' a given view or hypothesis, contributing to the preceding difficulty, because everyone 'already knows that x is the case!'.
In short, the Scientific Method is a general attempt to compartmentalize and codify an entire worldview in which scientists operate in an ideal forum; in this world it remains a very sharp razor with which to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Back to Philosophy of Science
