The scientific method is an empirical method of acquisition of knowledge, which has marked the development of natural science since at least the 17th century, involves careful observation, which includes a strict skepticism of what one observes, cognitive assumptions about how the world works affects how one interprets a perception; formulate hypotheses, by induction, on the basis of such observations; experimental testing and deduction measurements taken from the hypothesis; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypothesis based on experimental findings. This is the principle of the scientific method, which is contrary to a series of definitive steps that apply to all scientific companies.
While there are various models for available scientific methods, there is generally a continuous process that includes observations about the natural world. People are naturally curious, so they often ask questions about things they see or hear, and they often develop ideas or hypotheses about why things are as they are. The best hypothesis leads to predictions that can be tested in various ways. The most convincing hypothesis testing comes from reasoning based on carefully controlled experimental data. Depending on how well the additional tests fit the prediction, the original hypothesis may require refinement, change, expansion or even rejection. If a particular hypothesis becomes strongly supported, general theory can be developed.
Although the procedure varies from one field of inquiry to another, the procedure is often the same from one to the other. The process of the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), lowering predictions of them as logical consequences, and then conducting experiments or empirical observations based on these predictions. Hypotheses are conjectures, based on the knowledge gained while seeking answers to questions. The hypothesis may be very specific, or may be broad. The scientists then test the hypothesis by doing experiments or studies. A scientific hypothesis must be falsified, implying that it is possible to identify the possible outcome of an experiment or observation contrary to the predicted predictions of the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis can not be tested meaningfully.
The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether the observations are appropriate or contrary to the predictions derived from the hypothesis. Experiments can be made anywhere from the garage to CERN's Large Hadron Collider. However, there are difficulties in the formula formula statement. Although the scientific method is often presented as a sequence of fixed steps, it represents more than a set of general principles. Not all steps occur in any scientific investigation (or at the same level), and they are not always in the same order. Some philosophers and scientists argue that there is no scientific method; they include physicists Lee Smolin and philosopher Paul Feyerabend (in his book Against Method ). Robert Nola and Howard Sankey commented that "For some people, the whole idea of ​​the theory of scientific methods is a year-over-years debate, the sequel can be summarized as much more than the proverbial truce speculation.
Video Scientific method
History
An important debate in the history of science concerns rationalism, especially as advocated by Renà © Descartes; inductivism and/or empiricism, as argued by Francis Bacon, and became famous with Isaac Newton and his followers; and hypothetico-deductivism, which emerged early in the 19th century.
The term "scientific method" was not widely used until the 19th century, when other modern scientific terminology began to emerge as "scientists" and "pseudoscience" and significant science transformations were taking place. Throughout the 1830s and 1850s, when popular Baconism, naturalists such as William Whewell, John Herschel, John Stewart Mill engaged in debates about "induction" and "fact" and focused on how to generate knowledge. At the end of the 19th century the debate over realism vs. antirealism was made when powerful scientific theories extended beyond the observable realm.
The term "scientific method" began to be used plainly in the 20th century, without scientific authority over its significance despite appearing in textbooks and dictionaries. Despite the steady growth of the concept into the 20th century, by the end of the century many influential philosophers of science such as Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend had questioned the universality of the "scientific method" and in so doing substituted the notion of science as a homogeneous and universal method with it being a heterogeneous and local practice. In particular, Paul Feyerabend argues that there is a universal rule of science.
Maps Scientific method
Overview
- The example of DNA below is a synopsis of this method
The scientific method is the process by which science is done. As in other fields of investigation, science (through scientific methods) can build on previous knowledge and develop a more sophisticated understanding of the subject matter over time. This model can be seen to weaken the scientific revolution.
The ubiquitous element in the model of the scientific method is empiricism, or rather, epistemological sensuality. This is contrary to strong forms of rationalism: the scientific method of realizing that reason alone can not solve certain scientific problems. The strong formulations of the scientific method are not always aligned with the form of empiricism in which empirical data are presented in the form of experience or other forms of abstract knowledge; However, in current scientific practice, the use of scientific modeling and reliance on typology and abstract theory is usually accepted. The scientific method is the need as well as the expression of the opposition to claims such as revelation, political or religious dogma, attracting traditions, commonly held beliefs, common sense, or, importantly, theories currently held, are the only possible means of showing truth.
Early expressions of empiricism and different scientific methods can be found throughout history, for example with the ancient Stoa, Epicurus, Alhazen, Roger Bacon, and William of Ockham. From the 16th century onwards, experiments were advocated by Francis Bacon, and performed by Giambattista della Porta, Johannes Kepler, and Galileo Galilei. There are special developments assisted by the theoretical works by Francisco Sanches, John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume.
The current method is based on the hypothetical-deductive model formulated in the 20th century, although it has undergone significant revisions since it was first proposed (for a more formal discussion, see below).
