Resultado de búsqueda
10 de mar. de 2014 · What is the scientific method? The scientific method provides an organized way to think about and solve problems based on data. Most scientists describe it as the following steps: 1. State the problem. State the problem that you will study as clearly and concisely as possible. 2. Form the hypothesis.
- 197KB
- 2
15 de abr. de 2022 · The scientific method is the general procedure of science applied in the knowledge acquisition process, regardless of the topi c under. study. However, each class of knowled ge problems requires ...
- The real process of science
- The process of science is not predetermined.
- A blueprint for scientific investigations
- Understanding Science 101: How science works: A blueprint for scientific investigations
- Exploration and discovery
- Exploration and discovery
- THE SCIENTIFIC STATE OF MIND
- Observation beyond our eyes
- Testing scientific ideas
- Testing in the tropics
- The logic of scientific arguments
- Tactics for testing ideas
- What are experiments?
- Beyond experiments: Observational studies and natural experiments
- In such cases, we can still figure out what expectations a hypothesis generates and make observations to test the idea. For example, we can’t actually experiment on distant stars in order to test ideas about which nuclear reactions occur
- Tactics for testing ideas
- Digging into data
- Reviewing test results
- Reviewing test results
- Competing ideas: A perfect fit for the evidence
- It’s no wonder, then, that the evaluation of scientific ideas is iterative and depends upon interactions within the
- Competing ideas: A perfect fit for the evidence
- Competing ideas: Other considerations
- THE PRINCIPLE OF PARSIMONY
- Making assumptions
- Analysis within the scientific community
- Publish or perish?
- What’s in a scientific journal article?
- Scrutinizing science: Peer review
- PEER REVIEW: NOT JUST SCIENCE
- Copycats in science: The role of replication
- Benefits of science
- • Potential applications may motivate scientific investigations.
- The process of science and you
- Science at multiple levels
- Hypotheses
- Theories
- Over-arching theories
- “JUST” A THEORY?
- A MODEL EXPLANATION
- Even theories change
- Even theories change
- SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY: TRUE OR FALSE?
- Summing up the process
The process of science, as represented here, is the opposite of “cookbook.” In contrast to the linear steps of the simplified scientific method, this process is non-linear:
Any point in the process leads to many possible next steps, and where that next step leads could be a surprise. For example, instead of leading to a conclusion about tectonic movement, testing an idea about plate tectonics could lead to an observation of an unexpected rock layer. And that rock layer could trigger an interest in marine extinctions, ...
scafold for scientific investigations The process of science involves many layers of complexity, but the key points of that process are straightforward: There are many routes into the process, including serendipity (e.g., being hit on the head by the proverbial apple), concern over a practical problem (e.g., finding a new treatment for diabetes), a...
temperature measurements taken by satellite, instead of from the Earth’s surface, seemed to indicate that the Earth was cooling, not warming. However, other researchers soon pointed out that those measurements didn’t correct for the fact that satellites slowly lose altitude as they orbit. Once these corrections were made, the satellite measurements...
The early stages of a scientific investigation often rely on making observations, asking questions, and initial experimentation — essentially poking around. But the routes to and from these stages are diverse. Intriguing observations sometimes arise in surprising ways, as in the discovery of radioactivity, which was inspired by the observation that...
a particular topic is critical to the process. This background knowledge allows scientists to recognize revealing observations for what they are, to make connections between ideas and observations, and to figure out which questions can be fruitfully tackled with available tools. The importance of content knowledge to the process of science helps ex...
Some scientific discoveries are chalked up to the serendipity of being in the right place at the right time to make a key observation — but rarely does serendipity alone lead to a new discovery. The people who turn lucky breaks into breakthroughs are generally those with the background knowledge and scientific ways of thinking needed to make sense ...
We typically think of observations as having been seen “with our own eyes.” But in science, observations can take many forms. Of course, we can make observations directly by seeing, feeling, hearing, and smelling, but we can also extend and refine our basic senses with tools: thermometers, microscopes, telescopes, radar, radiation sensors, X-ray cr...
Testing hypotheses and theories is at the core of the process of science. Any aspect of the natural world could be explained in many di erent ways. It is the job of science to collect all those plausible explanations and to use scientific testing to filter through them, retaining ideas that are supported by the evidence and discarding the others. Y...
Let’s take a look at another, very diferent, example of scientific testing: investigating the origins of coral atolls in the tropics. Consider the atoll Eniwetok (Anewetak) in the Marshall Islands — an oceanic ring of exposed coral surrounding a central lagoon. From the 1800s up until today, scientists have been trying to learn what supports atoll ...
Taken together, the expectations generated by a scientific idea and the actual observations relevant to those expectations form what we’ll call a scientific argument. This is a bit like an argument in a court case — a logical description of what we think and why we think it. A scientific argument uses evidence to make a case for whether a scientifi...
