Hypothesis, scientific method

The scientific method, as mentioned, involves observation and experimentation (research) to discover or establish facts. These are followed by deduction or hypothesis, establishing theories or principles. This sequence, however, may be reversed. The noted twentieth-century philosopher Karl Popper, who also dealt with science, expressed the view that the scientist s work starts not with collection of data (observation) but with selection of a suitable problem (theory). In fact, both of these paths can be involved. vSignificant and sometimes accidental observations can be made without any preconceived idea of a problem or theory and vice versa. The scientist, however, must have a well-prepared, open mind to be able to recognize the significance of such observations and must be able to follow them through. Science always demands rigorous standards of procedure, reproducibility, and open discussion that set reason over irrational belief. 

The scientific method is taught starting in elementary school. The first step in the scientific method is to form a hypothesis. A hypothesis is just an educated guess or logical conclusion from known facts. It is then compared against all available data and its details developed. If the hypothesis is found to be consistent with known facts, it is called a theory and usually published. The characteristics most theories have in common are that they explain observed phenomena, predict the results of future experiments, and can be presented in mathematical form. When a theory is found to be always correct for many years, it is eventually referred to as a scientific law. However useful this process is, we often use constructs that do not fit in the scientific method scheme as it is typically described. 

Adherence to the scientific method is what de fines science The scientific method has four major el ements observation law theory and hypothesis... 

It IS worth remembering that a theory can never be proven correct It can only be proven incor rect incomplete or inadequate Thus theories are always being tested and refined As important as anything else in the scientific method is the testable hypothesis Once a theory is proposed experiments are designed to test its validity If the results are con sistent with the theory our belief in its soundness is strengthened If the results conflict with it the theory IS flawed and must be modified Section 6 7 describes some observations that support the theory that car bocations are intermediates in the addition of hydro gen halides to alkenes... 

The experiments that reject a hypothesis should be performed by many different scientists to guard against bias, mistake, misunderstanding, and fraud. Scientific journals use a process of peer review, in which scientists submit their results to a panel of fellow scientists (who may or (8 0) may not know the identity of the writer) for evaluation. Peer review may well have turned up problems and led to a closer examination of experimental evidence for many scientists. Much embarrassment, and wasted effort worldwide, has been avoided by objective peer review, in addition to continuing the use and proving the necessity of the scientific method. 

Data are the raw product of the scientific method of inquiry. By analysis, refinement and reduction which collectively constitute the fourth step in the sequence, data are converted to information about the nature of study systems. The conversion is accomplished by the Neymann-Pearson process of statistical hypotheses testing(g,). If the collected data are sufficient and pertinent enough to support rejecting or accepting the statistical hypothesis under test, a measurableO. 10) quantity of information about the study system has been extracted. If not, the data cannot be converted to information and therefore cannot contribute to the pool of accepted scientific knowledge. 

Because of the nature of the scientific method. Metrics is an indispensable tool of scientific research. It can provide rigorous indices of the internal consistency and the predictive power of "accepted knowledge" about study systems. Thus, it can aid with theory testing. It can also provide rigorous indices of the strength of correlations between the attributes of the study system and the external factors that might influence it. Thus, it can assist with statistical hypothesis formulation and testing. 

Hypothesis In a scientific investigation, a tentative explanation of observations in a laboratory or nature. Hypotheses are then tested with the scientific method to determine their validity. If a hypothesis is highly reliable at explaining and even predicting a phenomenon, it becomes a theory. 

Scientific method The research procedures for conducting a scientific investigation, which involves laboratory or held observations, the development of multiple hypotheses to explain the observations, and the testing of the hypotheses with computers, laboratory measurements and experiments, and/or held research. The inveshgahon may result in none, one, several, or many of the hypotheses being verihed as plausible explanahons. If a hypothesis is repeatedly shown to be a reliable explanahon and can actually make reasonably accurate predichons, it becomes a theory. 

This is one of the fundamental tenets of the scientific method, viz., that it is not possible to prove a hypothesis using experimental data, whereas it is possible to refute a hypothesis by reference to experimental data. All that can be said is that the data fits a given hypothesis, so that the hypothesis is a plausible one. The possibility remains open that, in the future, experimental evidence may show that the hypothesis is not justified. 

Another concern that might lie behind Dickerson s essay is for the scientific method. Hypothesis, careful testing, replicability—all these have served science well. But how can an intelligent designer be tested Can a designer be put in a test tube No, of course not. But neither can extinct common ancestors be put in test tubes. The problem is that whenever science tries to explain a unique historical event, careful testing and replicability are by definition impossible. Science may be able to study the motion of modern comets, and test Newton s laws of motion that describe how the comets move. But science will never be able to study the comet that putatively struck the earth many millions of years ago. 

This portrayal of the classical scientific method probably overemphasizes the importance of observations in current scientific practice. Now that we know a great deal about the nature of matter, scientists often start with a hypothesis that they try to refute as they push forward the frontiers of science. See the writings of Karl Popper for more information on this view. 

Observations are a prelude to experimentation, but they are preconditioned by a framework of peripheral knowledge. While there is an element of luck in being at the right place and time to make important observations, as Pasteur stated, chance favours only the prepared mind . A fault in scientific method is that the design of the experiment and choice of method may influence the outcome - the decisions involved may not be as objective as some scientists assume. Another flaw is that radical alternative hypotheses may be overlooked in favour of a modification to the original hypothesis, and yet just such leaps in thinking have frequently been required before great scientific advances. 

Experiments A hypothesis means nothing unless there are data to support it. Thus, forming a hypothesis helps the scientist focus on the next step in a scientific method, the experiment. An experiment is a set of controlled observations that test the hypothesis. The scientist must carefully plan and set up one or more laboratory experiments in order to change and test one variable at a time. A variable is a quantity or condition that can have more than one value. 

The steps in a scientific method are repeated until a hypothesis has been supported or discarded. 

Typical steps of a scientific method include observation, hypothesis, experiments, data analysis, and conclusion. 

To observers in the early 21st century, the mistake of the alchemists is immediately clear They did not follow the scientific method. In the scientific method, a new idea is accepted only temporarily, in the form of a hypothesis. It is then subjected to rigorous testing, in carefully controlled experiments. Only by surviving many such tests is a hypothesis elevated to become a scientific law. In addition to having explained the results of numerous experiments, a scientific law must be predictive failure to accurately predict the results of a new experiment is sufficient to invalidate a scientific law. Concepts or ideas that have earned the status of scientific laws by direct and repeated testing then can be applied with confidence in new environments. Had a proper set of tests been made in separate, independent experiments, the alchemists would have recognized that the properties of a material are, in fact, intrinsic, inherent characteristics of that material and cannot be separated from it. 

Problem solving applies the scientific method. First the hypothesis is formed then an experiment is run to test the hypothesis. Data resulting from the experiment is analyzed to determine if the hypothesis is correct. Then either the beneficial change is implemented, or the process is repeated until satisfactory conditions are found. 

The key difference between the statistical method and the scientific method is that statistically the result, no matter how unlikely, is not impossible. Therefore, any decision to confirm or reject a hypothesis is liable to error. Two types of error are possible, as summarized in Table 25.1. 

As we have seen, both the scientific method and the statistical method are designed to prove a claim false rather than true. In drug testing, the statistical experiment is designed to reject the null hypothesis — the hypothesis of lack of efficacy, or that there is no difference between the treatments being tested. Table 25.1 mentioned above is applied to the null hypothesis. 

This second edition provides students with something that they cannot get anywhere else a chemical intuition based on learning and internalizing a cross-checked decision process. An important part of the scientific method (or diagnosis) is the ability to postulate a reasonable hypothesis, fitting the data. This text teaches students how to write reasonable reaction mechanisms, and assumes only a general chemistry background. 

The third step of the scientific method is making a thoughtful guess, or hypothesis. A hypothesis is an idea or opinion based on some data or observations, but not proven. 

The fourth step of the scientific method is gathering materials and then testing the hypothesis Scientists, test or try out, their hypotheses in experiments. 

From the viewpoint of scientific methodology there are three main tasks in CAPE representation of the problem, generation of several alternative solutions, and selection of the best one. These tasks correspond to the activities realized in four phases of any scientific method analysis (description of the problem and identification of the objectives), hypothesis (generation of solutions), synthesis (comparing the solutions), and validation (formulation of conclusions). The activities realized in the last two phases correspond to the selection task in CAPE. 

On the history and philosophy of positivism see Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests, ch. 4-6. On the contrast between Comtean positivism and Logical Positivism see L. Laudan, Science and Hypothesis Historical Essays on Scientific Method (Dordrecht ... 

Science and Hypothesis Historical Essays on Scientific Method (Dordrecht D. Reidel, 1981). 

---