Process
The whole process involves making predictions (hypotheses), lowering predictions of them as logical consequences, and then experimenting with those predictions to determine whether the original guess is true. However, there are difficulties in the formula formula statement. Although the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, this action is better regarded as a general principle. Not all steps occur in any scientific investigation (or at the same level), and they are not always done in the same order. As noted by scientist and philosopher William Whewell (1794-1866), "discovery, wisdom, [and] genius" is required at every step.
Question formulation
The question may refer to certain observational explanations, such as "Why is the sky blue?" but it can also be open, as in "How can I design a drug to cure this particular disease?" This stage often involves searching and evaluating evidence from previous experiments, observations or personal scientific statements, as well as the work of other scientists. If the answer is already known, different questions built on the evidence may be proposed. When applying a scientific method for research, determining a good question can be very difficult and will affect the outcome of the investigation.
Hypothesis
Hypotheses are conjectures, based on the knowledge gained when formulating questions, which can explain any given behavior. Hypotheses may be very specific; for example, Einstein's principle of equality or "Francis Crick's DNA made RNA make proteins", or perhaps broad; for example, unknown living species living in unexplored ocean depths. The statistical hypothesis is a conjecture about a given statistical population. For example, the population may be people with certain diseases. Perhaps the assumption that a new drug will cure the disease in some of these people. The terms commonly associated with statistical hypotheses are the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis is the allegation that the statistical hypothesis is false; for example, that new drugs do nothing and that any cure is caused by chance. Researchers usually want to show that the null hypothesis is false. An alternative hypothesis is the desired outcome, that the drug is better than chance. The last point: the scientific hypothesis must be falsified, meaning that one can identify the possible outcomes of experiments as opposed to the inferred predictions of the hypothesis; if not, it can not be tested meaningfully.
Prediction
This step involves determining the logical consequence of the hypothesis. One or more predictions are then selected for further testing. The more unlikely that a prediction will be true only by chance, the more convincing it is if the prediction is fulfilled; The evidence is also stronger if the answer to the prediction is unknown, because of the backward bias effect (see also postdiction). Ideally, the prediction must also distinguish the hypothesis of alternative possibilities; if two hypotheses make the same prediction, observing predictions to be true is not proof of either of the others. (These statements about the relative strength of evidence can be derived mathematically using Bayes's Theorem).
Test
This is an investigation of whether the real world behaves as predicted by the hypothesis. Scientists (and others) test the hypothesis by experimenting. The purpose of the experiment is to determine whether real-world observations are appropriate or contrary to predictions derived from the hypothesis. If they agree, the belief in the hypothesis increases; if not, it decreases. Agreement does not guarantee that the hypothesis is true; future experiments can reveal problems. Karl Popper advises scientists to try to forge hypotheses, that is, to search for and test experiments that seem most dubious. A large number of successful confirmations are inconclusive if they emerge from risk-averse experiments. Experiments should be designed to minimize errors that may occur, especially through the use of appropriate scientific controls. For example, medical care tests are usually run as a double-blind test. The test personnel, who may unwittingly disclose to test a subject whose sample is the desired test drug and which is a placebo, is kept unaware of which. Such directives may bias the response of the test subjects. Furthermore, the failure of the experiment does not necessarily mean the hypothesis is wrong. Experiments always depend on several hypotheses, eg, that the test equipment is working correctly, and failure may be the failure of one additional hypothesis. (See Duhem-Quine thesis.) The experiment can be done in college laboratories, on the kitchen table, in CERN's Large Hadron Collider, on the ocean floor, on Mars (using one worker), and so on. Astronomers perform experiments, searching for planets around distant stars. Finally, most individual experiments address very specific topics for practical reasons. As a result, evidence on a broader topic is usually gradually accumulated.
Analysis
This involves determining what the results of the experiment are shown and deciding on the next action to take. Hypothesis predictions are compared with the null hypothesis, to determine which ones are better able to explain the data. In cases where experiments are repeated many times, statistical analyzes such as chi-square tests may be necessary. If evidence has falsified the hypothesis, a new hypothesis is required; if the experiment supports the hypothesis but the evidence is not strong enough for high self-confidence, other predictions of the hypothesis must be tested. Once the hypothesis is strongly supported by evidence, new questions can be asked to provide more insight on the same topic. Evidence from scientists and other experiences is often incorporated at any stage in the process. Depending on the complexity of the experiment, many iterations may be needed to gather sufficient evidence to answer questions with confidence, or to build many answers to very specific questions to answer a broader question.
DNA Example
This discovery became the starting point for much further research involving genetic material, such as the field of molecular genetics, and was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1962. Each step of this example is examined in greater detail later in the article.
Other components
The scientific method also includes other necessary components even when all the iterations of the above steps have been completed:
Replication
If the experiment can not be repeated to produce the same result, this means that the original result may have been wrong. As a result, it is common for one experiment to be performed several times, especially when there are uncontrolled variables or other indications of experimental error. For significant or surprising results, other scientists may also try to replicate the results for themselves, especially if those results will be important for their own work.
