Issue link: https://wardsworld.wardsci.com/i/1401811
Scientific Methods (continued) • Design of an empirical (observational or experimental) test of the hypothesis or a consequence of it • Actual empirical test of the hypothesis, involving a search for both favorable and unfavorable evidence (examples and counterexamples) • Critical examination and statistical processing of data (for example, calculation of average error and elimination of outlying data) • Evaluation of the hypothesis in light of its compatibility with both the background knowledge and the fresh empirical evidence • If test results are inconclusive, design and performance of new test, possibly using different techniques or procedures • If test results are conclusive, acceptance, modification, or rejection of the hypothesis • If the hypothesis is acceptable, checking whether its acceptance forces some change (enrichment or correction) to the background knowledge • Identification and tackling of new problems raised by the confirmed hypothesis • Repetition of the test and reexamination of its possible impact on existing knowledge The steps outlined above are not a recipe for making original discoveries or inventions. They do not prescribe the pathway that scientists must follow to attain success, nor are they a substitute for creativity and resourcefulness. The actual path- way of scientific research is messy and partly at the mercy of unforeseen accidents, both lucky and unlucky. Moreover, this pathway depends on subject matter as well as on the investiga- tor's imagination and experience. Thus, certain steps may be- come iterative, depending on the outcome at each milestone. The nucleus of the scientific method, however, is confrontation of an idea (hypothesis) with the facts it refers to, regardless of the source of the idea in question. In sum, the scientific method is a means for checking a hypothesis for truth rather than for finding facts or inventing ideas. The scientific method has not always been understood in this fashion. For instance, Francis Bacon (Fig. 2) and many others thought that the scientific method was a simple and guaran- teed recipe for discovery and invention. However, no one has come up with any algorithms for having original ideas. Because the scientific method involves facts, not opinions, questions posed by investigators can only be resolved by empirical investigations. Once a promising problem has been identi- fied, it must be stated or perhaps reformulated in a precise way, and a tentative plan to work on it must be formulated. The invention of new hypotheses and new methods also takes inspiration and luck, in addition to hard work and discussion with colleagues. The hypothesis must be checked to find out whether it is true to some degree, and the method must be tried out more than once to ascertain whether it accomplishes what it purports to do and, if so, whether that method is better than rival techniques. It is here, in checking, that the scientific method plays a decisive and distinctive role. In short, the scien- tific method is the way that scientists proceed to check ideas and techniques, not invent them. + ward ' s science Fig. 2 Portrait of scientist Francis Bacon at the age of 66. Bacon advanced challenging views of the scientific method. (Courtesy of Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam)