Changes

'''Scientific method''' is a body of techniques for investigating [[phenomenon|phenomena]] and acquiring new [[knowledge]], as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering [[observable]], [[empirical]] and [[Measure (mathematics)|measurable]] [[evidence]] subject to specific principles of [[reasoning]],

'''Scientific method''' is a body of techniques for investigating [[phenomenon|phenomena]] and acquiring new [[knowledge]], as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering [[observable]], [[empirical]] and [[Measure (mathematics)|measurable]] [[evidence]] subject to specific principles of [[reasoning]],

[[Isaac Newton]] (1687, 1713, 1726). "[4] Rules for the study of [[natural philosophy]]", ''[[Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica]]'', Third edition. The General Scholium containing the 4 rules follows Book '''3''', ''The System of the World''. Reprinted on pages 794-796 of [[I. Bernard Cohen]] and Anne Whitman's 1999 translation, [[University of California Press]] ISBN 0-520-08817-4, 974 pages. The collection of data through [[observation]] and [[experiment]]ation, and the formulation and testing of [[hypothesis|hypotheses]].  

[[Isaac Newton]] (1687, 1713, 1726). "[4] Rules for the study of [[natural philosophy]]", ''[[Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica]]'', Third edition. The General Scholium containing the 4 rules follows Book '''3''', ''The System of the World''. Reprinted on pages 794-796 of [[I. Bernard Cohen]] and Anne Whitman's 1999 translation, [[University of California Press]] ISBN 0-520-08817-4, 974 pages. The collection of data through [[observation]] and [[experiment]]ation, and the formulation and testing of [[hypothesis|hypotheses]].  

[http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/scientific%20method scientific method], ''[[Merriam-Webster|Merriam-Webster Dictionary]]''.

[https://www.m-w.com/dictionary/scientific%20method scientific method], ''[[Merriam-Webster|Merriam-Webster Dictionary]]''.

The objects of [[science]] are identical with those of [[magic]]. Mankind is progressing from magic to science, not by [[meditation]] and [[reason]], but rather through long experience, gradually and painfully. Man is gradually backing into the truth, beginning in error, progressing (through) error, and finally attaining the threshold of truth. Only with the arrival of the '''scientific method''' has he faced forward. But primitive man had to experiment or perish.[http://mercy.urantia.org/cgi-bin/webglimpse/mfs/usr/local/www/data/papers?link=http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper88.html&file=/usr/local/www/data/papers/paper88.html&line=80#mfs]

The objects of [[science]] are identical with those of [[magic]]. Mankind is progressing from magic to science, not by [[meditation]] and [[reason]], but rather through long experience, gradually and painfully. Man is gradually backing into the truth, beginning in error, progressing (through) error, and finally attaining the threshold of truth. Only with the arrival of the '''scientific method''' has he faced forward. But primitive man had to experiment or perish.[https://mercy.urantia.org/cgi-bin/webglimpse/mfs/usr/local/www/data/papers?link=https://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper88.html&file=/usr/local/www/data/papers/paper88.html&line=80#mfs]

The advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced. One can test an experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false. The conclusions will hold regardless of the state of mind, or the bias of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation.

The advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced. One can test an experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false. The conclusions will hold regardless of the state of mind, or the bias of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation.

"To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science." p.92, [[Albert Einstein]] and [[Leopold Infeld]] (1938), ''The Evolution of Physics: from early concepts to relativity and quanta'' ISBN0-671-20156-5. Further, it is an ongoing cycle, constantly developing more useful, accurate and comprehensive models and methods. For example, when Einstein developed the Special and General Theories of Relativity, he did not in any way refute or discount Newton's ''Principia''. On the contrary, if one reduces out the astronomically large, the vanishingly small, and the extremely fast from Einstein's theories — all phenomena that Newton could not have observed — one is left with Newton's equations. Einstein's theories are expansions and refinements of Newton's theories, and the observations that increase our confidence in them also increase our confidence in Newton's approximations to them.

"To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science." p.92, [[Albert Einstein]] and [[Leopold Infeld]] (1938), ''The Evolution of Physics: from early concepts to relativity and quanta'' ISBN0-671-20156-5. Further, it is an ongoing cycle, constantly developing more useful, accurate and comprehensive models and methods. For example, when Einstein developed the Special and General Theories of Relativity, he did not in any way refute or discount Newton's ''Principia''. On the contrary, if one reduces out the astronomically large, the vanishingly small, and the extremely fast from Einstein's theories — all phenomena that Newton could not have observed — one is left with Newton's equations. Einstein's theories are expansions and refinements of Newton's theories, and the observations that increase our confidence in them also increase our confidence in Newton's approximations to them.

