The Scientific Method

The scientific method is an

investigative technique designed to enable
the acquirement of new knowledge and/or
the mixture of existing knowledge. For
something to be believed "scientific," the
method used must display the qualities of
being observable (empirical), enabling
measurability, and involving some specific
principle of reasoning. Each element of
the scientific method should be subject to
peer review for possible mistakes. The
subject(s) of a scientific investigation
should be unsolved problems (or
unknowns). The systematic, careful
collection of observations and
measurements is the critical difference
between a pseudo-science and a science.
Scientific observations and measurements
are often taken repeatedly (iteratively),
and they are also usually tabulated,
graphed, mapped, and/or statistically
manipulated. Additionally, it is important
in scientific work to always make
estimates of one's uncertainty. This is not
just because most statistical manipulations
are based on estimates of uncertainty, but
because measurement itself demands the
use of operational definitions which may
be far less optimal than a perfect or
"idealized" definition of something. New
theories often arise from redefining certain
terms which had not been previously well-
defined. Laws are discovered via repeated
applications of the scientific method.
Peirce [(1931)1998] said generating
explanations via repeated use of the
scientific method is the essence of
inference, and the scientific method is the
best way to settle doubt and come as close
to truth as humanly possible.
Inference demonstrates itself in science at least four main ways: (1) hypothesizing; (2)
sampling, (3) designing, and (4) interpreting. These four general areas are sometimes
referred to as the "wheel" of science. Hypothesizing usually begins after one has
examined the existing knowledge base, reviewed the relevancy of theories, and understood
something of the context within which the phenomenon of interest occurs. In other words,
you begin research by identifying a problem area (picking a topic), reading the theoretical
research (especially the literature review sections), and finding a research question of
interest to you (something that has puzzled previous theorists and researchers). Research
questions are longer and broader than hypotheses.
Hypotheses are simply if-then sentences that can be categorized in certain logical
forms, such as no difference (null hypothesis), associated difference, directionality
of difference, and magnitude of difference. A good hypothesis implies all these forms
in a single sentence, and the trick is to express them as briefly as possible and in simple
English. All theories contain hypotheses, but you sometimes have to read them into the
theories. There's no need to elaborate all hypotheses capable of being generated by every
aspect of a theory, but a single theory can generate many hypotheses with its twists and
turns. In the end, all hypotheses demonstrate inference by concisely reducing extant
(existing) knowledge into manageable and meaningful form. Extant knowledge is what you
obtain from a literature review.
Sampling goes to the heart of inference because a sample is what one draws on to test
hypotheses and make generalizations. The idea of sampling is drawn from the
mathematical discipline of probability theory, and a particular subfield of that discipline
called frequentism, which combines inductive (particular to general) and deductive
(general to particular) reasoning. It's the selection of observables to make predictions
about unobservables. Sampling, at bottom, is a matter of reducing, of simplifying. Since
many phenomena in life tend to follow a normal, or almost normal, distribution (according
to the central limits theorem), known mathematical properties of the standard normal
curve provide the basis for most predictions, as these are considered estimates of the fit
between a sample (observables) and the wider population (unobservables). If the
researcher has been thinking inferentially, the method of sampling and the size of the
sample will be selected on grounds of parsimony (making do with the fewest numbers as
possible). There is no automatic need for large sample sizes, and the type of questions asked
or relationships predicted will, in part, help determine the sampling plan. If one is going
to infer causality, then random sampling, or some variant, is warranted. There are
both probabilistic (making use of advanced features of probability theory) and
nonprobabilistic (not making use of advanced features of probability theory) sampling
methods that suit different purposes. In general, the more one knows about the wider
population or context of the research problem, the easier it is to justify use of
nonprobabilistic sampling. Representativeness is what one is after with sampling, which
means that each and every person or unit in your sample is a near-average person or unit,
not some unusual case that would be called an outlier (too far out on some traits or
attributes to be near-average). Measurement is a research step related to sampling and
the estimates derived from it. It is important that the sample enable measurement of
constructs (unobservables) that are strongly linked to concepts (observables). In general,
one should attempt to obtain measures that are meaningful, and this means interval or
ratio level, especially if one is going to infer causality. Interval (meaningful distances
between points) and ratio (fixed point with meaningful distances) measurement is also
related to estimates of validity and reliabilityof one's research. Validity and reliability
refer, respectively, to whether one is measuring what one intends to measure and if one is
doing it consistently. These qualities of research, as well as the general idea of sampling,
demonstrate inference by streamlining a project into manageable and meaningful
proportions.
Design issues depend, in large part, upon the expertise and creativity of the researcher.
What one wants is a good tradeoff between a parsimonious design and one that provides
the highest level of confidence. There is no automatic need for the Cadillac of designs, the
experimental model (with experimental and control groups), when one can get by with a
less grand design. Of course, this depends upon the type of questions asked and
relationships predicted. If one is predicting causality, or even hypothesizing correlation
(that one thing moves up or down in correspondence with another thing), then the
experimental model or a close approximation to it is warranted. Designing with confidence
does not refer to the power of statistical estimates, although there is such a thing as
statistical correspondence validity which means that the intended analysis is consistent with
the design to be used. Confidence, as the term means here, simply means that the
prospective design is one the researcher feels comfortable with and is likely to be
appreciated by the rest of the scientific community. This is often referred to as the
requirement of replication. Sound designs are capable of being replicated; each and every
procedure is made explicit so that an outsider could come in, repeat the experiment exactly,
and probably get the same results. Replication demonstrates, as design issues in general do,
the quality of inference. Nothing is ever demonstrated directly and completely. Only by
what seems tedious, rigorous, and systematic does more and more tenable generalizations
become possible.
Interpreting research is perhaps the prime example of inference. Interpretation is
made on the basis of data analysis using some sort of statistic. A statistic is a mathematical
tool or formula used to test the probability of being right or wrong when we say a
hypothesis is true or false. There are about 100 common statistical tests. A test of one's
hypothesis can always reach statistical significance by increasing the sample size, and that's
just because the way cutoffs are placed in the tables of numbers called significance tables.
However, there's a difference between statistical and meaningful significance. Statistical
significance is no guarantee of meaningful, or social or psychological significance.
Generalizeability is what one is after with interpretation, which means that general
conclusions can be made on the basis of successful testing of all your hypotheses. There are
two things to be wary of: (1) knowing the limitations of one's research, and (2) knowing the
delimitations of one's research. Limitations are specific conclusions that refer to the
making of generalizations possible from what your analysis actually shows. It may be
nothing more than the discovery of a relationship. You should always know your
limitations. Delimitations are general conclusions that refer to the making of
generalizations beyond the limitations of your study. You should always be cautious of
overgeneralizing to wider populations; you may go beyond your sample, but not beyond
related populations. Be humble and modest in presenting your conclusions. One way of
demonstrating how limitations are evidence of inference is to look at the requirements of
causality: association, temporality, and nonspuriousness. These three requirements of
causality can be said to summarize causal inference. Predicted relationships should vary
concomitantly (association, as one goes up or down, the other goes up or down), one
variable should precede the other in temporal order, and spurious variables should be
reduced to a minimum. Spurious variables are things you haven't thought of that might
explain what you've found.
 In the end, there are usually more correlates than causes, and one cannot control
everything. Causality is always an inference. This particular type of relationship must be
inferred from the observed information, and then related back to known information.
Inference demonstrates itself in hypothesizing, sampling, designing, and interpreting. It is
the basis for scientific generalization, especially those having to do with the explanation of
causality. It is never the final proof, but because final proof is itself never possible,
inference is the best substitute. It enables ways to advance science, debunk mistaken
beliefs, and is always mindful of its own limitations. Certain safeguards are built into the
process which protect against unwarranted generalizations. The process of generalizing in
an explicit and scientific manner is inference.

What is the Scientific Method?

Researchers investigate problems and phenomena in science using a body of techniques

called the scientific method. Although the investigative process varies slightly by scientific
field, the general method of inquiry that researchers use is similar. There are four mains steps in
the scientific method, which can form a loop (Figure 1.1):
Figure 1.1
Scientific method loop

http://www.biorap.org/pix/photo_sungraph.gif

1. A problem or phenomena for investigation must be observed and described. A question to

examine must be developed.

2. A hypothesis to explain the phenomena must be developed using the laws of reason. This
hypothesis must be limited to the cause and effect relationship in a specific situation. This
involves developing a prediction for the outcome of the question that was posed in step 1 based
on what is currently known. If a hypothesis cannot be tested experimentally, it cannot qualify
as a scientific theory.

3. Unbiased and objective experimental tests must then be designed to examine and answer
the question and prediction that was posed using empirical, measurable evidence. Tests
should be designed to clearly verify or refute the hypothesis. Several independent researchers,
carefully noting the experimental steps, scientific evidence, and results, should conduct
experiments so that other independent researchers can replicate and verify the data. Replication
of the experiment and results gives strength to a given hypothesis and allows other scientific
inquiries to be built upon the results of the experiment.

4. Conclusions about the experimental results can now be drawn. The hypothesis and results of
the experiment can then be used to develop new questions and hypotheses (return to step 1)
about other problems to gain further knowledge, can add to the general knowledgebase about a
subject area, or can be used to generate quantitative estimates of other related research
phenomena. Conclusive results from many experiments testing a hypothesis or a group of related
hypotheses can then be used to develop scientific theories or laws.
Let’s examine a real world example to see how the scientific method may be applied (Figure
1.2). 1. First, assume that go to take a shower one morning and discover that there is only cold
water coming from the tap. Your question might be, “Why is no hot water coming from the tap?”
2. Your first hypothesis might be, “There is no hot water because the direct light on the hot
water heater has blown out.”
3. You would then go and make an observation (i.e. collect data) to see whether the pilot light
was actually blown out.
4. If you discover that the light is out, you might light it to see if that fixes the hot water problem.
If lighting the pilot light solves your hot water problem then you have answered your question
and supported your hypothesis that the pilot light was responsible for the lack of hot water.
However, if you discover that the pilot light is already on, you would develop another
hypothesis, such as, “The thermostat on the hot water heater is broken.” Then you might replace
the thermostat to see if that fixes the problem, and so on.