External review
The peer review process involves experimental evaluation by experts, who usually give their opinions anonymously. Some journals require that an experiment provide a list of possible peer reviewers, especially if the field is very specialized. Peer review does not validate the outcome of the results, only, in the opinion of the reviewer, the experiment itself is sound (based on the description given by the experiment). If the work passes through a peer review, which may sometimes require a new experiment requested by reviewers, it will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Specific journals that publish the results show the quality of perceived work.
Recording and sharing of data
Scientists are usually cautious in recording their data, requirements promoted by Ludwik Fleck (1896-1961) and others. Although not usually necessary, they may be required to supply this data to other scientists who want to mimic their original results (or part of their original results), extending the experimental sample division that may be difficult to obtain.
Scientific questions
Scientific investigation generally aims to acquire knowledge in the form of a testable explanation that scientists can use to predict future experimental results. This allows scientists to gain a better understanding of the topic under study, and then use that understanding to intervene in the underlying mechanism (such as to cure illness). A better explanation is to make predictions, more often useful, and the more likely it will continue to explain the evidence better than the alternatives. The most successful explanations - accurate explanations and predictions in various situations - are often called scientific theories.
Most experimental results do not result in major changes in human understanding; improvements in theoretical scientific understanding are usually the result of gradual developmental processes over time, sometimes in various fields of science. Scientific models vary the extent to which they have been experimentally tested and for how long, and in their acceptance in the scientific community. In general, explanations become accepted over time as evidence accumulates on a particular topic, and the explanation proves to be stronger than the alternative in explaining the evidence. Often the next researcher re-formulates the explanation over time, or a combination of explanations to produce a new explanation.
Tow sees the scientific method in terms of evolutionary algorithms applied to science and technology.
Scientific query properties
Scientific knowledge is closely linked to empirical findings, and may remain subject to counterfeiting if new experimental observations that are not in accordance with them are found. That is, no theory can be considered final, because new problematic evidence can be found. If such evidence is found, new theories may be proposed, or (more generally) found that modifications to the previous theory are sufficient to explain new evidence. The power of theory can be said to be related to how long it lasts without major changes to its core principles.
Theories can also become absorbed by other theories. For example, Newton's law describes thousands of years of near-perfect scientific observation of planets. However, these laws are then determined to be the special case of a more general theory (relativity), which explains both the (previously unexplained) exceptions to Newton's law and predicts and explains other observations such as the deflection of light by gravity. Thus, in certain cases independent, unrelated, and scientific observations can be linked to one another, unified by the principle of increasing explanatory power.
Because new theories may be more comprehensive than those preceding them, and thus can explain more than ever before, successor theories may be able to meet higher standards by explaining greater observations than their predecessors. For example, the theory of evolution explains the diversity of life on Earth, how species adapt to their environment, and many other patterns observed in nature; the latest major modification is the union with genetics to form the synthesis of modern evolution. In subsequent modifications, it also incorporates aspects of many other fields such as biochemistry and molecular biology.
Confidence and bias
Scientific methodology often directs that hypotheses are tested in controlled conditions wherever possible. This is often possible in certain fields, such as in biological sciences, and more difficult in other fields, such as astronomy.
The practice of experimental and reproducibility control can have the effect of reducing the potentially harmful effects of circumstances, and to a certain extent, personal bias. For example, existing beliefs may alter the interpretation of results, as in the confirmation bias; this is a heuristic that leads a person with certain beliefs to see things as reinforcing their beliefs, even if other observers may disagree (in other words, people tend to observe what they expect to observe).
A historical example is the belief that the galloping hooves lie at the point where no hooves are touched the ground until they are inserted in the painting by their supporters. However, the first stop-action photos of a horse by Eadweard Muybridge show this wrong, and that the legs are gathered together.
Another important human bias that plays a role is a preference for a surprising new statement (see interesting novelty), which can result in the search for evidence that the new is true. Unconfirmed beliefs can be trusted and acted upon through inadequate heuristics.
Goldhaber and Nieto published in 2010 the observation that if the theoretical structure with "many adjacent subjects is explained by linking the theoretical concepts then the theoretical structures.. becomes increasingly difficult to undo". When the narratives are built, the elements become more reliable. For more on narrative errors, see also Fleck 1979, p.Ã, 27: "Words and ideas are essentially phonetic and mental equivalents of experiences that coincide with them.... Such proto-ideas were in the first place always too broad and less specialized....... Once a system that is structurally complete and sealed from various opinions consisting of many details and relationships has been formed, it offers enduring endurance to anything contrary to it. "Sometimes, these have their elements assumed a priori , or contain some logical or other methodological flaws in the process that ultimately results in them. Donald M. MacKay has analyzed these elements within limits for measurement accuracy and has linked them to instrumental elements in the measurement category.
Scientific method elements
There are various ways to describe the basic methods used for scientific inquiry. The scientific community and the philosophers of science generally agree on the following component classification methods. Methodological elements and organizational procedures tend to be more characteristic of the natural sciences than the social sciences. However, the cycle of formulating hypotheses, testing and analyzing results, and formulating new hypotheses, will resemble the cycles described below.
The scientific method is the process of recurring cycles through information that is constantly revised. It is generally recognized to develop progress in knowledge through the following elements, in various combinations or contributions:
- Characterization (observation, definition, and measurement of investigation subject)
- Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observation and subject measurements)
- Predictions (inductive and deductive reasoning from hypotheses or theories)
- Experiments (test all of the above)
Every element of the scientific method is subject to peer review for possible errors. This activity does not describe all that scientists do (see below) but applies mainly to experimental sciences (eg, physics, chemistry, and biology). The above elements are often taught in the educational system as a "scientific method".
The scientific method is not a single recipe: it requires intelligence, imagination, and creativity. In this sense, this is not a set of standards and procedures to think about, but rather a sustainable cycle, continuing to develop more useful, accurate and comprehensive models and methods. For example, when Einstein developed the Special and General Theory of Relativity, he did not in any way deny or discount Newton's Principia. Conversely, if the astronomical is large, smaller, and very quickly removed from Einstein's theory - all Newton phenomena can not be observed - the Newtonian equation is what remains. Einstein's theory is the expansion and refinement of Newton's theory and, thus, enhances his belief in Newton's work.
The short, pragmatic scheme of the above four points is sometimes offered as a guide to continue:
- Specify a question
- Gather information and resources (observe)
- Form the explanatory hypothesis
- Test hypotheses by experimenting and collecting data in a reproducible manner
- Data analysis
- Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for a new hypothesis
- Publish results
- Re-test (often done by other scientists)
The repetitive cycles attached to this step-by-step method from point 3 to 6 return to 3 again.
While this scheme describes typical testing methods, it should also be noted that some philosophers, historians, and sociologists of science, including Paul Feyerabend, claim that the description of such a scientific method has little to do with the ways in which science is actually practiced.
Characterization
The scientific method depends on the increasingly sophisticated characterization of the subject of investigation. (The subject can also be called unsolved problem or unknown .) For example, Benjamin Franklin guessed, rightly, that the fire of St. Elmo is electric in nature, but has taken a long series of experiments and theoretical changes to establish this. While searching for the relevant properties of the subject, careful thought may also require some definitions and observations; observations often require careful measurements and/or calculations.
Systematic and careful collection of measurements or quantities of relevant quantities are often important differences between pseudo-science, such as alchemy, and science, such as chemistry or biology. Scientific measurements are usually tabulated, depicted, or mapped, and statistical manipulations, such as correlation and regression, are performed on them. Measurements can be made in controlled settings, such as laboratories, or made on inaccessible or unmanageable objects such as stars or human populations. Measurements often require special scientific instruments such as thermometers, spectroscopy, particle accelerators, or voltmeter, and scientific advancements are usually closely related to discovery and improvement.
I am not used to saying anything definitively after only one or two observations.
Uncertainty
Measurements in scientific papers are also usually accompanied by an estimate of their uncertainty. Uncertainty is often estimated by making repeated measurements of the desired quantity. Uncertainty can also be calculated taking into consideration the uncertainty of the underlying number of individuals used. Count of things, such as the number of people in a country at any given time, may also have uncertainties due to limited data collection. Or the number can represent the sample of the desired amount, with uncertainty depending on the sampling method used and the number of samples taken.
Definitions
Measurements demand the use of operational definition of the relevant quantity. That is, the quantity of science is described or determined based on how it is measured, compared to a more ambiguous, imprecise or "ideal" definition. For example, an electric current, measured in amperes, can be defined operationally in terms of the silver mass stored for a certain time on the electrode in the electrochemical device described in detail. The operational definition of a thing often depends on comparisons with standards: the operational definition of "mass" ultimately depends on the use of artifacts, such as the special kilogram of platinum-iridium stored in laboratories in France.
The scientific definition of a term is sometimes very different from the use of its natural language. For example, mass and weight overlap in meaning in general discourse, but have different meanings in mechanics. Scientific quantities are often characterized by their unit of measure which can later be explained in terms of conventional physical units when communicating work.
New theories are sometimes developed after realizing certain terms that have not previously been clearly defined. For example, Albert Einstein's first paper on relativity begins with defining the simultaneity and means of determining length. These ideas were jumped by Isaac Newton with, "I do not define time, space, place, and motion, as everyone knows." Einstein's paper then shows that they (ie, absolute time and long independent of motion) are approximate. Francis Crick warns us that when characterizing a subject, however, it is too early to define something when it remains unintelligible. In Crick's study of consciousness, he really found it easier to study consciousness in the visual system, rather than learning free will, for example. Her memorial example is a gene; the gene was much worse understood before the discovery of pioneering DNA structures Watson and Crick; it would be counterproductive to spend a lot of time on gene definitions, before them.
