• The scientific method is a series of steps scientists take in order to perform experiments. It's a way to ask and answers specific questions through experimentation and observation. There are six.
• The scientific method. So, because scientific tests are conducted in order to augment our knowledge about the world, and knowledge about the world is expressed via true contingent statements, a scientific test is a test of a contingent statement. What that statement is will be an answer to an empirical question.

• Why Is The Scientific Method Important
• Characteristics Of Scientific Method
• Benefits Of The Scientific Method

From the actual use and application of the knowledge of science to real world problems, we have found that scientific knowledge is the most reliable knowledge we have about the natural world. In other words, most of the time, it works! Predictions based on that knowledge are usually confirmed.

Why Is The Scientific Method Important

Let's explore the scientific method. Which at first might seem a bit intimidating, but when we walk through it, you'll see that it's actually almost a common-sense way of looking at the world and making progress in our understanding of theworld and feeling good about that progress of our understanding of the world. So, let's just use a tangible example here, and we'll walk through what we could consider the steps of the scientific method, and you'll see different steps articulated in differentways, but they all boil down to the same thing. You observe somethingabout reality, and you say, well, let me try to come up with a reason for why that observation happens, and then you tryto test that explanation. It's very important that you come up with explanations that youcan test, and then you can see if they're true, and then based on whether they're true, you keep iterating. If it's not true, you comeup with another explanation. If it is true, but itdoesn't explain everything, well once again, you tryto explain more of it.

So, as a tangible example,let's say that you live in, in I don't know, northernCanada or something, and let's say that you live nearthe beach, but there's also a pond near yourhouse, and you notice that the pond, it tends tofreeze over sooner in the Winter than the ocean does. It does that faster andeven does it at higher temperatures than when the ocean seems to freeze over. So, you could view thatas your observation. So, the first step is you'remaking an observation.

In our particular caseis that the pond freezes over at higher temperatures than the ocean does, and it freezes oversooner in the Winter. Well, the next question that you might wanna, or the next step you could view as a scientific method. It doesn't have to bethis regimented, but this is a structured way of thinking about it. Well, ask yourself a question. Ask a question.

Why does, so in thisparticular question, or in this particular scenario,why does the pond tend to freeze over faster andat higher temperatures than the ocean does? Well, you then try to answerthat question, and this is a key part of the scientific method, is what you do in this third step, is that you try to createan explanation, but what's key is that it is a testable explanation. So, you try to create a testable explanation. Testable explanation,and this is kind of the core, one of the corepillars of the scientific method, and this testableexplanation is called your hypothesis. Your hypothesis. And so, in this particularcase, a testable explanation could bethat, well the ocean is made up of salt water, and this pond is fresh water, so your testable explanation could be salt water, salt water has lower freezing point.

Has lower freezing, freezing point. Lower freezing point, so it takes colder temperatures to freezeit than fresh water. Than fresh water. So, this, right over here, this would be a good hypothesis. It doesn't matterwhether the hypothesis is actually true or not. We haven't actually runthe experiment, but it's a good one, because we can construct an experiment that tests this very well.

Now, what would be an example of a bad hypothesis or of somethingthat you couldn't even necessarily consider as part of the scientific method? Well, you could say that there is a fairy that blesses that blesses, let's say that performs magic, performs magic on the pond to freeze it faster. Freeze it faster. And, the reason why thisisn't so good is that this is not so testable,because it's depending on this fairy, and youdon't know how to convince the fairy to try to do it again. You haven't seen the fairy. You haven't observed the fairy. It's not based on any observation, and so this one right over here, this would not be a good hypothesis for the scientific method, so we wouldwanna rule that one out.

So, let's go back to ourtestable explanation, our hypothesis. Salt water has a lower freezingpoint than fresh water. Well, the next step would be to make a prediction basedon that, and this is the part where we're reallydesigning an experiment.

So, you could just viewall of this as designing. Let me do this in a different color.

Where we wanna design an experiment. Design an experiment. And in that experimentslets say, and let's see, the next two steps I will put as part of this experimental. Let me, I did my undo step. So, the next part that Iwill do is the experiment. And there you go. So, the first thing is,we'll say I take, you know, there's all sorts of thingsthat are going on outside.

The ocean has waves. You know, maybe there are boats going by that might potentially break up the ice. So, I just wanna isolatethat one variable that I care about, whether something is salt water or not, and I want a control for everything else.

So, I want a control for whether there's waves or not or whetherthere's wind or any other possible explanation for why the pond freezes over faster. So, what I do, in a verycontrolled environment I take two cups. I take two cups.

That's one cup and two cups, and I put water in those cups. I put water in those cups. Now, let's say I start withdistilled water, but then this one stays, thefirst one right over here stays distilled, anddistilled means that through evaporation I've takenout all of the impurities of that water, and in the second one I take that distilledwater, and I throw a bunch of salt in it. So, this one is fresh,very fresh, and in fact, far fresher than you would find in a pond. It's distilled water. And then this is overhere, this is salt water.

So, you wouldn't see thesalt, but just for our visuals, you depict it. Then we would make a prediction, and we could even view this as step 4, our prediction. We predict that the freshwater will freeze at a higher temperature than the salt water. So, our prediction,let's say the fresh freezes at zero degrees Celsius, but salt doesn't. Salt water doesn't. Salt water doesn't.

So, what you then do is thatyou test your prediction. So, then you test it. And how would you test it? Well, you could have avery accurate freezer that is exactly at zero degreesCelsius, and you put both of these cups intoit, and you wanna make sure that they're identicaland everything where you control for everything else. You control for the surface area. You control for the material of the glass. You control for how much water there is.

But, then you test it. Then you see what happened from your test. Leave it in overnight,and if you see that the fresh water has frozenover, so it's frozen over, but the salt waterhasn't, well then that seems to validate yourtestable explanation.

That salt water has alower freezing point than fresh water, and if it didn'tfreeze, well it's like, okay, well maybe that, or ifthere isn't a difference, maybe either both of themdidn't freeze or both of them did freeze, thenyou might say, well, okay, that wasn't a good explanation. I have to find another explanation for why the ocean seems to freezeat a lower temperature.

Or, you might say, well that's part of the explanation, but that by itself doesn't explain it, or youmight now wanna ask even further questions about, well, when does salt water freeze, and whatelse is it dependent on? Do the waves have an impact? Does the wind have an impact? So, then you can go into the process of iterating and refining. So, you then refine, refine, refine and iterate on the process. When I'm talking about iterate, you're doing it over again, but then, based on the things that you've learned.

Nillo lugdo vo taro pello ghaghro adivasi song download mp3 downloads indian. So, you might come up with a more refined testable explanation, or you might come up with more experiments that could get you a better understanding of the difference between fresh and salt water, or you might try to come up with experiments for why exactly, what is itabout the salt that makes this water harder to freeze? So, that's essentially the essence of the scientific method,and I wanna emphasize this isn't some, you know, bizarre thing. This is logical reasoning.

Make a testable explanation for something that you're observingin the world, and then you test it, and yousee if your explanation seems to hold up basedon the data from your test. And then whether or not it holds up, you then keep going, andyou keep refining. And you keep learning moreabout the world, and the reason why this is betterthan just saying, oh well, look, okay, I see the pondhas frozen over and the ocean hasn't, it must be thesalt water, and you know, I just feel good aboutthat, is that you can't feel good about that.

There's a milliondifferent reasons, and you shouldn't just go onyour gut, 'cause at some point, your gut might be right 90% of the time, but that 10%that it's wrong, you're going to be passing onknowledge or assumptions about the world thataren't true, and then other people are going to buildon that, and then all of our knowledge is goingto be built on kind of a shaky foundation, andso the scientific method ensures that our foundation is strong. And I'll leave you withthe gentleman who's often considered to be the father, or one of the fathers of the scientific method. He lived in Cairo, and in what is now Egypt, nearly 1,000 or roughly1,000 years ago. And he was a famous astronomer andphycisist and mathematician. And his quote is a prettypowerful one, 'cause I think it even stands today: 'The duty of the man whoinvestigates the writings of scientists, if learningthe truth is his goal.'

Let me start over, justso I can get the dramatic effect right. 'The duty of the man whoinvestigates the writings of scientists, if learningthe truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads,. Attack it from every side. He should also suspecthimself as he performs his critical examinationof it, so that he may avoid falling into eitherprejudice or leniency.' Hasan Ibn al-Haytham,and his Latinized name is Alhazen. So, he's saying be skeptical,and not just skeptical of what other peoplewrite and read, but even of yourself. And anotheraspect of the scientific method which is superimportant is, if someone says they made a hypothesisand they tested and they got a result, in order forthat to be a good test and in order for that to be a goodhypothesis, that experiment has to be reproducible.

Someone can't say, oh it'sonly, you know, a certain time that only happens onceevery 100 years and not, that that's why it happened that day. It has to be reproducible,and reproducible is key, because thenanother skeptical scientist like yourself can say, let me see if I can reproduce it.

Characteristics Of Scientific Method

Let me not just believeit, because that person looks like they'resmart, and they said that it is true.

Benefits Of The Scientific Method

Does the scientific method necessarily always produce reliable and valid knowledge? EssayScientific method is an epistemological system used by the scientists to investigate natural phenomena, developing new knowledge or correcting preceding knowledge (Jennings, 2008:5). It is considered the best objective framework to construct an accurate representation of the world, it include ideas, procedures, rules, techniques and modes which exist in theoretical research, applied research, development and promotion of scientific activities. This essay aim to prove that although the scientific method does not necessarily always produces reliable and valid knowledge, it is stills a most reasonable inference to help human understand natural phenomena. These steps involve observation, hypothesis, prediction, experiment and reproduction. According to Gower (2002) these steps can be described as following: scientists first collect the observed information to be studied and then put forward a preliminary hypothesis to explain the observations.

The hypothesis often is bold guesswork because there is no technique method to create hypothesis. Next, scientists consider which information is useful to test the hypothesis and gather the information by observation or experiments. Scientists usually share and discuss the obtained information with peers who are also doing research in the same area (Jennings, 2008:6). Scientists can help each other through the sharing and exchange of information; this is an important part to promote the development of science. Therefore, the same information and experiment (sometimes the experimental method might be improved) are repeated by other scientists to strengthen the result then to draw a conclusion to support or oppose the hypothesis.After enough information is gathered, scientists will decide whether the hypothesis is valid. If it has failed in the experiment, then the hypothesis will be negated and a new explanation or hypothesis will be presented.

If the hypothesis passed the experiment, it will suffer more complex and more rigorous experiment. The experiment process is often made more careful and accurate by designing and examining alternative hypothesis and then meliorating the hypothesis which passed the experiment. This common method generally called the hypothetico-deductive method. It starts from the general principle or theory, and then according to the theory derives some concrete conclusions (hypothesis); finally, the conclusion (hypothesis) is applied to the specific phenomenon description and explanation (Ladyman, 2002:18). A general conclusion is obtained after the analysis of many specific examples.

Hypothesis and summary are the conventional procedure of scientific method.When perform an experiment, control group and double blind experiment are the commonly used experimental methods. The control group is the group which does not receive the experimental treatment. Setting the control group in the experiment is in order to eliminate the extraneous variable effects on the experimental results. Double blind experiment is an experimental method; it is in order to eliminate possible subjective bias and personal preferences which exist in the awareness of experimenter and participant. If a hypothesis after withstood many tests still not failed, it might be considered as a valid theory.

A theory is logical inference summary that obtained by human cognition of natural and social phenomenon (Jennings, 2008:7). It is worth noting that theories cannot absolutely correct and cannot correct forever, there is always have chance to revise and replace it.