Experiments are one way to test some sorts of ideas, but science doesn’t live on experiment alone. There are many other ways to scientifically test ideas too...
An experiment is a test that involves manipulating some factor in a system in order to see how that afects the outcome. Ideally, experiments also involve controlling as many other factors as possible in order to isolate the cause of the experimental results. Experiments can be simple tests set up in a lab, like rolling a ball down diferent inclines...
Some aspects of the natural world aren’t manipulable, and hence can’t be studied with direct experiments. We simply can’t go back in time and introduce finches to three separate island groups to see how they evolve. We can’t move the planets around to see how their orbits would be altered by a new configuration. And we can’t cause volcanoes to erup...
Though we can’t experimentally manipulate phenomena like volcanoes or set up a taste test for Tyrannosaurus rex, we can make observations to test our hypotheses about these topics. Left, a geologist takes a lava sample from the Kilauea volcano in Hawaii. Right, a T. rex tooth fossil, which provides clues about their diet. Photo credits: Wikimedia a...
within them, but we can test those ideas by building sensors that allow us to observe what forms of radiation the stars emit. Similarly, we can’t perform experiments to test ideas about what T. rex ate, but we can test those ideas by making detailed observations of their fossilized teeth and comparing those to the teeth of modern organisms that eat...
Evaluating an idea in light of the evidence should be simple, right? Either the results match the expectations generated by the idea (thus supporting it) or they don’t (thus refuting it). Sometimes the process is relatively simple (e.g., drilling into a coral atoll either reveals a thick layer of coral or a thin veneer), but often it is not. The re...
Scientists typically weigh multiple competing ideas about how something works and try to figure out which of those is most accurate based on the evidence. Evidence may lend support to one hypothesis over others. For example, drilling into coral atolls and discovering a layer of coral thousands of feet thick clearly lent support to the idea that cor...
Photo credit: Wikimedia. • Evidence may be inconclusive, failing to support any particular explanation over another. For example, many biologists and chemists have investigated the origins of life trying to figure out in what environment this occurred. So far, the evidence has not been conclusive, leaving the open question of whether life started i...
We’ve seen that evaluating an idea in science is not always a matter of one key experiment and a definitive result. Scientists often consider multiple ideas at once and test those ideas in many diferent ways. This process generates multiple lines of evidence relevant to each idea. For example, two competing ideas about coral atoll formation (island...
Photo credit: Atoll satellite image by NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center; coral core sample photo by Jef Anderson, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary; Rudolph Marcus image provided by the California Institute of Technology scientific community. Ideas that are accepted by that community are the best explanations we have so far for how the natural...
• Scientists are more likely to trust ideas that explain observations no other idea explains. For an example, see Rudolph Marcus’s story below... JUMPING ELECTRONS! As chemical reactions go, electron transfers might seem to be minor players: an electron jumps between molecules without even breaking a chemical bond. Nevertheless, such reactions are ...
In evaluating scientific ideas, evidence is the main arbiter; however, sometimes the available evidence supports several diferent hypotheses or theories equally well. In those cases, science often applies other criteria to evaluate the explanations. These are more like rules of thumb than firm standards. All else being equal, though, scientists are...
The principle of parsimony suggests that when two explanations fit the observations equally well, a simpler explanation should be preferred over a more convoluted and complex explanation. For a hypothetical illustration, imagine that we have only a few lines of evidence in a case of cookie jar pilfering: a broken and empty cookie jar, a crumb trail...
Much as we might like to avoid it, all scientific tests involve making assumptions — many of them justified. For example, imagine a very simple test of the hypothesis that substance A stops bacterial growth. Some Petri dishes are spread with a mixture of substance A and bacterial growth medium, and others are spread with a mixture of inert substanc...
The stereotype of a scientist (a recluse who speaks in a jumble of technical jargon) doesn’t exactly paint a picture of someone whose work depends on communication and community. But in fact, interactions within the scientific community are essential components of the process of science. Scientists don’t work in isolation. Though they sometimes wor...
In this section, we’ve seen that the real process of science is not much like The Scientific Method often portrayed in textbooks. As opposed to the simple recipe of the linear scientific method, the real process of science is exciting, iterative, nonlinear, nuanced, depends upon the scientific community, and is intertwined with the society at large...
In this section, we’ve seen that the real process of science is not much like The Scientific Method often portrayed in textbooks. As opposed to the simple recipe of the linear scientific method, the real process of science is exciting, iterative, nonlinear, nuanced, depends upon the scientific community, and is intertwined with the society at large...
In this section, we’ve seen that the real process of science is not much like The Scientific Method often portrayed in textbooks. As opposed to the simple recipe of the linear scientific method, the real process of science is exciting, iterative, nonlinear, nuanced, depends upon the scientific community, and is intertwined with the society at large...
