Yahoo Web Search

  1. About 3,060,000 search results
  1. The scientific method is the process by which science is carried out. As in other areas of inquiry, science (through the scientific method) can build on previous knowledge and develop a more sophisticated understanding of its topics of study over time. This model can be seen to underlie the scientific revolution.

  2. The history of scientific method considers changes in the methodology of scientific inquiry, as distinct from the history of science itself. The development of rules for scientific reasoning has not been straightforward; scientific method has been the subject of intense and recurring debate throughout the history of science, and eminent natural philosophers and scientists have argued for the ...

  3. Outline of scientific method. The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to the scientific method: Scientific method – body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on observable, empirical, reproducible ...

    • Criterion
    • Stages
    • Example: Dissolving Sugar in Water
    • Replication Crisis
    • Historical Aspects
    • Related Pages
    • Other Websites

    What distinguishes a scientific method of inquiry is a question known as 'the criterion'. It is an answer to the question: is there a way to tell whether a concept or theory is science, as opposed to some other kind of knowledge or belief? There have been many ideas as to how it should be expressed. Logical positivists thought a theory was scientific if it could be verified; but Karl Popper thought this was a mistake. He thought a theory was not scientific unless there was some way it might be refuted.On the other hand, Paul Feyerabend thought there was no criterion. For him, "anything goes", or whatever works, works. Scientists try to let reality speak for itself. They support a theory when its predictions are confirmed, and challenge it when its predictions prove false. Scientific researchers offer hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimentsto test these hypotheses. Since big theories cannot be tested directly, it is done by testing predictions derived from the...

    Science and things that are not science (such as pseudoscience) are often distinguished by whether they use the scientific method. One of the first people to create an outline of the steps in the scientific method was John Stuart Mill. There is no one scientific method. Some fields of science are based on mathematical models, such as physics and climate science. Other fields, such as many fields of social science, have rough theories and rely more on patterns that emerge from their data. Sometimes scientists focus on testing and confirming hypotheses, but open-ended exploration is also important. Some scientific fields use laboratory experiments. Others collect observations from real-world situations. Many areas of science are quantitative, emphasizing numerical data and mathematical analysis. But some areas, especially in social science, use qualitative methods, such as interviews or detailed observations of human or animal behavior. Focusing too much one kind of method can lead us...

    Let's say we are going to find out the effect of temperature on the way sugar dissolves in a glass of water. Below is one way to do this, following the scientific method step by step.

    The replication crisis (or replicability crisis) refers to a crisis in science. Very often the result of a scientific experiment is difficult or impossible to replicate later, either by independent researchers or by the original researchers themselves.While the crisis has long-standing roots, the phrase was coined in the early 2010s as part of a growing awareness of the problem. Since the reproducibility of experiments is an essential part of the scientific method, the inability to replicate studies has potentially grave consequences. The replication crisis has been particularly widely discussed in the field of psychology (and in particular, social psychology) and in medicine, where a number of efforts have been made to re-investigate classic results, and to attempt to determine both the validity of the results, and, if invalid, the reasons for the failure of replication. Recent discussions have made this problem better known.

    Elements of scientific method were worked out by some early students of nature. 1. "We consider it a good principle to explain the phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible." Ptolemy (85–165 AD). This is an early example of what we call Occam's razor. 2. Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) (965–1039), Robert Grosseteste (1175–1253) and Roger Bacon(1214–1294), all made some progress in developing scientific method. 3. Scientists in the 17th century started agreeing that the experimental method is the main way to find the truth. This was done in western Europe by men like Galileo, Kepler, Hooke, Boyle, Halley and Newton. At the same time, the microscope and the telescope were invented (in Holland), and the Royal Societywas formed. Instruments, societies, and publishing all helped science greatly.

  4. People also ask

    What are the 7 steps of scientific method in order?

    What are the five stages of the scientific method?

    What is the second step in the scientific method?

    What are the basics of the scientific method?

    • The Scientific Method
    • Importance of This Article
    • Scientific Method in Religious Practice
    • Postdictions
    • Clarification Needed
    • Mass and Weight
    • Never
    • Messenger Particles / Exchange Particles
    • Science manages...
    • Covariant Laws

    Here's a major problem. I don't see a clear solution. Many scientists object to the the numbered steps, they object to the very concept The Scientific Method,and they fight to get it removed from grade-school textbooks. Examples: 1. D. Simanek, physicist 2. J. Denker, physicist 3. P. Bridgman, physicist 4. R. Feynman, physicist 5. W. McComas 6. H. Baur, chemist In the main entry I find the phrase: "These activities do not describe all that scientists do but apply mostly to experimental sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry)." But the entry is about Science, not about experimental science. If scientists state that the description of Science is controversial, that a numbered list called "THE Scientific Method" doesn't exist, and that the list is an invention of grade-school textbook authors... then why does it appear in Wikipedia? If "THE scientific method" is only a description of experimental science, why pretend that it applies to science itself? Or put another way: if "what is scienc...

    I hope I'm not speaking out of turn if I say that this article is absolutely crucial to a number of pages in Wikipedia. It needs to be snappy, understandable, and reliable - in sympathy with Carl Sagan I believe that making this page accessible to the general public will allow a greater understanding of what science is and what scientists do. Please remember the NPOV Tutorial if you're new to Wikipedia (like me)... and keep up the good work everybody. Nof2005:27, 29 Jan 05 (UTC) 1. Agree entirely, but the history of the article (see archives refereced above) suggest that the topic is one on which are so firly and urgently held that this outcome is unlikely. Given that WP is committed to the policy of wide and unrestricted access, each of those will have an effect on articles. Since this one is, as you suggest intellectually central to anything such as WP, I fear we are stuck with the current situation, however unsatisfacto...

    Scientific Method in Religious Practice Many years ago Yogananda sayd: "My Yoga is Science". Yoga — Sanskrit equivalent of the Latin word “relig-ion”, which means “link with God”, “methods of ad-vancement to Him”, “Mergence” of a person with God. One may speak of yoga: a) as of the Path and the methods of religious advancement and b) as of the state of Union with God (in the latter case the first letter of this word is capitalized). This method can be developed as science.Religion and science have contradictions only in human mind.I have restored this link in article. see also: http://www.swami-center.org 1. Skywalker, I was going to move your link that you just restored to the scientific method article when I saw that you have already done so on this talk page. It is good that you are explaining more of the rationale for the link. Please discuss the link and its logic on this talk page first. Note that you can sign your name with ~~~~ , and it would be good to log-in when you work...

    Predictions do not refer exclusively to future experiments, but are often "postdictions" or explanations of surprising results from earlier experiments. For example, one of the first successes of General Relativity was its explanation of the precession of Mercury, an anomaly that had been known for over fifty years. 1. According to the logic of the article, a Postdiction is actually part of the Characterization stage. During the Characterization stage, Einstein is using the precession of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury as confirming evidence of the theory, not a prediction at the date of publication 1915. The essential part of a prediction is that the result is not known. It takes honesty on the part of the researcher to distinguish what is known from what is not known, thus the precession of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury is Not A Prediction. Based on this position, I recommend reversion of the latest addition. Now 1. if the "prediction" is actually something that is...

    Teachers using inquiry as a teaching method sometimes teach a slightly modified version of the scientific method in which "Question" is substituted for Observation. It's not clear what this sentence is trying to say, since neither "Question" nor "Observation" are in the preceding description of the scientific method. 1. Agreed. Removed it. -Vsmith22:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2. Actually, "Question" and "Observation" are part of the Scientific method#Characterization (first) step, in which a questioning, inquiring mind is engaged in a subject. The Teachers using inquiry ... sentence touches on an educational process which attempts to instill this critical facility into students who might not necessarily have enough mental background to be active questioners (inquirers). When these steps are integrated into a whole, then this may add to the students' mental equipment. Before jumping to the conclusion that observation is not part of the first step, try reading the rest of the article. Thus...

    Keep going, Ancheta Wis—you are moving in the right direction. You started from the implication of ignorance or blatant disregard of some God-given truth in 1. mass and weightare quite distinct concepts, but the distinction is often ignored in everyday life. Then, after deleting my clarification, you went from the fat to the fire in claiming 1. But the distinction is moot in in many applications in our everyday life. For those who live only on the surface of the earth and are not in orbit around it, there may not be an obvious distinction (except perhaps for those who study gravitation and like fields in physics). I guess you meant to make it not sound so deliberate, more like you were offering an excuse that there is really no reason for us to care about this supposed "difference." Of course, you had to throw in a little jab, pointing out the moral superiority of students in particular fields of activity, who are naturally so much smarter than the average Joe. At that point, I was...

    Categorical statements that use the words always or never are welcome additions to our knowledge, but should be used with care. A test or an experiment is a comparison of an expectation with an observation. Thus it is possible to have an astronomical experiment. All that is required is that something be unknown first. When we think we know enough to be able to predict something, that is an expectation. If we then make an observation for that something, that combination of expectation and observation qualifies as an experiment. The list of unsolved problems in the sciences is long; It often takes researchers considerable time to characterize some aspect of their chosen problem. Here is an example, from astronomy, our first science: the cause of the rotation rate of some galaxies is currently unknown, with the best guess being a putative concept, dark matter. But if dark matter can then explain the rotation rate of the galaxies, then a brave-enough researcher can make a prediction. An...

    The newest addition under reevaluation has a nice link to the Exchange particles of Gravitation x The Standard Model. If it is alright with everyone, I propose moving the link to the Standard Model and appending it there, with an attendant link to that article on this page. Is that alright? That means the hypothesized Graviton and the well-founded Photon, Gluon, and the W's and Z will sit together as they are thought to sit. My reason is that this item under Reevaluation is simply an iteration and recursion of the Scientific Method, where the hypothetical items are the relationship of the Graviton, Photon, W's and Z, and the Gluons. It's physics, alright, but it belongs on a physics page rather than the General Interest page for the Scientific Method, what with the Gluons and Gravitons and all. The link is actually a nice summary of the Standard Model + Gravitation. Ancheta Wis00:38, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1. Makes sense to me. Go for it.SMesser17:32, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) 2. Link transferre...

    By attempting to summarise too much, the intro now says nothing intelligible.Banno From the first para: "Science manages new assertions about our world with theories — hypotheses and observations". Science manages? What does that mean? Banno The assertion "if a prediction fails the theory fails" is simply wrong. Banno "Any theory which is strong enough to make verifiable predictions can then be tested scientifically in this way." So if a theory makes predictions that are not verified, it is not a scientific theory? Come again? Did the author mean potently verifiable? if so, what about falsifiability? Banno "With them scientists determine which theories, hypotheses and observations are true." Do you really want to assert that science is determinate? Then you had better re-write the section reevaluation. Also implicit in this sentence is the idea that only scientific facts are true, which is cobblers. Banno11:27, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

    Acrotatus, the article on scientific method is not an article about the content of the laws of science. It is commentary about the methods of science; how some logical predicate relates to some other logical predicate. Multiple contributors have added content to the initial paragraphs of this article, which are taken, expanded into articles of their own, and which live in peace there. I personally like your comments about a certain characteristic of the laws of mechanics, which were first observed by Galileo. The current mathematical statements in the articles about invariants under transformation would be improved for general consumption if you were to put your statements there. I have to state, that the invariants have a long history dating back to at least the Ancient Greeks, and that physicists are attached to them. However, the mathematicians, who have a claim to the invariants themselves, are finding that some pet ideas, such as conservation of energy, do not necessarily hold...

  5. en.wikipedia.org › wiki › MethodMethod - Wikipedia

    Method (Ancient Greek: μέθοδος, methodos) literally means a pursuit of knowledge, investigation, mode of prosecuting such inquiry, or system. In recent centuries it more often means a prescribed process for completing a task. It may refer to: Scientific method, a series of steps, or collection of methods, taken to acquire knowledge

  1. People also search for