DNA-Characterization
The history of the discovery of the structure of DNA is a classic example of elements of the scientific method: in 1950 it was known that genetic inheritance had a mathematical description, beginning with Gregor Mendel's research, and that DNA contained genetic information (Principle of transformation Oswald Avery ). But the mechanism of storing genetic information (ie, genes) in DNA is unclear. Researchers at Bragg's laboratory at Cambridge University made an X-ray diffraction image of various molecules, starting with salt crystals, and progressing to more complex substances. Using decades of laborious guidance, beginning with its chemical composition, it has been determined that it is possible to characterize the physical structure of DNA, and the X-ray image will be a vehicle... 2. The DNA-Hypothesis
Another example: Mercury precession
The element of characterization can require extensive and extensive research, even centuries. It takes thousands of years of measurements, from Chaldean, Indian, Persian, Greek, Arabian, and European astronomers, to fully record the motions of the planet Earth. Newton was able to incorporate the measurements into consequences of his motion laws. But the perihelion of Mercury's planet orbit shows a precession that can not be fully explained by Newton's laws of motion (see diagram on the right), as Leverrier indicates in 1859. The observed difference for Mercury's precession between Newton's theory and observation is one of the things that happens on Albert Einstein as a possible initial test of his General relativity theory. His relativistic calculations fit closer to observations than Newton's theory. The difference is approximately 43 seconds-arc per second.
Development of hypothesis
The hypothesis is a suggested explanation of a phenomenon, or alternatively a reasonable proposal that indicates a possible correlation between or between a series of phenomena.
Usually the hypothesis has a form of mathematical model. Sometimes, but not always, they can also be formulated as existential statements, suggesting that some specific examples of the phenomena being studied have some characteristic and causal explanations, which have a generalized form of universal statement, which states that every instance of the phenomenon has special characteristics.
Scientists are free to use whatever resources they have - their own creativity, ideas from other fields, inductive reasoning, Bayesian inference, and so on - to imagine possible explanations for the phenomena under study. Charles Sanders Peirce, borrowing a page from Aristotle ( Prior Analytics , 2.25) describes the initial phase of the investigation, triggered by "irritation of doubt" to trap a reasonable allegation, such as kidnapping reasoning . The history of science is full of stories of scientists claiming "flash of inspiration", or hunches, which then motivate them to seek evidence to support or reject their ideas. Michael Polanyi made such creativity the center of his discussion of methodology.
William Glen observed it
- the success of the hypothesis, or its service to science, lies not only with the "truth" perceived, or the power to replace, reduce or diminish the idea of ​​its predecessor, but perhaps more in its ability to stimulate research that will illuminate... balding and areas of obscurity.
In general, scientists tend to look for "elegant" or "pretty" theories. In contrast to the usual English usage of these terms, they are here referring to theories that correspond to known facts, which are relatively simple and easy to handle. Occam's Razor serves as a rule of thumb for choosing the most desirable among a group of hypotheses that are equally explained.
To minimize the confirmation bias resulting from entertaining one hypothesis, strong inference emphasizes the need to entertain some alternative hypotheses.
Hypothesis-DNA
Linus Pauling proposes that DNA may be a triple helix. This hypothesis is also considered by Francis Crick and James D. Watson but discarded. When Watson and Crick learned of the Pauling hypothesis, they understood from the existing data that Pauling was wrong and that Pauling would soon acknowledge his difficulties with the structure. So, the race is to find out the correct structure (except that Pauling did not realize when he was racing). 3. DNA prediction
Prediction of hypothesis
Any useful hypothesis will enable prediction, with reasoning including deductive reasoning. It may predict the results of experiments in laboratory settings or observations of phenomena in nature. Predictions can also be statistical and handle only the probabilities.
It is important that such prediction test results are currently unknown. Only in this case does successful results increase the probability that the hypothesis is true. If the result is known, it is called a consequence and should have been considered when formulating the hypothesis.
If predictions are not accessible by observation or experience, the hypothesis can not be tested and thus will remain to an unscientific level in the strictest sense. New technologies or theories may make the necessary experiments feasible. For example, while hypotheses about the existence of other intelligent species may be convincing with scientific-based speculation, no known experiment can test this hypothesis. Therefore, science itself can not talk much about that possibility. In the future, new techniques can allow for experimental tests and speculation will then become part of the accepted science.
DNA prediction
James D. Watson, Francis Crick, and others hypothesize that DNA has a helical structure. This implies that the X-ray diffraction patterns of DNA will be 'x-shaped'. This prediction is followed from the work of Cochran, Crick and Vand (and independently by Stokes). The Cochran-Crick-Vand-Stokes theorem provides a mathematical explanation for empirical observation that the diffraction of the helical structure yields an x-shaped pattern.
In their first paper, Watson and Crick also noted that the double helix structure they proposed provides a simple mechanism for DNA replication, writes, "It does not escape our notice that certain couples we have postulated immediately suggest a possible copying mechanism for genetic material". .. 4. DNA experiments
Another example: general relativity
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity makes certain predictions about the observable spacetime structure, such as the curvature of light in the gravitational field, and that the flexure depends on the exact way in which the gravitational field forces it. Arthur Eddington's observations made during the 1919 solar eclipse supported General Relativity rather than Newton's gravity.
Experiments
Once a prediction is made, they can be searched for by experiment. If test results conflict with predictions, the hypotheses that require them to be questioned and become less sustainable. Sometimes experiments are done incorrectly or not very well designed, when compared to important experiments. If the experimental results confirm the prediction, then the hypothesis is considered more likely to be true, but may still be wrong and continue to be subject to further testing. Experimental control is a technique for handling observation errors. This technique uses the contrast between multiple samples (or observations) under different conditions to see what varies or what remains the same. We vary the conditions for each measurement, to help isolate what has changed. Canon Mill can then help us figure out what the important factor is. Factor analysis is one technique to find the important factor in an effect.
Depending on the prediction, the experiment can have a different shape. This could be a classical experiment in laboratory settings, double-blind studies or archaeological excavations. Even taking a plane from New York to Paris is an experiment that tests the aerodynamic hypothesis used to build planes.
Scientists assume an attitude of openness and accountability on the part of those who do the experiments. Recording details is very important, to assist in the recording and reporting of experimental results, and supporting the effectiveness and integrity of the procedure. They will also assist in reproducing experimental results, possibly by others. The trajectory of this approach can be seen in Hipparchus (190-120 BC), when determining the value of Earth precession, while controlled experiments can be seen in J's works? Beer ibn Hayy? N (721-815 CE), al-Battani (853-929) and Alhazen (965-1039).
DNA experiment
Watson and Crick showed initial (and incorrect) proposals for DNA structure to teams from Kings College - Rosalind Franklin, Maurice Wilkins, and Raymond Gosling. Franklin immediately noticed the shortcomings associated with the water content. Watson then saw a detailed X-ray image of Franklin showing the X-form and was able to confirm the helical structure. It rebuilds Watson and Crick models and leads to the correct structure. .. 1. DNA characterization
Evaluation and improvement
The scientific method is iterative. At any stage it is possible to improve its accuracy and accuracy, so some considerations will lead scientists to repeat the beginning of the process. Failure to develop an interesting hypothesis can cause a scientist to redefine the subject under consideration. Failure of hypotheses to produce interesting and testable predictions can lead to a review of the hypothesis or definition of the subject. The failure of the experiment to produce interesting results may cause a scientist to reconsider experimental methods, hypotheses, or subject definitions.
Other scientists can start their own research and enter the process at any stage. They may adopt characterization and formulate their own hypothesis, or they may adopt the hypothesis and deduce their own predictions. Often experiments are not performed by people who make predictions, and characterizations are based on experiments performed by others. The published results of the experiment can also serve as hypotheses predicting their own reproducibility.
Repetition of DNA
After unsuccessful experiments, vigorously by their superiors from continuing, and many false beginnings, Watson and Crick were able to deduce the important structures of DNA with the concrete modeling of the physical form of the nucleotides that make up it. They are guided by the long bonds that have been deduced by Linus Pauling and the X-ray diffraction image of Rosalind Franklin... DNA samples
Confirm
Science is a social enterprise, and scientific works tend to be accepted by the scientific community when it has been confirmed. Important, experimental and theoretical results must be reproduced by others in the scientific community. Researchers have given their lives to this vision; Georg Wilhelm Richmann was killed by a light bulb (1753) while attempting to mimic a 1752 experiment on Benjamin Franklin's kite flying.
To protect against bad science and fraudulent data, government research aid agencies such as the National Science Foundation, and science journals, including Nature and Science , have policies that should archive the data and their methods so that other researchers can test data and methods and build on research that has been done before. Scientific data archiving can be done in a number of national archives in the US or in the World Data Center.
Scientific investigation model
Classic model
The classical model of scientific research derived from Aristotle, which distinguishes precise forms of reasoning and reasoning, establishes a threefold scheme of abductive, deductive, and inductive conclusions, and also treats compound forms such as reasoning by analogy.
The deductive model of the hypothesis
The hypothetical-deductive model or method is a description of the proposed scientific method. Here, the prediction of the hypothesis is important: if you think the hypothesis is true, what consequences will happen?
If the subsequent empirical investigation does not indicate that these consequences or predictions correspond to the observable world, the hypothesis can be inferred to be false.
