Introduction
On the surface, those of generations and the most notable differences between our lives are differences which have come about in the natural sciences as a consequence of explorations, investigations, discoveries and creations. If we examine what is available for the past generations and our methods of transport or communicating, there is no other conclusion than the fact that it is all possible through knowledge of natural sciences. If we need to look for who to credit for this knowledge, it is all individuals and organizations in the history of science. For the sake of all reasons, and unmentioned advantages science has been welcomed by us. Meanwhile, science is feared because, on the other side, expertise on field is responsible for the harm on nature and humanity in the worst ways possible.
With no scientific concept of method and, generally speaking, of what’s possible and what is not, the situation we are in would differ. It might appear simple-minded, or pretentious, to presume a single process is for every single type of science. There might be some indicating that utilizing the definite method is improper. In order to remove these objections, there ought to be adequate material in the matter in hand. Is a theory in concern scientific or not? In order to even begin to answer this particular query, a clear understanding of what it requires to become scientific is obligatory. There ought to be phenomenon shared with all of the sciences that makes them scientific, but also there might be phenomenons which are lacking from what we can call “unscientific”. Considering the sciences, biology, geology, mathematics, and geometry study things which are distinct. What is typical to the sciences would be that the criteria that they use to gauge also the arrangement of the way that they research, and results which are presented. This is what we call scientific method. From now on, we will assume that there is a common procedure for all of the sciences, which is the method which produces them scientific.
Our aim is to describe these criteria and provide a precise description of the scientific process. We’ll reply to inquiries to put it otherwise: What is the scientific method? How it was developed? How it is used?
What is Science?
We live in a world that news of discoveries spread every single day. You just cannot pass a day without hearing an advancement in science. It can be related to anything. Scientists provide information on subjects every single day, whether it really concerns the average person or not. You can see that we’ve learned “Why do crocodiles immigrate?” or “A complex DNA structure was discovered to be doing something”. We can also find out about discussions between scientists, where some of them disclaim the findings of another. Despite all the involvement in everyday living, it would be really hard for someone to define science in simple words. What would you say: “Doing things in a laboratory?”, “Making technological advancements?”, “Wearing fancy goggles and looking into microscopes?” It is both none and all of them. Before digging into the scientific method, let’s get into the same page in terms of the definition of “science”.
Let’s draw the line first and decide from which perspective we will be approaching science. Can we dig out a definition by scanning what scientists do? It will be quite hard so. There are scientists who dig out dinosaur bones while there is a scientist whose job consists of mainly reading historical documents. Even scientists performing in the same field do completely different activities from each other. There are biologists who examine habitat at Africa, while some of them examine the DNAs under high technology microscopes. This means one cannot define science, based on what scientists do. We require a wider perspective that defines science based on philosophy, based on why and how “science” is performed.
Every scientist would have his/her own motivation for doing science. However, the motivation of “humanity” will be our concern here. While it is a cliché to say that mankind always had a curiosity about its surroundings and tried to find reasons for occurrences. This information can lead us to the most basic definition of science. Science is the activities performed, in order to understand the reason behind the things happening in nature. Right here it should be mentioned that “science” originates from the Latin word “Scientia”, which is defined as “the knowledge-based on demonstrable and reproducible data. It should be noted that we are adding a new criterion to our science definition. It should be demonstrable, not necessarily provable, and reproducible by others. Starting from this definition, it can be added that science requires to be based on nature, the physical existences and excludes anything happening on fictionary earth, subjective to every single person being.
Not that we have a clear definition of science, we can proceed to the method of doing science. A scientific method is a well-proven tool for making sure the information generated is “scientific knowledge”. These are not strict rules, but instead, a clear guide to producing science.
When does ordinary data turn into scientific data? How do ordinary thoughts become scientific truth? Where should you start? Obviously, you should have a method! Not an ordinary method, it should be the “scientific method” that you’ve used to generate data. The scientific method is not complex to understand. It can almost be deducted from common sense, however, it required the centuries to establish the scientific method and the commons sense is just based on unconscious knowledge of the scientific method.
The simplest way of explaining the scientific method is, it consists of three steps. First, an observation has to be made, from nature. Then, if the observation is something that has not been explained before, by further observations, an explanation has to be proposed for the event. As the final step, the explanation has to be tested extensively via experimentations.
Making observations seem quite easy at first. However, there are so many things going on around us and most have more than explanation. Let’s consider the leaf that just flew by. If we follow the lifecycle of that leaf, it first grew from nothing on a tree. Through time, it grew, go yellow, and finally, it dried so much that it left the source feeding it, to die. After it fell to the ground, somehow it started flying to get past you! This whole sequence sounds so familiar, however before we had all the scientific tools we have today, explaining all these behaviour was extremely hard. How did the leaf grow from nothing anyways? How did it continued growing with even changing shape? How and why did it die? How did it learn flying after it fell on the ground? Wait for it, was it alive before? Are trees living creatures?