Scientists build confidence from a number of successful hypotheses, then to do more research with satisfactory explanation of the observed phenomena.After understanding the steps of scientific method, it is necessary to discuss its objectivity. Objectivity is the core value of the science and scientific method; it reveals how science is practiced and how scientific knowledge is created (Ziman, 1996:751). To be specific, it means that science should not have biases, emotional factor and commitments. Booth (2004) detailed lists the necessary standard of scientific objectivity.Firstly, the understandability between subjects, science is not private affairs; critical scientific statement must be communicated with each other.

Therefore must use some kind of universal language to express. Secondly, science does not depend on the frame of reference.

The position, state of consciousness and angle of the observer are not important. Thirdly, the verifiability between subjects, the correctness of the statement can be convinced through appropriate measures. Fourth, the science does not depend on the method. The correctness of statement is not allowed to rely on the method of verification statement. Finally, no agreement, the correctness of statement is not allowed to establish on the unfounded behavior, such as a resolution or promise.Additionally, the objectivity of scientific method can be expressed by the reliable and valid conclusion which produced by scientific method. Reliability and validity in science means that any significant achievements must be able to withstand repeated trial and whether the achievements obtained meet all of the requirements of the scientific method (Grinnell, 2011:60). However, the reliability and validity of scientific method lead to some philosophical problems, for example the Hume’s induction problem.

Hume considered that the knowledge comes only from sensory experience; people cannot rely on a priori knowledge (Okasha, 2002:24). As Hume said, if the most direct source of scientific results are the induction of the experience of facts, then the correctness of any scientific conclusions are unreliable. Because scientists cannot guarantee the conclusions from limited experience is truth. As Popper said that if a judgment is scientific, then this judgment must be falsifiable, because any empirical verification of the facts is not enough to confirm the correctness of the judgment (Spiegel, 1998:74). Therefore, for a scientific conclusion only has two states, has been falsified or has not been falsified. If it has not been falsified, then the conclusion is not confirmed at this time, hence it is unreliable.

If it has been falsified, then the conclusion is wrong, its reliability does also not exist.However, the objectivity of scientific method is not always exists in scientific community, it can be affected by some factors. For instance, funding is widespread influence on objectivity of science. Sometimes if scientists pay too much attention on the investment may affect their objective judgment, especially when they work with some commercial companies. Moreover, peer review may become another factor to affect objectivity of science. The peer review may lead to bias and personal jealousy (Ziman, 1996:754). When a scientist reviews other scientists’ research, he may not give a good evaluation, maybe because he have different point of view or other scientists do better than him.

The biased review may give others the wrong guidance. Another factor can be explained by Matthew Effect. Matthew Effect is refers to that the rich will become richer and the poor will become poorer (Merton, 1968:57).Matthew Effect in science means that the famous scientist may get more trust and support; in contrast, those nameless scientists may be spurned. This is not fair and also violates the objectivity of science.As discussed above, the scientific conclusions to some extent are unreliable.

Nevertheless, the scientific conclusion is still valuable (Booth, 2004:6). This value is reflected in this way: experience so far indicates that although the conclusions obtained by scientific method are unreliable, but these scientific conclusions are more reliable and more effective than other conclusions obtained by other thought way. For instance, if a Mayan shaman always (or most of the time) provides more reliable conclusion than scientific conclusion (such as 2012 doomsday), then the human’s scientific belief may collapse. For the scientific unreliability and the value on the basis of the unreliability, the scientists are well aware of it.Science is a set of reasonable cognition which comes from the analysis, induction and collation of practice experience. It is a relatively complete and comprehensive theoretical system, the source is practice and the essence is awareness.

Practice is the only means to be able to contact the objectivity and subjectivity, the practice is based on the objective existence, thus science is objective. The scientific method intricately combined with science, building of logical and businesslike models to describe nature.

The models are limited by previous observations and evaluated by their ability to accurately predict new phenomena. Scientific method usually do not prove or falsify truth, it just provide a method to rank truth.

That is why science method cannot explain everything, because science method is based on practice and practice is limited, its essence is just one of the most reasonable inferences. It is like any theory or law of nature is not conclusive, old law always be replaced by the new laws, that because the new law not only can explain the phenomena which can be explained by the old law, but also can explain some phenomena which cannot be explained by the old law. This process will be repeated again and again.