Pragmatic model
In 1877 Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) characterized the investigation in general not as a truth search per se but as a struggle to move from irritation, doubts of inhibition arising from shock, strife, and the like. , and to achieve a secure belief, the belief is that where someone is ready to act. He framed a scientific inquiry as part of a wider and spurred spectrum, such as a general inquiry, with real doubts, not just verbal or hyperbolic hesitation, which he considered to be fruitless. He outlines four methods of polling, ordered from the least to the most successful:
- The method of perseverance (the policy of holding on to the original belief) - which brings comfort and firmness but leads to the attempt to ignore contradictory information and the views of others as if the truth were essentially private, not public. This is contrary to social impulses and is easily disjointed because people may notice when others' opinions are as good as one's initial opinion. Its success can shine but tend to be temporary.
- The method of authority - which overcomes disagreement but sometimes brutally. Its success can be grandiose and long lived, but it can not operate thoroughly enough to suppress indefinite doubt, especially when people learn from other societies now and in the past.
- The a priori method - which encourages less brutal conformity but cultivates opinion as something like taste, that comes in conversation and perspective comparison in terms of "what is reasonable." Thus it depends on the mode in the paradigm and keeps on spinning over time. It's more intellectual and respectable but, like the first two methods, maintaining unintentional and fickle beliefs, subjugating some thoughts to doubt it.
- The scientific method - the method in which the inquiry considers itself imperfect and intentionally tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and corrects itself.
Peirce argues that slow, staggered racosination can be very dangerous than traditional instincts and sentiments in practical matters, and that the scientific method is best suited to theoretical research, which in turn should not be polluted by other methods and practical purposes; The reason "the first rule" is that, to learn, one must desire to learn and, as a natural consequence, should not hinder the way inquiry. Scientific methods outperform others by deliberately designed to arrive â € "finally â €" on the safest beliefs, which form the cornerstone of most successful practices. Starting from the notion that people seek instead of truth per se but instead to subdue a sense of irritation, doubt inhibition, Peirce shows how, through struggle, some can come to bow to the truth for the integrity of the faith, seeking as truth guiding potential practice correctly for the purpose given, and marrying themselves to the scientific method.
For Peirce, rational inquiry implies a prejudice of truth and truth; to reason is to suppose (and at least to hope), as the claimant's principle of self-organization, that the real can be found and independent of our views. In that case he defines truth as the correspondence of signs (in particular, propositions) to his object and, pragmatically, not as a real consensus of certain limited communities (as will be asked is by polling experts), but instead, the final opinion which all researchers will achieve sooner or later but remain unavoidable, if they push the investigation far enough, even when they start from a different point. Together it defines the true as the object of the true sign (the object is the possibility or quality, or the fact of actuality or rudeness, or the need or the norm or the law), which is what is independent of any opinion of a limited society and, pragmatically, only depending on the final opinion destined for adequate inquiry. That is the goal as far, or near, as the truth itself for you or me or the limited community given. Thus, his theory of investigation leads to "Do science." Real and truth concepts involve community ideas without clear boundaries (and thereby potentially self-correcting as far as necessary) and able to increase knowledge for sure. In conclusion, "logic is rooted in social principles" because it depends on a point of view that is, in a sense, infinite.
The science applied to complex systems can involve elements such as transdisciplinary, system theory and scientific modeling. The Santa Fe Institute studied such systems; Murray Gell-Mann links these topics with message delivery.
In general, scientific methods may be difficult to apply strictly to diverse and interconnected systems and large amounts of data. In particular, the practices used in Big data, such as predictive analysis, may be considered contradictory to the scientific method.
Communications and community
Often the scientific method is used not only by one person, but also by several people working together directly or indirectly. Such cooperation can be regarded as an important element of the scientific community. Various scientific methodological standards are used in such an environment.
Peer review review
Scientific journals use the peer review process, in which the scientist's manuscripts are submitted by the scientific journal editor to (usually one to three, and usually anonymous) fellow scientists familiar with the field for evaluation. In certain journals, the journal itself selects the referee; while in others (especially highly specialized journals), the scriptwriter may recommend the referee. Referees may or may not recommend publications, or they may recommend publications with suggested modifications, or sometimes, publications in other journals. These standards are practiced to varying degrees by different journals, and can have the effect of keeping the literature free of obvious errors and generally improving the quality of the material, especially in journals that use the most stringent standards. The peer review process can have limitations when considering research outside the conventional scientific paradigm: the problem of "groupthink" can disrupt open and fair discussion of some new research.
Documentation and replication
Sometimes researchers can make systematic errors during their experiments, veering from standard methods (practice pathologies) for various reasons, or, in rare cases, deliberately reporting false results. Sometimes because of this, other scientists may try to repeat the experiment to double the result.
Archiving
Researchers sometimes practice archiving of scientific data, such as obeying government funding policies and scientific journals. In this case, detailed records of their experimental procedures, raw data, statistical analysis and source code can be maintained to provide proof of methodology and practice procedures and assist in future potential efforts to reproduce the results. This procedural note may also assist in the concept of a new experiment to test the hypothesis, and may prove useful to engineers who may examine potential practical applications of the invention.