The Keystones of Science project, sponsored by the journal ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'', has selected a number of scientific articles from that journal and annotated them, illustrating how different parts of each article embody the scientific method. [http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/scope/keystone1/ Here] is an annotated example of the scientific method example titled ''Microbial Genes in the [[human genome|Human Genome]]: [[lateral gene transfer|Lateral Transfer]] or Gene Loss?''.

The Keystones of Science project, sponsored by the journal ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'', has selected a number of scientific articles from that journal and annotated them, illustrating how different parts of each article embody the scientific method. [https://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/scope/keystone1/ Here] is an annotated example of the scientific method example titled ''Microbial Genes in the [[human genome|Human Genome]]: [[lateral gene transfer|Lateral Transfer]] or Gene Loss?''.

A linearized, pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes offered as a guideline for proceeding:{{Fact|date=August 2007}}

A linearized, pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes offered as a guideline for proceeding:{{Fact|date=August 2007}}

Scientists assume an attitude of openness and accountability on the part of those conducting an experiment. Detailed record keeping is essential, to aid in recording and reporting on the experimental results, and providing evidence of the effectiveness and integrity of the procedure. They will also assist in reproducing the experimental results. This tradition can be seen in the work of [[Hipparchus]] (190 BCE - 120 BCE), when determining a value for the precession of the Earth over 2100 years ago, and 1000 years before [[Muhammad ibn Jābir al-Harrānī al-Battānī|Al-Batani]] (853 CE – 929 CE).

Scientists assume an attitude of openness and accountability on the part of those conducting an experiment. Detailed record keeping is essential, to aid in recording and reporting on the experimental results, and providing evidence of the effectiveness and integrity of the procedure. They will also assist in reproducing the experimental results. This tradition can be seen in the work of [[Hipparchus]] (190 BCE - 120 BCE), when determining a value for the precession of the Earth over 2100 years ago, and 1000 years before [[Muhammad ibn Jābir al-Harrānī al-Battānī|Al-Batani]] (853 CE – 929 CE).

Before proposing their model Watson and Crick had previously seen x-ray diffraction images by [[Rosalind Franklin]], [[Maurice Wilkins]], and [[Raymond Gosling]]. However, they later reported that Franklin initially rebuffed their suggestion that DNA might be a double helix. Franklin had immediately spotted flaws in the initial hypotheses about the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick. The [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/photo51/ X-shape] in X-ray images helped confirm the helical structure of DNA

Before proposing their model Watson and Crick had previously seen x-ray diffraction images by [[Rosalind Franklin]], [[Maurice Wilkins]], and [[Raymond Gosling]]. However, they later reported that Franklin initially rebuffed their suggestion that DNA might be a double helix. Franklin had immediately spotted flaws in the initial hypotheses about the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick. The [https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/photo51/ X-shape] in X-ray images helped confirm the helical structure of DNA

"The instant I saw the picture my mouth fell open and my pulse began to race." -- James D. Watson (1968), ''The Double Helix'', page 167. New York: Atheneum, Library of Congress card number 68-16217. Page 168 shows the X-shaped pattern of the B-form of [[DNA]], clearly indicating crucial details of its helical structure to Watson and Crick.

"The instant I saw the picture my mouth fell open and my pulse began to race." -- James D. Watson (1968), ''The Double Helix'', page 167. New York: Atheneum, Library of Congress card number 68-16217. Page 168 shows the X-shaped pattern of the B-form of [[DNA]], clearly indicating crucial details of its helical structure to Watson and Crick.

Science is a social enterprise, and scientific work tends to be accepted by the community when it has been confirmed. Crucially, experimental and theoretical results must be reproduced by others within the science community. Researchers have given their lives for this vision; [[Georg Wilhelm Richmann]] was killed by [[lightning]] ([[1753]]) when attempting to replicate the 1752 kite-flying experiment of [[Benjamin Franklin]].<ref>

Science is a social enterprise, and scientific work tends to be accepted by the community when it has been confirmed. Crucially, experimental and theoretical results must be reproduced by others within the science community. Researchers have given their lives for this vision; [[Georg Wilhelm Richmann]] was killed by [[lightning]] ([[1753]]) when attempting to replicate the 1752 kite-flying experiment of [[Benjamin Franklin]].<ref>

See, e.g., Physics Today, Vol. 59, #1, p42. [http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-1/p42.html]

See, e.g., Physics Today, Vol. 59, #1, p42. [https://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-1/p42.html]

To protect against bad science and fraudulent data, government research granting agencies like NSF and science journals like Nature and Science have a policy that researchers must archive their data and methods so other researchers can access it, test the data and methods and build on the research that has gone before.  [[Scientific data archiving]] can be done at a number of national archives in the U.S. or in the [[World Data Center]].

To protect against bad science and fraudulent data, government research granting agencies like NSF and science journals like Nature and Science have a policy that researchers must archive their data and methods so other researchers can access it, test the data and methods and build on the research that has gone before.  [[Scientific data archiving]] can be done at a number of national archives in the U.S. or in the [[World Data Center]].

It has not always been like this: in the old days of the "[[gentleman scientist]]" funding (and to a lesser extent publication) were far weaker constraints.

It has not always been like this: in the old days of the "[[gentleman scientist]]" funding (and to a lesser extent publication) were far weaker constraints.

Both of these constraints indirectly bring in a scientific method &mdash; work that too obviously violates the constraints will be difficult to publish and difficult to get funded. Journals do not require submitted papers to conform to anything more specific than "good scientific practice" and this is mostly enforced by peer review. Originality, importance and interest are more important - see for example the [http://www.nature.com/nature/submit/get_published/index.html author guidelines] for [[Nature (journal)|''Nature'']].

Both of these constraints indirectly bring in a scientific method &mdash; work that too obviously violates the constraints will be difficult to publish and difficult to get funded. Journals do not require submitted papers to conform to anything more specific than "good scientific practice" and this is mostly enforced by peer review. Originality, importance and interest are more important - see for example the [https://www.nature.com/nature/submit/get_published/index.html author guidelines] for [[Nature (journal)|''Nature'']].

Criticisms (see [[Critical theory]]) of these restraints are that they are so nebulous in definition (e.g. "good scientific practice") and open to ideological, or even political, manipulation apart from a rigorous practice of a scientific method, that they often serve to censor rather than promote scientific discovery.{{Fact|date=February 2007}} Apparent censorship through refusal to publish ideas unpopular with mainstream scientists (unpopular because of ideological reasons and/or because they seem to contradict long held scientific theories) has soured the popular perception of scientists as being neutral or seekers of truth and often denigrated popular perception of science as a whole.

Criticisms (see [[Critical theory]]) of these restraints are that they are so nebulous in definition (e.g. "good scientific practice") and open to ideological, or even political, manipulation apart from a rigorous practice of a scientific method, that they often serve to censor rather than promote scientific discovery.{{Fact|date=February 2007}} Apparent censorship through refusal to publish ideas unpopular with mainstream scientists (unpopular because of ideological reasons and/or because they seem to contradict long held scientific theories) has soured the popular perception of scientists as being neutral or seekers of truth and often denigrated popular perception of science as a whole.

Rosanna Gorini (2003), "Al-Haytham the Man of Experience, First Steps in the Science of Vision", ''International Society for the History of Islamic Medicine'', Institute of Neurosciences, Laboratory of Psychobiology and Psychopharmacology, Rome, Italy:

Rosanna Gorini (2003), "Al-Haytham the Man of Experience, First Steps in the Science of Vision", ''International Society for the History of Islamic Medicine'', Institute of Neurosciences, Laboratory of Psychobiology and Psychopharmacology, Rome, Italy:

{{quote|"According to the majority of the historians al-Haytham was the pioneer of the modern scientific method. With his book he changed the meaning of the term optics and established experiments as the norm of proof in the field. His investigations are based not on abstract theories, but on experimental evidences and his experiments were systematic and repeatable."}}</ref><ref>

{{quote|"According to the majority of the historians al-Haytham was the pioneer of the modern scientific method. With his book he changed the meaning of the term optics and established experiments as the norm of proof in the field. His investigations are based not on abstract theories, but on experimental evidences and his experiments were systematic and repeatable."}}</ref><ref>

David Agar (2001). [http://users.jyu.fi/~daagar/index_files/arabs.html Arabic Studies in Physics and Astronomy During 800 - 1400 AD]. [[University of Jyväskylä]].</ref> The fundamental tenets of the modern scientific method crystallized no later than the rise of the modern [[physical science]]s, in the [[17th century|17th]] and [[18th century|18th]] centuries. In his work ''[[Novum Organum]]'' ([[1620]]) — a reference to [[Aristotle]]'s ''[[Organon]]'' — [[Francis Bacon]] outlined a new system of [[logic]] to improve upon the old [[philosophy|philosophical]] process of [[syllogism]]. Then, in [[1637]], [[René Descartes]] established the framework for a scientific method's guiding principles in his treatise, ''[[Discourse on Method]]''. These writings are considered critical in the historical development of the scientific method.