In this section, we’ve seen that the real process of science is not much like The Scientific Method often portrayed in textbooks. As opposed to the simple recipe of the linear scientific method, the real process of science is exciting, iterative, nonlinear, nuanced, depends upon the scientific community, and is intertwined with the society at large...
In this section, we’ve seen that the real process of science is not much like The Scientific Method often portrayed in textbooks. As opposed to the simple recipe of the linear scientific method, the real process of science is exciting, iterative, nonlinear, nuanced, depends upon the scientific community, and is intertwined with the society at large...
In this section, we’ve seen that the real process of science is not much like The Scientific Method often portrayed in textbooks. As opposed to the simple recipe of the linear scientific method, the real process of science is exciting, iterative, nonlinear, nuanced, depends upon the scientific community, and is intertwined with the society at large...
In this section, we’ve seen that the real process of science is not much like The Scientific Method often portrayed in textbooks. As opposed to the simple recipe of the linear scientific method, the real process of science is exciting, iterative, nonlinear, nuanced, depends upon the scientific community, and is intertwined with the society at large...
In this section, we’ve seen that the real process of science is not much like The Scientific Method often portrayed in textbooks. As opposed to the simple recipe of the linear scientific method, the real process of science is exciting, iterative, nonlinear, nuanced, depends upon the scientific community, and is intertwined with the society at large...
In this section, we’ve seen that the real process of science is not much like The Scientific Method often portrayed in textbooks. As opposed to the simple recipe of the linear scientific method, the real process of science is exciting, iterative, nonlinear, nuanced, depends upon the scientific community, and is intertwined with the society at large...
In this section, we’ve seen that the real process of science is not much like The Scientific Method often portrayed in textbooks. As opposed to the simple recipe of the linear scientific method, the real process of science is exciting, iterative, nonlinear, nuanced, depends upon the scientific community, and is intertwined with the society at large...
In this section, we’ve seen that the real process of science is not much like The Scientific Method often portrayed in textbooks. As opposed to the simple recipe of the linear scientific method, the real process of science is exciting, iterative, nonlinear, nuanced, depends upon the scientific community, and is intertwined with the society at large...
In this section, we’ve seen that the real process of science is not much like The Scientific Method often portrayed in textbooks. As opposed to the simple recipe of the linear scientific method, the real process of science is exciting, iterative, nonlinear, nuanced, depends upon the scientific community, and is intertwined with the society at large...
In this section, we’ve seen that the real process of science is not much like The Scientific Method often portrayed in textbooks. As opposed to the simple recipe of the linear scientific method, the real process of science is exciting, iterative, nonlinear, nuanced, depends upon the scientific community, and is intertwined with the society at large...
In this section, we’ve seen that the real process of science is not much like The Scientific Method often portrayed in textbooks. As opposed to the simple recipe of the linear scientific method, the real process of science is exciting, iterative, nonlinear, nuanced, depends upon the scientific community, and is intertwined with the society at large...
In this section, we’ve seen that the real process of science is not much like The Scientific Method often portrayed in textbooks. As opposed to the simple recipe of the linear scientific method, the real process of science is exciting, iterative, nonlinear, nuanced, depends upon the scientific community, and is intertwined with the society at large...
In this section, we’ve seen that the real process of science is not much like The Scientific Method often portrayed in textbooks. As opposed to the simple recipe of the linear scientific method, the real process of science is exciting, iterative, nonlinear, nuanced, depends upon the scientific community, and is intertwined with the society at large...
In this section, we’ve seen that the real process of science is not much like The Scientific Method often portrayed in textbooks. As opposed to the simple recipe of the linear scientific method, the real process of science is exciting, iterative, nonlinear, nuanced, depends upon the scientific community, and is intertwined with the society at large...
In this section, we’ve seen that the real process of science is not much like The Scientific Method often portrayed in textbooks. As opposed to the simple recipe of the linear scientific method, the real process of science is exciting, iterative, nonlinear, nuanced, depends upon the scientific community, and is intertwined with the society at large...
- 1MB
- 39
13 de nov. de 2015 · The study of scientific method is the attempt to discern the activities by which that success is achieved. Among the activities often identified as characteristic of science are systematic observation and experimentation, inductive and deductive reasoning, and the formation and testing of hypotheses and theories.
Scientific Thinking is More Than “the Scientific Method” Students in many science classrooms are presented with the scientific method as the fundamental plan scientists use to gain their understandings. Scientists throughout history have come to their conclusions in a variety of ways, not always following such a specific method.
Method in Practice by Hugh G. Gauch, Jr., the predecessor to ScientiÞc Method in Brief. Here at last was a comprehensive and up-to-date treatise on the funda-mentals of science philosophy and method between the covers of one book and written from the pragmatic perspective of a credible science practitioner with whom researchers could identify.
Key Info. The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments. The steps of the scientific method are to: Ask a Question. Do Background Research. Construct a Hypothesis. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment . Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion . Communicate Your Results.