Share data
When additional information is needed before the study can be reproduced, the study author may be asked to provide it. They may provide it, or if the author refuses to share the data, an application may be filed with a studying journal editor or to an institution funding the research.
Limitations
Since it is impossible for a scientist to record everything that happens in an experiment, the facts chosen for the real relevance are reported. This can cause, inevitably, problems later if some of the features considered irrelevant are questioned. For example, Heinrich Hertz did not report the size of the room used to test Maxwell's equations, which then turned out to take into account minor deviations in the results. The problem is that parts of the theory itself need to be assumed to select and report on experimental conditions. Therefore, observations are sometimes described as 'theory-laden'.
Dimensions of practice
The main obstacles to contemporary science are:
- Publications, ie Peer reviews
- Resources (mostly funding)
It's not always like this: in the past the funding of "gentleman scientist" (and to a lesser degree of publication) was a much weaker boundary.
Both of these obstacles indirectly require a scientific method - work that violates constraints will be difficult to publish and difficult to fund. Journals require submitted papers to conform to "good scientific practice" and to this extent can be enforced by peer review. Originality, interests and interests are more important - see for example the author's guide for Nature .
Smaldino and McElreath 2016 have noted that our need to appreciate scientific understanding is being eliminated by poor research design and poor data analysis, leading to false positive findings.
Philosophy and sociology of science
The philosophy of science views the logic underlying the scientific method, on what separates science from non-science, and the ethics implied in science. There is a basic assumption, derived from philosophy by at least one leading scientist, who forms the basis of the scientific method - namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that man has the ability to accurately understand reality, and that rational explanations exist for the elements. from the real world. These assumptions of methodological naturalism form the basis upon which science can be grounded. Logical Positivists, empiricists, falsifications, and other theories have criticized these assumptions and provided alternative reports about the logic of science, but each has also been criticized. In general, the scientific method can be recognized as an idealization.
Thomas Kuhn examined the history of science in his book
Norwood Russell Hanson, Imre Lakatos, and Thomas Kuhn have done extensive work on the observation character of "laden theory". Hanson (1958) first coined the term for the idea that all observations depend on the conceptual framework of the observer, using the concept of gestalt to show how preconceptions can influence observation and description. He opened Chapter 1 with a discussion of Golgi's body and their initial rejection as an artificial engineering artifact, and discussions about Brahe and Kepler observing the dawn and seeing the "different" sun rise despite the same physiological phenomenon. Kuhn and Feyerabend recognize the pioneering significance of his work.
Kuhn (1961) says that scientists generally have theory in mind before designing and conducting experiments so as to make empirical observations, and that "the route from theory to measurement is almost never passable backwards". This implies that the way in which the theory is tested is dictated by the nature of the theory itself, which led Kuhn (1961, p 166) to declare that "after it has been adopted by the profession... there is no recognized theory to be testable by the test any quantitative that has not been passed ".
Paul Feyerabend in the same way examines the history of science, and is led to deny that science really is a methodological process. In his book Against Method he argues that the progress of science is not the result of the application of certain methods. In essence, he says that for any particular method or science norm, one can find historical episodes where the breaking has contributed to the advancement of science. So, if the believer in the scientific method wants to declare a universally applicable rule, Feyerabend jokingly suggests, it should be 'anything goes'. Such criticism leads to a strong program, a radical approach to the sociology of science.
Postmodernist science criticism has been the subject of intense controversy. This ongoing debate, known as the war of science, is the result of conflicting values ​​and assumptions between the postmodernist and realist camps. While postmodernists claim that scientific knowledge is merely another discourse (note that this term has a special meaning in this context) and does not represent any form of fundamental truth, the realist in the scientific community maintains that scientific knowledge really reveals basic and real truths about reality. Many books have been written by scientists dealing with this issue and challenging the postmodernist claims while maintaining science as a legitimate method of deriving the truth.
Role of opportunity in discovery
Somewhere between 33% and 50% of all scientific discoveries is estimated to have stumbled , rather than searching. This may explain why scientists often claim that they are lucky. Louis Pasteur is credited with the famous proverb that "Fortune supports prepared minds", but some psychologists have begun to learn what 'ready for luck' means in a scientific context. Research shows that scientists are taught various heuristics that tend to take advantage of opportunities and unexpected. This is what Nassim Nicholas Taleb called "Anti-fragility"; while some of the vulnerable investigative systems in the face of human error, human bias, and randomness, the scientific method is more than resistant or hard - actually benefit from such randomness in many ways (it's anti-fragile). Taleb believes that the more anti-fragile the system, the more it will develop in the real world.
Psychologist Kevin Dunbar says the discovery process often begins with researchers finding bugs in their experiments. The resulting t
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments