Scientific Method Essay

The scientific method has four steps 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon. The observations ar make visu in ally or with the aid of scientific equipment. 2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon in the do of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. 3. Test the hypothesis by analyzing the results of observations or by auguring and observing the existence of new phenomena that follow from the hypothesis. If experiments do not get the hypothesis, the hypothesis moldiness be rejected or modified (Go back to Step 2). 4. Establish a theory ground on rep relea take tod verification of the results.The subject of a scientific experiment has to be observable and reproducible. Observations whitethorn be made with the unaided eye, a microscope, a telescope, a voltmeter, or any other appliance suitable for detecting the desired phenomenon. The invention of the telescope in 1608 made it authorizedistic for Galileo to disc everyplace the moons of Jupiter bot h years later. Other scientists confirmed Galileos observations and the course of astronomy was changed.However, some observations that were not able to stand tests of objectivity were the pratals of Mars reported by astronomer Percival Lowell. Lowell claimed to be able to see a meshing of canals in Mars that he attri neverthelessed to intelligent life in that planet. Bigger telescopes and satellite missions to Mars failed to confirm the existence of canals. This was a case where the observations could not be independently verified or reproduced, and the hypothesis about intelligent life was unjustified by the observations.To Lowells credit, he count aned the existence of the planet Pluto in 1905 based on perturbations in the orbits of Uranus and Neptune. This was a substantially example of deductive logic. The application of the theory of gravitational attraction to the known planets predicted that they should be in a different position from where they were. If the law of gravitation was not violate, indeed something else had to account for the variation. Pluto was discovered 25 years later. Limitations of the Scientific Method Science has some long-familiar limitations. Science whole caboodle by studying difficultys in isolation.This is very effective at getting good, forecast solutions. Problems outside these artificial boundaries be generally not addressed. The consistent, arrive atal schemas of symbols and mathematics used in skill cannot rise up all accounts, and furthermore, they cannot prove all TRUE statements. Kurt Godel showed this in 1931. The limitations of formal legitimate systems make it needed for scientists to discard their old systems of thought and introduce new ones occasionally. Newtons gravitational model works fairly well for everyday physical descriptions, but it is not able to account for many principal(prenominal) observations.For this motive, it has been replaced by Einsteins general theory of relativity for closely celestial phenomena. Instead of talking about gravity, we now be supposed to talk about the curvature of the four-dimensional time-space continuum. Scientific observations are in like manner subject to physical limits that may pr level(p)t us from finding the ultimate truth. The Heisenberg Uncertainty teaching states that it is unattainable to decide simultaneously the position and momentum of an elementary piece.So, if we know the location of a particle we cannot determine its velocity, and if we know its velocity we cannot determine its location. Jacob Bronowski wrote that nature is not a gigantic formalizable system because to declare it we would contrive to make some assumptions that cut some of its parts from consideration, and having done that, we cannot switch a system that embraces the whole of nature. The application of the scientific method is limited to independently observable, measurable events that can be reproduced.The scientific method is as well as applicable to random events that micturate statistical distributions. In atomic chemistry, for example, it is impossible to predict when one specific atom will decay and emit radiation, but it is possible to devise theories and formulas to predict when half of the atoms of a large sample will decay. Irreproducible results cannot be studied by the scientific method. There was one day when many car owners reported that the alarm systems of their cars were set off at about the same time without any apparent cause.Automotive engineers were not able to discover the reason because the problem could not be reproduced. They hypothesized that it could keep up been radio interference from a passing airplane, but they could not prove it one way or another. Mental conceptual experiences cannot be studied by the scientific method either. At this time there is no instrumentation that enables person to monitor what anybody else conceives in their mind, although it is possible to determine whic h part of the brain is active during any given task.It is not possible to define experiments to determine neutrally which works of art are great, or whether Picasso was better than Matisse. So-called miracles are also beyond the scientific method. A person has tumors and faces certain death, and then, the tumors start shrinking and the person becomes healthy. What brought about the forgiveness? A change in diet? A change in mental attitude? It is impossible to go back in time to monitor all variables that could pitch caused the cure, and it would be unethical to deeds new tumors into the person to try to reproduce the results for a more careful study.Critical Thinking The scientific method relies on critical thinking, which is the process of questioning common beliefs and explanations to distinguish those beliefs that are reasonable and logical from those which lack adequate leaven or rational foundation. Arguments consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement that is offered in support of a claim organism made. expound and claims can be either true or false. In deductive cables the premises brook nab support for the conclusion.If the premises provide the required degree of support for the conclusion then the argument is valid, and if all its premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. In inductive arguments the premises provide some degree of support for the conclusion. When the premises of inductive arguments are true, their conclusion is likely to be true. Arguments that bugger off one or more false premises are unsound. Fallacies Arguments are subject to a phase of fallacies. A hallucination is an error in reasoning in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support.A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument where the premises are all true but reach a false conclusion. An inductive fallacy consist of arguments where the premises do not provide enough support for t he conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises are true, the conclusion is not likely to be true. Common fallacies are categorized by their type, such as Ad Hominem (personal attack), and appeals to authority, belief, fear, laugh at, tradition, etc. An example of an Ad Hominem fallacy would be to read You do not understand this because you are American (or Chinese, etc. . The national origin of a person (the premise) has cypher to do with the conclusion that a person can understand something or not, therefore the argument is flawed. Appeals to ridicule are of the form You would be stupid to believe that the earth goes around the sun. Sometimes, a primitive or false justification may be added in appeals to ridicule, such as we can patently see the sun go around the earth every day. Appeals to authority are of the form The president of the United States said this, therefore it must be true.The fact that a renowned person, great person, or authority figure said something is n ot a valid basis for something being true. Truth is independent of who said it. Types of Evidence Evidence is something that provides proof concerning a matter in question. charter or Experimental evidence. The scientific methods relies on direct evidence, i. e. , evidence that can be directly sight and time-tested. Scientific experiments are designed to be repeated by other scientists and to demonstrate unequivocably the point that they are trying to prove by controlling all the factors that could influence the results.A scientist conducts an experiment by vary a single factor and observing the results. When appropriate, double blind experiments are conducted to avoid the possibility of bias. If it is prerequisite to determine the effectiveness of a drug, an independent scientist will prepare the drug and an inert middle (a placebo), identifying them as A and B. A back scientist selects two groups of patients with similar characteristics (age, sex, etc. ), and not versed wh ich is the real drug, administers substance A to one group of patients and substance B to the second group of patients.By not knowing whether A or B is the real drug, the second scientist focuses on the results of the experiment and can make objective evaluations. At the end of the experiment, the second scientist should be able to tell whether the group receiving substance A showed improvements over those receiving substance B. If no effect can be shown, the drug being tested is ineffective. Neither the second scientist nor the patients can cheat by favoring one substance over another, because they do not know which is the real drug. Anecdotal, Correlational, or Circumstantial Evidence. Where there is smoke, there is fire is a popular saying. When two things occur together frequently, it is possible to assume that there is a direct or causative relationship between them, but it is also possible that there are other factors. For example, if you get sick every time that you eat fish and drink milk, you could assume that you are allergic to fish. However, you may be allergic to milk, or however to the combination of fish with milk.Correlational evidence is good for developing hypotheses that can then be tested with the proper experiments, e. g. drink milk only, eat fish only, eat fish and milk together. There is zipper wrong with using representative cases to illustrate an inductive conclusion drawn from a fair sample. The problem arises when a single case or a few selected cases are used to draw a conclusion which would not be supported by a properly conducted study. Argumentative Evidence consists of evaluating facts that are known and formulating a hypothesis about what the facts imply. Argumentative evidence is notoriously unreliable because anybody can look at a hypothesis about anything.This was illustrated above with the example about the channels of Mars implying intelligent life. The statement I heard a noise in the attic, it must be a ghost also fa lls in this category. Testimonial Evidence. A famous football player appears on tele imagination and says that Drug-XYZ provides fireman from pain and works better than anything else. You know that the football player gets paid for making the commercial. How much can you trust this evidence? Not very much. Testimonials are often biased in favor of a particular point of view.In court proceedings, something actually experienced by a witness (eyewitness information) has greater weight than what someone told a witness (hearsay information). Nevertheless, experiments have repeatedly demonstrated that eyewitness accounts are extremely unreliable when compared with films of the events. The statement I dictum a ghost last night. is an example of testimonial evidence that probably cannot be verified and should not be trusted. On the other hand, the statement I saw a car crash yesterday. can be objectively verified to determine whether it is true or false by checking for debris from the a ccident, hospital records, and other physical evidence. Make full use of your senses. fashioning use of your senses is the subjective part of the Methodology. This is the stage where your special sensory skills can be put to use. If you have extraordinary hearing, use it. If you have a photographic memory make sure that it gets used for most of your problem solving. Nobody else has your specific impressions of your environment.Your point of view and your observations are unique. Part of using your senses may get using instrumentation or interaction with others. Lucky charms, divining rods, and other magical devices that do not have reproducible and verifiable functionality do not count as instrumentation. If you dont have perfect eyesight and you need to see something clearly, use your glasses. Make observations from several points of view to get good depth perception and to confirm impressions. Take photographs if you need to remember something in great detail.Use a tape recorder or a notepad to record your observations for later review. Make sure that your senses are at their best by avoiding intoxicants that affect your perceptions. Interaction with others may involve using another being (not ineluctably human) to make the observations for you. For example, a blind person may use a seeing-eye dog to get around, a truck driver may use directions from someone else when backing up into a tight spot, a hunter may use a dogs sense of smell for tracking game, or a miner may use a canary to warn him of pockets of unbreathable odorless gases.Whenever you trust someone elses perception more than your own you may find that the conclusions that you reach are unsatisfactory. How many hunters have been led astray by dogs that followed a rabbits trail rather than the foxs? And how many truck drivers have crashed while backing up because they misinterpreted their helpers signals? Reliance on your own senses is the only way to avoid such problems, but you dont always ha ve this choice. The application of logic may be necessary to determine which perceptions you can trust.Let us say that you are not under the influence of any drugs and you see an apparition of a dead person, what should you do? How do you distinguish hallucinations from real perceptions? How do you know if your senses fool you or if your observations are real? oneness time-honored test is to pinch yourself to make sure that you are not dreaming. If you should tell someone else about your experience and they dont observe the same things, does this mean that you are crazy or that something is wrong with you?Or does this prove that you have more refined perception that enables you to see things that others do not see? What would it be like to live in a world where only you have color vision and everyone else is colorblind? The difference between real perceptions and hallucinations is that you can repeat and reproduce results from real perceptions but not from hallucinations. In a worl d where you are the only person with color vision, you would eventually be able to prove to everyone else by objective means that colors, or at least different frequencies of light, do exist.