Scientific method

Scientific methods or processes are considered fundamental to the scientific investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence by scientific communities. Scientists use observations and reasoning to develop technologies and propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of hypotheses. Predictions from these hypotheses are tested by experiment and further technologies developed. Any hypothesis which is cogent enough to make predictions can then be tested reproducibly in this way. Once it has been established that a hypothesis is sound (by use of the above methods), it becomes a theory. Sometimes scientific development takes place differently with a theory first being developed gaining support on the basis of its logic and principles. For example the theory of general relativity was invented, gained supporters, and only later confirmed by experiment.

Scientific communities

Frequently the scientific method is not employed by a single person, but by several people cooperating directly or indirectly. Some of these interactions have been formalized in the Scientific Community Metaphor. Such cooperation can be regarded as one of the defining elements of a scientific community. Various techniques have been developed to ensure the integrity of the scientific method within such an environment.

Related Topics:
Scientific Community Metaphor - Scientific community

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Peer review evaluations

Scientific journals use a process of peer review, in which scientists' manuscripts are submitted by editors of scientific journals to (usually one to three) fellow (usually anonymous) scientists familiar with the field for evaluation. The referees may or may not recommend publication, publication with suggested modifications, or, sometimes, publication in another journal. This serves to keep the scientific literature free of unscientific or crackpot work, helps to cut down on obvious errors, and generally otherwise improve the quality of the scientific literature. Work announced in the popular press before going through this process is generally frowned upon. Sometimes peer review inhibits the circulation of unorthodox work, and at other times may be too permissive. The peer review process is not always successful, but has been very widely adopted by the scientific community.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Reproduction and record-keeping

Sometimes experimenters may make systematic errors during their experiments, or (in rare cases) deliberately falsify their results. Consequently, it is a common practice for other scientists to attempt to repeat the experiments in order to duplicate the results, thus further validating the hypothesis.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

As a result, experimenters are expected to maintain detailed records of their experimental procedures, in order to provide evidence of the effectiveness and integrity of the procedure and assist in reproduction. These procedural records may also assist in the conception of new experiments to test the hypothesis, and may prove useful to engineers who might examine the potential practical applications of a discovery.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Note that it is not possible for a scientist to record everything that took place in an experiment. He must select the facts he believes to be relevant to the experiment and report them. This may lead, unavoidably, to problems later if some supposedly irrelevant feature is questions. For example, Hertz (?) did not report the size of the room used to test Maxwell's equations, which later turned out to account for a small deviation in the results. The problem is that parts of the theory itself need to be assumed in order to select and report the experimental conditions. The observations are sometimes hence described as being 'theory-laden'.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~