David Agar (2001). [https://users.jyu.fi/~daagar/index_files/arabs.html Arabic Studies in Physics and Astronomy During 800 - 1400 AD]. [[University of Jyväskylä]].</ref> The fundamental tenets of the modern scientific method crystallized no later than the rise of the modern [[physical science]]s, in the [[17th century|17th]] and [[18th century|18th]] centuries. In his work ''[[Novum Organum]]'' ([[1620]]) — a reference to [[Aristotle]]'s ''[[Organon]]'' — [[Francis Bacon]] outlined a new system of [[logic]] to improve upon the old [[philosophy|philosophical]] process of [[syllogism]]. Then, in [[1637]], [[René Descartes]] established the framework for a scientific method's guiding principles in his treatise, ''[[Discourse on Method]]''. These writings are considered critical in the historical development of the scientific method.

In the late 19th century, [[Charles Sanders Peirce]] proposed a schema that would turn out to have considerable influence in the development of current scientific method generally. Peirce accelerated the progress on several fronts. Firstly, speaking in broader context in "How to Make Our Ideas Clear" (1878) [http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/bycsp/ideas/id-frame.htm], Peirce outlined an objectively verifiable method to test the truth of putative knowledge on a way that goes beyond mere foundational alternatives, focusing upon both ''deduction'' and ''induction''. He thus placed induction and deduction in a complementary rather than competitive context (the latter of which had been the primary trend at least since [[David Hume]], who wrote in the mid-to-late 18th century). Secondly, and of more direct importance to modern method, Peirce put forth the basic schema for hypothesis/testing that continues to prevail today. Extracting the theory of inquiry from its raw materials in classical logic, he refined it in parallel with the early development of symbolic logic to address the then-current problems in scientific reasoning. Peirce examined and articulated the three fundamental modes of reasoning that, as discussed above in this article, play a role in inquiry today, the processes that are currently known as [[abductive reasoning|abductive]], [[deductive reasoning|deductive]], and [[inductive reasoning|inductive]] inference. Thirdly, he played a major role in the progress of symbolic logic itself — indeed this was his primary specialty.

In the late 19th century, [[Charles Sanders Peirce]] proposed a schema that would turn out to have considerable influence in the development of current scientific method generally. Peirce accelerated the progress on several fronts. Firstly, speaking in broader context in "How to Make Our Ideas Clear" (1878) [https://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/bycsp/ideas/id-frame.htm], Peirce outlined an objectively verifiable method to test the truth of putative knowledge on a way that goes beyond mere foundational alternatives, focusing upon both ''deduction'' and ''induction''. He thus placed induction and deduction in a complementary rather than competitive context (the latter of which had been the primary trend at least since [[David Hume]], who wrote in the mid-to-late 18th century). Secondly, and of more direct importance to modern method, Peirce put forth the basic schema for hypothesis/testing that continues to prevail today. Extracting the theory of inquiry from its raw materials in classical logic, he refined it in parallel with the early development of symbolic logic to address the then-current problems in scientific reasoning. Peirce examined and articulated the three fundamental modes of reasoning that, as discussed above in this article, play a role in inquiry today, the processes that are currently known as [[abductive reasoning|abductive]], [[deductive reasoning|deductive]], and [[inductive reasoning|inductive]] inference. Thirdly, he played a major role in the progress of symbolic logic itself — indeed this was his primary specialty.

[[Karl Popper]] (1902–1994), beginning in the 1930s and with increased vigor after World War II, argued that a hypothesis must be [[falsifiable]] and, following Peirce and others, that science would best progress using deductive reasoning as its primary emphasis, known as [[critical rationalism]]. His astute formulations of logical procedure helped to rein in excessive use of inductive speculation upon inductive speculation, and also strengthened the conceptual foundation for today's peer review procedures.

[[Karl Popper]] (1902–1994), beginning in the 1930s and with increased vigor after World War II, argued that a hypothesis must be [[falsifiable]] and, following Peirce and others, that science would best progress using deductive reasoning as its primary emphasis, known as [[critical rationalism]]. His astute formulations of logical procedure helped to rein in excessive use of inductive speculation upon inductive speculation, and also strengthened the conceptual foundation for today's peer review procedures.

* [[Nicholas Maxwell|Maxwell, Nicholas]], ''The Comprehensibility of the Universe: A New Conception of Science'', Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998.  Paperback 2003.

* [[Nicholas Maxwell|Maxwell, Nicholas]], ''The Comprehensibility of the Universe: A New Conception of Science'', Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998.  Paperback 2003.

* [[William McComas|McComas, William F.]], ed. {{PDFlink|[http://coehp.uark.edu/pase/TheMythsOfScience.pdf The Principle Elements of the Nature of Science: Dispelling the Myths]|189&nbsp;[[Kibibyte|KiB]]<!-- application/pdf, 194054 bytes -->}}, from ''The Nature of Science in Science Education'', pp53-70, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands 1998.

* [[William McComas|McComas, William F.]], ed. {{PDFlink|[https://coehp.uark.edu/pase/TheMythsOfScience.pdf The Principle Elements of the Nature of Science: Dispelling the Myths]|189&nbsp;[[Kibibyte|KiB]]<!-- application/pdf, 194054 bytes -->}}, from ''The Nature of Science in Science Education'', pp53-70, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands 1998.

* [[Cheryl J. Misak|Misak, Cheryl J.]], ''Truth and the End of Inquiry, A Peircean Account of Truth'', Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1991.

* [[Cheryl J. Misak|Misak, Cheryl J.]], ''Truth and the End of Inquiry, A Peircean Account of Truth'', Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1991.

* [[Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini|Piattelli-Palmarini, Massimo]] (ed.), ''Language and Learning, The Debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky'', Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1980.

* [[Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini|Piattelli-Palmarini, Massimo]] (ed.), ''Language and Learning, The Debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky'', Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1980.

* [[Henri Poincaré|Poincaré, Henri]], ''Science and Hypothesis'', 1905, [http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/Poincare/Poincare_1905_toc.html Eprint]

* [[Henri Poincaré|Poincaré, Henri]], ''Science and Hypothesis'', 1905, [https://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/Poincare/Poincare_1905_toc.html Eprint]

* [[Karl Popper|Popper, Karl R.]], ''The Logic of Scientific Discovery'', 1934, 1959.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Scientific_Discovery]

* [[Karl Popper|Popper, Karl R.]], ''The Logic of Scientific Discovery'', 1934, 1959.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Scientific_Discovery]

* [[Karl Popper|Popper, Karl R.]], ''Unended Quest, An Intellectual Autobiography'', Open Court, La Salle, IL, 1982.

* [[Karl Popper|Popper, Karl R.]], ''Unended Quest, An Intellectual Autobiography'', Open Court, La Salle, IL, 1982.

===Science treatments===

===Science treatments===

* [http://www.freeinquiry.com/intro-to-sci.html An Introduction to Science: Scientific Thinking and a scientific method] by Steven D. Schafersman.

* [https://www.freeinquiry.com/intro-to-sci.html An Introduction to Science: Scientific Thinking and a scientific method] by Steven D. Schafersman.

* [http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html Introduction to a scientific method]

* [https://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html Introduction to a scientific method]

* [http://www.galilean-library.org/theory.html Theory-ladenness] by Paul Newall at The Galilean Library

* [https://www.galilean-library.org/theory.html Theory-ladenness] by Paul Newall at The Galilean Library

* [http://web.archive.org/web/20060428080832/http://pasadena.wr.usgs.gov/office/ganderson/es10/lectures/lecture01/lecture01.html Lecture on Scientific Method by Greg Anderson]

* [https://web.archive.org/web/20060428080832/https://pasadena.wr.usgs.gov/office/ganderson/es10/lectures/lecture01/lecture01.html Lecture on Scientific Method by Greg Anderson]

* {{PDFlink|[http://www.swemorph.com/pdf/anaeng-r.pdf Analysis and Synthesis: On Scientific Method based on a study by Bernhard Riemann]|181&nbsp;[[Kibibyte|KiB]]<!-- application/pdf, 185872 bytes -->}} From the [http://www.swemorph.com  Swedish Morphological Society]

* {{PDFlink|[https://www.swemorph.com/pdf/anaeng-r.pdf Analysis and Synthesis: On Scientific Method based on a study by Bernhard Riemann]|181&nbsp;[[Kibibyte|KiB]]<!-- application/pdf, 185872 bytes -->}} From the [https://www.swemorph.com  Swedish Morphological Society]

* [http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html Using the scientific method for designing science fair projects] from [http://www.sciencemadesimple.com Science Made Simple]

* [https://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html Using the scientific method for designing science fair projects] from [https://www.sciencemadesimple.com Science Made Simple]

===Alternative scientific treatments===

===Alternative scientific treatments===

* [http://www.worldagroforestry.org/RMG/ResMetRes/index.html Research Methods Resources by the ICRAF-ILRI Research Methods Group]

* [https://www.worldagroforestry.org/RMG/ResMetRes/index.html Research Methods Resources by the ICRAF-ILRI Research Methods Group]

[[Category: General Reference]]

[[Category: General Reference]]