Talk:Scientific method - Revision history

Ed Poor: inadvertent, a sideshow to the planned purpose

2010-01-17T00:57:14Z

inadvertent, a sideshow to the planned purpose

JessicaT at 12:36, January 9, 2009

2009-01-09T12:36:31Z

Able806: /* Use of Theory */

2008-11-12T14:37:16Z

Use of Theory

Able806: /* Use of Theory */

2008-11-12T14:35:44Z

Use of Theory

Ed Poor: theory and hypothesis

2008-11-12T14:22:23Z

theory and hypothesis

Ed Poor: Four steps of the scientific method

2008-11-12T14:19:54Z

Four steps of the scientific method

Able806: /* Distinct from Scientific theory */

2008-10-15T13:11:51Z

Distinct from Scientific theory

Edward at 03:07, June 21, 2007

2007-06-21T03:07:13Z

Philip J. Rayment: Remove unattributed copy-and-paste from another web-site

2007-06-05T01:50:57Z

Remove unattributed copy-and-paste from another web-site

Lordration at 18:05, June 4, 2007

2007-06-04T18:05:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:57, January 17, 2010
Line 136:		Line 136:

	Just saw your last edit, that helps a lot with what I said above.--[[User:Able806\|Able806]] 09:37, 12 November 2008 (EST)		Just saw your last edit, that helps a lot with what I said above.--[[User:Able806\|Able806]] 09:37, 12 November 2008 (EST)
		+
		+	==How and when is it really used?==
		+
		+	I daresay that scientific discovery is only rarely made by systematically applying the "scientific method".
		+
		+	* Most good things that happen with kids (or in any other setting) are inadvertent, a sideshow to the planned purpose of an activity. For instance, it's said that Einstein discovered relativity while riding a train, absent-mindedly watching a parallel train pull ahead, leaving him with the sense of moving backwards -- relatively. As Philosopher Vilfredo Pareto put it "Logic is useful for proof, but almost never for making discoveries." [http://www.tompeters.com/printer_friendly.php?print=1&note=columns/005078]

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 * '''Falsifiability''', or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: ''All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof''. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.
-* '''Causal explanation'''. Many scientists and theorists on scientific method argue that concepts of causality are not obligatory to science, but are in fact well-defined only under particular, admittedly widespread conditions.{{Who|Date=March 2007}} Under these conditions the following requirements are generally regarded as important to scientific understanding:
+* '''Causal explanation'''. Many scientists and theorists on scientific method argue that concepts of causality are not obligatory to science, but are in fact well-defined only under particular, admittedly widespread conditions.<nowiki>{{Who|Date=March 2007}}</nowiki> Under these conditions the following requirements are generally regarded as important to scientific understanding:
 :* '''Identification of causes'''. Identification of the causes of a particular phenomenon to the best achievable extent.

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:37, November 12, 2008
Line 134:		Line 134:

	The law definition should be edited as well. We have discovered that it is was to presumptous for us to claim that something is not going to change, however we can say with a high level of certainty that something will remain the same.--[[User:Able806\|Able806]] 09:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)		The law definition should be edited as well. We have discovered that it is was to presumptous for us to claim that something is not going to change, however we can say with a high level of certainty that something will remain the same.--[[User:Able806\|Able806]] 09:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)
		+
		+	Just saw your last edit, that helps a lot with what I said above.--[[User:Able806\|Able806]] 09:37, 12 November 2008 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:35, November 12, 2008
Line 128:		Line 128:

	:A hypothesis is a conjecture designed to guide experimentation. Hypotheses are extremely useful in problem solving, and are essential in developing new theories. --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 09:22, 12 November 2008 (EST)		:A hypothesis is a conjecture designed to guide experimentation. Hypotheses are extremely useful in problem solving, and are essential in developing new theories. --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 09:22, 12 November 2008 (EST)
		+
		+	::Thanks Ed for the change. I am quiet aware of the differences (doing research of alkaloids, post doc), it just seemed that the article failed to inform the reader that a basic tested hypothesis can not be advanced to a theory. I was actualy making the change when you edited, my version below:
		+
		+	"Scientists must be able to take such published data and repeat the experiment. This allows for confirmation of the validity of the original hypothesis. Multiple supported hypotheses that have a unified concept allows for the concept to be developed into a scientific “[[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. The level of a “fact” or “law” is simply that which is empirical, and can be assumed to true."
		+
		+	The law definition should be edited as well. We have discovered that it is was to presumptous for us to claim that something is not going to change, however we can say with a high level of certainty that something will remain the same.--[[User:Able806\|Able806]] 09:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:22, November 12, 2008
Line 126:		Line 126:
	==Use of Theory==		==Use of Theory==
	The way the current article is written a single tested hypothesis would be classified as a theory. This is incorrect. I will think of some wording that would convey that a theory is a conjecture derived from multiple tested hypotheses.--[[User:Able806\|Able806]] 09:11, 15 October 2008 (EDT)		The way the current article is written a single tested hypothesis would be classified as a theory. This is incorrect. I will think of some wording that would convey that a theory is a conjecture derived from multiple tested hypotheses.--[[User:Able806\|Able806]] 09:11, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
		+
		+	:A hypothesis is a conjecture designed to guide experimentation. Hypotheses are extremely useful in problem solving, and are essential in developing new theories. --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 09:22, 12 November 2008 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:19, November 12, 2008
Line 54:		Line 54:
	--[[User:CatWatcher\|CatWatcher]] 15:11, 4 April 2007 (EDT)		--[[User:CatWatcher\|CatWatcher]] 15:11, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

−	== ~~Uncle Ed's two cents~~ ==	+	== Four steps of the scientific method ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:11, October 15, 2008
Line 123:		Line 123:

	Maybe we need to look at Popper on scientific method. He's the set text for many university philosophy of science papers --[[User:Edward\|Edward]] 23:07, 20 June 2007 (EDT)		Maybe we need to look at Popper on scientific method. He's the set text for many university philosophy of science papers --[[User:Edward\|Edward]] 23:07, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	==Use of Theory==
		+	The way the current article is written a single tested hypothesis would be classified as a theory. This is incorrect. I will think of some wording that would convey that a theory is a conjecture derived from multiple tested hypotheses.--[[User:Able806\|Able806]] 09:11, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:07, June 21, 2007
Line 121:		Line 121:

	::: Wouldn't it have been better to take the time to verify the content than to delete everything? Or ask another sysop who is familiar with the material to do so? --[[User:Mtur\|Mtur]] 16:41, 17 May 2007 (EDT)		::: Wouldn't it have been better to take the time to verify the content than to delete everything? Or ask another sysop who is familiar with the material to do so? --[[User:Mtur\|Mtur]] 16:41, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	Maybe we need to look at Popper on scientific method. He's the set text for many university philosophy of science papers --[[User:Edward\|Edward]] 23:07, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:50, June 5, 2007
Line 121:		Line 121:

	::: Wouldn't it have been better to take the time to verify the content than to delete everything? Or ask another sysop who is familiar with the material to do so? --[[User:Mtur\|Mtur]] 16:41, 17 May 2007 (EDT)		::: Wouldn't it have been better to take the time to verify the content than to delete everything? Or ask another sysop who is familiar with the material to do so? --[[User:Mtur\|Mtur]] 16:41, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
−
−	~~==Lord Ration's 2 cents==~~
−
−	Real science must conform to a system known as the scientific method . This system provides a framework in which scientists can analyze situations, explain certain phenomena, and answer certain questions. The scientific method starts with observation . Observation allows the scientist to collect data. Once enough data has been collected, the scientist forms a hypothesis that attempts to explain some facet of the data or attempts to answer a question that the scientist is trying to answer.
−
−	~~Hypothesis - An educated guess that attempts to explain an observation or answer a question~~
−
−	Once he or she forms a hypothesis, the scientist (typically with help from other scientists) then collects much more data in an effort to test the hypothesis. If data are found which are inconsistent with the hypothesis, the hypothesis might be discarded, or it might just be modified a bit until it is consistent with all data that has been collected. If a large amount of data is collected and the hypothesis is consistent with all of the data, then the hypothesis becomes a theory.
−
−	~~Theory - A hypothesis that has been tested with a significant amount of data~~
−
−	Since a theory has been tested by a large amount of data, it is much more reliable than a hypothesis. As more and more data relevant to the theory gets collected, the theory can be tested over and over again. If several generations of collected data are all consistent with the theory, it eventually attains the status of a scientific law.
−
−	~~Scientific law - A theory that has been tested by and is consistent with generations of data~~
−
−	An example of the scientific method in action can be found in the life of Ignaz Semmelweis, a Viennese doctor who lived in the early-to-mid 1800's. He was put in charge of a ward in Vienna's most famous hospital, the Allegemeine Krakenhaus. He noticed that in his ward, patients were dying at a rate which far exceeded that of the other wards, even the wards with much sicker patients. Semmelweis observed the situation for several weeks, trying to figure out what was different about his ward as compared to all others in the hospital. He finally determined that the only noticeable difference was that his ward was the first one that the doctors and medical students visited after they performed autopsies on the dead.
−
−	Based on his observations, Semmelweis hypothesized that the doctors were carrying something deadly from the corpses upon which the autopsies were being performed to the patients in his ward. Thus, Dr. Semmelweis exercised the first step in the scientific method. He made some observations and then formed a hypothesis to explain those observations.
−
−	Semmelweis then developed a way to test his hypothesis. He instituted a rule that all doctors had to wash their hands after they finished their autopsies and before they entered his ward. Believe it or not, up to that point in history, doctors never thought to wash their hands before examining or even operating on a patient! Dr. Semmelweis hoped that by washing their hands, doctors would remove whatever was being carried from the corpses to the patients in his ward.
−
−	Well, the doctors did not like the new rule, but they grudgingly obeyed it, and the death rate in Dr. Semmelweis' ward decreased to the lowest in the hospital! This, of course, was good evidence that his hypothesis was right. You would think that the doctors would be overjoyed. They were not. In fact, they got so tired of having to wash their hands before entering Dr. Semmelweis' ward that they worked together to get him fired. His successor, anxious to win the approval of the doctors, rescinded Semmelweis' policy, and the death rate in the ward shot back up again.
−
−	Semmelweis spent the rest of his life doing more and more experiments to confirm his hypothesis that something unseen but nevertheless deadly can be carried from a dead person to a live person. Although Semmelweis' work was not appreciated until after his death, his hypothesis was eventually confirmed by enough experiments that it became a scientific theory. At that point, doctors began washing their hands before examinations and surgery.
−
−	As time went on, more and more data was gathered in support of Semmelweis' theory. With the advent of the microscope, scientists were finally able to see the deadly bacteria and germs that can be transmitted from person to person, and Semmelweis' theory became a scientific law. Nowadays, doctors do all that they can to completely sterilize their hands, clothes, and instruments before performing any medical procedure.
−
−	The scientific method provides a methodical, logical way to examine a situation or answer a question. If a theory survives the scientific method and becomes a law, it can be considered reasonably trustworthy. Even a scientific theory which has not been tested enough to be a law is still pretty reliable, because it is backed up by a lot of scientific data.
−
−	~~Figure 1.3~~

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:05, June 4, 2007
Line 121:		Line 121:

	::: Wouldn't it have been better to take the time to verify the content than to delete everything? Or ask another sysop who is familiar with the material to do so? --[[User:Mtur\|Mtur]] 16:41, 17 May 2007 (EDT)		::: Wouldn't it have been better to take the time to verify the content than to delete everything? Or ask another sysop who is familiar with the material to do so? --[[User:Mtur\|Mtur]] 16:41, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	==Lord Ration's 2 cents==
		+
		+	Real science must conform to a system known as the scientific method . This system provides a framework in which scientists can analyze situations, explain certain phenomena, and answer certain questions. The scientific method starts with observation . Observation allows the scientist to collect data. Once enough data has been collected, the scientist forms a hypothesis that attempts to explain some facet of the data or attempts to answer a question that the scientist is trying to answer.
		+
		+	Hypothesis - An educated guess that attempts to explain an observation or answer a question
		+
		+	Once he or she forms a hypothesis, the scientist (typically with help from other scientists) then collects much more data in an effort to test the hypothesis. If data are found which are inconsistent with the hypothesis, the hypothesis might be discarded, or it might just be modified a bit until it is consistent with all data that has been collected. If a large amount of data is collected and the hypothesis is consistent with all of the data, then the hypothesis becomes a theory.
		+
		+	Theory - A hypothesis that has been tested with a significant amount of data
		+
		+	Since a theory has been tested by a large amount of data, it is much more reliable than a hypothesis. As more and more data relevant to the theory gets collected, the theory can be tested over and over again. If several generations of collected data are all consistent with the theory, it eventually attains the status of a scientific law.
		+
		+	Scientific law - A theory that has been tested by and is consistent with generations of data
		+
		+	An example of the scientific method in action can be found in the life of Ignaz Semmelweis, a Viennese doctor who lived in the early-to-mid 1800's. He was put in charge of a ward in Vienna's most famous hospital, the Allegemeine Krakenhaus. He noticed that in his ward, patients were dying at a rate which far exceeded that of the other wards, even the wards with much sicker patients. Semmelweis observed the situation for several weeks, trying to figure out what was different about his ward as compared to all others in the hospital. He finally determined that the only noticeable difference was that his ward was the first one that the doctors and medical students visited after they performed autopsies on the dead.
		+
		+	Based on his observations, Semmelweis hypothesized that the doctors were carrying something deadly from the corpses upon which the autopsies were being performed to the patients in his ward. Thus, Dr. Semmelweis exercised the first step in the scientific method. He made some observations and then formed a hypothesis to explain those observations.
		+
		+	Semmelweis then developed a way to test his hypothesis. He instituted a rule that all doctors had to wash their hands after they finished their autopsies and before they entered his ward. Believe it or not, up to that point in history, doctors never thought to wash their hands before examining or even operating on a patient! Dr. Semmelweis hoped that by washing their hands, doctors would remove whatever was being carried from the corpses to the patients in his ward.
		+
		+	Well, the doctors did not like the new rule, but they grudgingly obeyed it, and the death rate in Dr. Semmelweis' ward decreased to the lowest in the hospital! This, of course, was good evidence that his hypothesis was right. You would think that the doctors would be overjoyed. They were not. In fact, they got so tired of having to wash their hands before entering Dr. Semmelweis' ward that they worked together to get him fired. His successor, anxious to win the approval of the doctors, rescinded Semmelweis' policy, and the death rate in the ward shot back up again.
		+
		+	Semmelweis spent the rest of his life doing more and more experiments to confirm his hypothesis that something unseen but nevertheless deadly can be carried from a dead person to a live person. Although Semmelweis' work was not appreciated until after his death, his hypothesis was eventually confirmed by enough experiments that it became a scientific theory. At that point, doctors began washing their hands before examinations and surgery.
		+
		+	As time went on, more and more data was gathered in support of Semmelweis' theory. With the advent of the microscope, scientists were finally able to see the deadly bacteria and germs that can be transmitted from person to person, and Semmelweis' theory became a scientific law. Nowadays, doctors do all that they can to completely sterilize their hands, clothes, and instruments before performing any medical procedure.
		+
		+	The scientific method provides a methodical, logical way to examine a situation or answer a question. If a theory survives the scientific method and becomes a law, it can be considered reasonably trustworthy. Even a scientific theory which has not been tested enough to be a law is still pretty reliable, because it is backed up by a lot of scientific data.
		+
		+	Figure 1.3