This is a very simple example of observation and the questions come to mind after the observation. In the scientific method, before going on to the next step, observation must be strengthened by new observations. When does the leaf growth and when does it die? Does it fly off ground by itself or is there an external force acting on it to make it fly? What colour are all dead leaves? Once there are enough observations made, one can proceed with the next step of the method. Proposing an explanation of what is going on!
In general, the practice of making a set of observations requires several circumstances.
- Can we now have a clear sense of what the phenomena that are relevant are?
- Have we discovered a way to assure we have not overlooked anything?
- What exactly do we know for sure? What is based on fact and what on assumption or conjecture?
- Do we know any comparative information that was necessary?
- Have our observations become polluted by expectation or belief?
You probably noticed that the full moon often appears appreciably bigger than it’s near the horizon? Since you read this you are already imagining a sizable moon in the eye of your mind. You probably also heard some weird connections to this event. Actually, the moon is not larger when near the horizon. This can be proved by a set of observations. Measure and note the size next time the moon looks larger than usual. Also, make the measurement any time of day. You’ll notice the sizes are same. As this example illustrates, it does no harm to stop for a moment and think. Do not let unwarranted assumption. Always ask: what are you currently assuming based on what I have heard, read, etc. or have been told and What can I actually know about the phenomenon? The response to this question may point you in the path of observations you will need to create to check. Complete moon makes Many people claim that strange things happen. Argue is that babies are born on days once the moon is full or nearly full than any other time of the month. What observations do we need to create to ascertain whether there is anything to this claim? Of course, we would want to look at the data relevant to the number of births when the moon is complete. However, this is just part of this narrative. Once the moon is not full, we would also need to appear at the amounts for times, times. Then there is remarkable about the claim in issue when the moon is complete if the birth rate is not appreciably higher. When the moon is full plenty of births occurs. Obviously,lots of births occur during all phases of the moon, to be honest. Indeed studies reveal there isn’t anything unusual about the arrival rate once the moon is full. When arrival rates were examined over the span of a couple of years, it turned out there weren’t any less or more births throughout the period near a complete moon than during any other period.
Before proposing an explanation, one should have to make sure all the observations were made, related to the occurrence of the event. Missing some possible effect on the event will definitely, not maybe, lead to wrong conclusions and progress towards time wasted for nothing. The first question should be “Why?” before “How?” Let’s get back to our leaf that died. Why did that leaf die? Was it some animal or human being that caused it? Have you witnessed it? How many leaves did you observe dying? Obviously, in this case, numerous and lengthy observations are required in order to propose an explanation. Otherwise, you could even say, “That leaf died when I was looking at it, my glance is the reason behind its death!” Once you have observed the event numerous times, a proposal can be made, “Leaves die and drop at a certain time of the year, as their lifecycle ends”.
Two phrases connected with explanations in science are all “theory” and “hypothesis”. There are a number of differences between these two types of explanations although theories and hypotheses are explanatory in nature. ‘Hypothesis’ can be used to refer to anything from a vague hunch into an in-depth supposition. However, the purpose of characterizing a claim for a hypothesis is to bear in mind that it is unproven and something unsettled about the claim. I. ‘Theory’ doesn’t necessarily involve the unsettlement hypotheses known for. A theory can be a well-known, widely studied, almost-facts, like from the big bang theory, the theory of development, as well as the germ theory of illness. As concepts are subject to query, tons of the things known in mathematics, to make things worse. A hypothesis typically provides an explanation. Theories are far more general constructions able to describe a collection of events. In addition, theories will comprise established principles and rules that show underlying explanatory similarities between phenomena that are varied. Newton’s theory of motion, for example, can describe the behaviour of just about anything to planets and the stars in the tiniest of particles. As you can see, ‘theory’ and’hypothesis’ have been utilized to cover a good deal of earth, and there’s no simple and easy line of demarcation between them both. If we understand something, there’s absolutely no sense in attempting to offer it.
Now comes the hardest part of all. How can you prove your explanation is correct? Well, you should not. What you have to prove is your explanation “stays” correct with the experimentations made. Since you have the event and the reason now, an experimental setup has to be set such that, will try the explanation numerous times, over and over again. There is no certain number of experimentation to be performed, however, scientists use statistics for this purpose.
In everyday speech, experimentation can be interpreted as testing of a thought. Within this novel, we use these definitions. Inside the context of the definition, we assess whether an idea for a response is legitimate. In scientific tasks, experimentation is generally performed to check out a hypothesis concerning how one variable (the dependent variable) changes with respect to some other variable (the independent variable). Care should be taken that the variable is the element that changes, in doing the experimentation. In this manner, the experiment is believed to be controlled. To obtain any scientific virtue, the experiment has to be reproducible, i.e., the experiment can be replicated by someone else working independently. It must be said that in evaluation, or problem-solving, the hypothesis does not have to come before experimentation. Because the experiment may have to be performed it may come and monitoring is done before a hypothesis can be drawn.
