SCIENTIFIC METHODS

Soemarno 2014

Scientific method

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge,

as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge.

It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of

reasoning, the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of

hypotheses.

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other

methodologies of knowledge.

Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these

hypotheses for accuracy.

These steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results.

Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure.

This in turn may assist in the formation of new hypotheses, as well as in placing groups of hypotheses into a broader context of

understanding.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to

reduce a biased interpretation of the results.

Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so it is available for

careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by

attempting to reproduce them.

This practice, called "full disclosure", also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be

established.

Elements of scientific method

There are multiple ways of outlining the basic method shared by all of the fields of scientific inquiry.

The following examples are typical classifications of the most important components of the method on

which there is very wide agreement in the scientific community and among philosophers of science, each of which are subject only to marginal disagreements

about a few very specific aspects.

The scientific method involves the following basic facets:

Observation. A constant feature of scientific inquiry, observation includes both unconditioned observations (prior to any theory) as well as the observation of the experiment and its results.

Description. Information derived from experiments must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable), as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).

Prediction. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.

Control. Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.

Identification of causes. Identification of the causes of a particular phenomenon to the best achievable extent. For cause-and-effect relationship to be established, the following must be established:

Time-order relationship. The hypothesized causes must precede the observed effects in time.

Covariation of events. The hypothesized causes must correlate with observed effects. However, correlations between events or variables are not necessarily indicative of causation.

Elimination of plausible alternatives.

This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them.: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof.

Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative.

As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.

Another simplified model sometimes utilized to summarize scientific method is the "operational":

The essential elements of a scientific method are operations, observations, models, and a utility function for evaluating

models.

Operation - Some action done to the system being investigated Observation - What happens when the operation is done to the system Model - A fact, hypothesis, theory, or the phenomenon itself at a certain moment Utility Function - A measure of the usefulness of the model to explain, predict, and control, and of the cost of use of it .

One of the elements of any scientific utility function is the refutability of the model.

Another is its simplicity, on the Principle of Parsimony also known as Occam's Razor.

The following is a more thorough description of the method.

This set of methodological elements and organization of procedures will in general tend to be more characteristic of natural sciences and experimental psychology than of disciplines commonly categorized as

social sciences.

Among the latter, methods of verification and testing of hypotheses may involve less stringent mathematical and statistical

interpretations of these elements within the respective disciplines. Nonetheless the cycle of hypothesis, verification and formulation of

new hypotheses will tend to resemble the basic cycle described below.

The essential elements of a scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleavings, and

orderings of the following:

1. Characterizations (Quantifications, observations, and measurements)

2. Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements)

3. Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from hypothesis and theory)

4. Experiments (tests of all of the above)

Imre Lakatos and Thomas Kuhn had done extensive work on the "theory laden" character of observation.

Kuhn (1961) maintained that the scientist generally has a theory in mind before designing and undertaking experiments so as to

make empirical observations, and that the "route from theory to measurement can almost never be traveled backward".

This perspective implies that the way in which theory is tested is dictated by the nature of the theory itself, which led Kuhn (1961)

to argue that "once it has been adopted by a profession ... no theory is recognized to be testable by any quantitative tests that

it has not already passed".

Each element of the scientific method is subject to peer review for possible mistakes.

These activities do not describe all that scientists do but apply mostly to experimental

sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry).

The elements above are often taught in the educational system.

The scientific method is not a recipe: it requires intelligence, imagination, and creativity.

Further, it is an ongoing cycle, constantly developing more useful, accurate and comprehensive models and methods.

For example, when Einstein developed the Special and General Theories of Relativity, he did not in any way refute or discount Newton's Principia.

On the contrary, if one reduces out the astronomically large, the vanishingly small, and the extremely fast from Einstein's theories — all phenomena that Newton could not have observed — one is

left with Newton's equations. Einstein's theories are expansions and refinements of Newton's theories, and the observations that increase our confidence in

them also increase our confidence in Newton's approximations to them.

The Keystones of Science project, sponsored by the journal Science, has selected a number of scientific

articles from that journal and annotated them, illustrating how different parts of each article

embody the scientific method.

Here is an annotated example of the scientific method example titled Microbial Genes in the Human

Genome: Lateral Transfer or Gene Loss?.

A linearized, pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes offered as a guideline for proceeding:1. Define the question 2. Gather information and resources 3. Form hypothesis 4. Perform experiment and collect data 5. Analyze data 6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses 7. Publish results

The iterative cycle inherent in this step-by-step methodology goes from point 3 to 6 back to 3 again.

Characterizations

METODE ILMIAH depends upon increasingly more sophisticated characterizations of subjects of the

investigation. (The subjects can also be called unsolved problems or the unknowns, MASALAH PENELITIAN).

For example, Benjamin Franklin correctly characterized St. Elmo's fire as electrical in nature, but it has taken a long

series of experiments and theory to establish this. While seeking the pertinent properties of the subjects, this

careful thought may also entail some definitions and observations; the observations often demand careful

measurements and/or counting.

The systematic, careful collection of measurements or counts of relevant quantities is often the critical difference between pseudo-

sciences, such as alchemy, and a science, such as chemistry or biology.

Scientific measurements taken are usually tabulated, graphed, or mapped, and statistical manipulations, such as correlation and

regression, performed on them.

The measurements might be made in a controlled setting, such as a laboratory, or made on more or less inaccessible or

unmanipulatable objects such as stars or human populations.

The measurements often require specialized scientific instruments such as thermometers, spectroscopes, or voltmeters, and the progress of a scientific field is usually intimately tied to their

invention and development.

Uncertainty

Measurements in scientific work are also usually accompanied by estimates of their uncertainty.

The uncertainty is often estimated by making repeated measurements of the desired quantity.

Uncertainties may also be calculated by consideration of the uncertainties of the individual underlying quantities that are used.

Counts of things, such as the number of people in a nation at a particular time, may also have an uncertainty due to limitations of

the method used.

Counts may only represent a sample of desired quantities, with an uncertainty that depends upon the sampling method used and the

number of samples taken.

DefinitionMeasurements demand the use of operational definitions

of relevant quantities; DEFINISI OPERASIONAL.

That is, a scientific quantity is described or defined by how it is measured, as opposed to some more vague,

inexact or "idealized" definition.

For example, electrical current, measured in amperes, may be operationally defined in terms of the mass of

silver deposited in a certain time on an electrode in an electrochemical device that is described in some detail.

The operational definition of a thing often relies on comparisons with standards:

The operational definition of "mass" ultimately relies on the use of an artifact, such as a certain kilogram of platinum-iridium kept

in a laboratory in France.

The scientific definition of a term sometimes differs substantially from their natural language usage.

For example, mass and weight overlap in meaning in common discourse, but have distinct meanings in

mechanics.

Scientific quantities are often characterized by their units of measure which can later be described in terms of conventional physical units when communicating the

work.

New theories sometimes arise upon realizing that certain terms had not previously been sufficiently

clearly defined.

For example, Albert Einstein's first paper on relativity begins by defining simultaneity and the

means for determining length.

These ideas were skipped over by Isaac Newton with, "I do not define time, space, place and motion, as being

well known to all."

Einstein's paper then demonstrates that they (viz., absolute time and length independent of motion) were

approximations.

Precession of MercuryPrecession of the perihelion (exaggerated)

The characterization element can require extended and extensive study, even centuries. It took thousands of years of measurements, from the Chaldean, Indian, Persian, Greek, Arabic and European

astronomers, to record the motion of planet Earth. Newton was able to condense these measurements into consequences

of his laws of motion.

But the perihelion of the planet Mercury's orbit exhibits a precession which is not fully explained by Newton's laws of motion.

The observed difference for Mercury's precession, between Newtonian theory and relativistic theory (approximately 43 arc-

seconds per century), was one of the things that occurred to Einstein as a possible early test of his theory of General Relativity.

Hypothesis developmentA hypothesis is a suggested explanation of a

phenomenon, or alternately a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between or among a set

of phenomena.

Normally hypotheses have the form of a mathematical model. Sometimes, but not always, they

can also be formulated as existential statements, stating that some particular instance of the phenomenon being

studied has some characteristic and causal explanations, which have the general form of universal statements, stating that every instance of the phenomenon has a

particular characteristic.

Scientists are free to use whatever resources they have — their own creativity, ideas from other fields, induction,

Bayesian inference, and so on — to imagine possible explanations for a phenomenon under study.

Charles Sanders Peirce, borrowing a page from Aristotle (Prior Analytics, 2.25) described the incipient stages of inquiry, instigated by the "irritation of doubt" to venture a plausible

guess, as abductive reasoning.

The history of science is filled with stories of scientists claiming a "flash of inspiration", or a hunch, which then motivated them to

look for evidence to support or refute their idea. Michael Polanyi made such creativity the centrepiece of his

discussion of methodology.

Karl Popper, following others, developing and inverting the views of the Austrian logical positivists, has argued that a hypothesis must be falsifiable, and

that a proposition or theory cannot be called scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false.

It must at least in principle be possible to make an observation that would show the proposition to be false,

even if that observation had not yet been made.

William Glen observes thatthe success of a hypothesis, or its service to science, lies not

simply in its perceived "truth", or power to displace, subsume or reduce a predecessor idea, but perhaps more in its ability to stimulate the research that will illuminate … bald suppositions

and areas of vagueness.

In general scientists tend to look for theories that are "elegant" or "beautiful".

In contrast to the usual English use of these terms, they here refer to a theory in accordance with the known facts, which is

nevertheless relatively simple and easy to handle. Occam's Razor serves as a rule of thumb for making these

determinations.

DNA/hypotheses

Linus Pauling proposed that DNA was a triple helix. Francis Crick and James Watson learned of Pauling's hypothesis, understood from existing data that Pauling was wrong and realized that Pauling would soon realize

his mistake.

So the race was on to figure out the correct structure.

Except that Pauling did not realize at the time that he was in a race!

Prediksi dari hipotesis

Setiap hipotesis yang berguna akan memungkinkan prediksi, dengan melalui penalaran, termasuk

penalaran deduktif.

Peneliti dapat memprediksi hasil percobaan laboratorium atau observasi fenomena di alam.

Prediksi ini dapat bersifat statistik atau hanya mengenai probabilitasnya saja.

It is essential that the outcome be currently unknown.

Only in this case does the eventuation increase the probability that the hypothesis be true.

If the outcome is already known, it's called a consequence and should have already been considered while formulating the

hypothesis.

If the predictions are not accessible by observation or experience, the hypothesis is not yet useful for the method, and must wait for others who might come afterward, and perhaps

rekindle its line of reasoning.

For example, a new technology or theory might make the necessary experiments feasible.

General relativity

Einstein's prediction (1907): Light bends in a gravitational field

Einstein's theory of General Relativity makes several specific predictions about the observable structure of space-time, such

as a prediction that light bends in a gravitational field and that the amount of bending depends in a precise way on the

strength of that gravitational field.

Arthur Eddington's observations made during a 1919 solar eclipse supported General Relativity rather than Newtonian

gravitation.

Experiments:

Once predictions are made, they can be tested by experiments. If test results contradict predictions, then the hypotheses are

called into question and explanations may be sought. Sometimes experiments are conducted incorrectly and are at fault. If the

results confirm the predictions, then the hypotheses are considered likely to be correct but might still be wrong and are

subject to further testing.

Depending on the predictions, the experiments can have different shapes. It could be a classical experiment in a laboratory setting,

a double-blind study or an archaeological excavation. Even taking a plane from New York to Paris is an experiment

which tests the aerodynamical hypotheses used for constructing the plane.

Scientists assume an attitude of openness and accountability on the part of those conducting an

experiment. Detailed record keeping is essential, to aid in recording

and reporting on the experimental results, and providing evidence of the effectiveness and integrity of

the procedure. They will also assist in reproducing the experimental

results.

This tradition can be seen in the work of Hipparchus (190 BCE - 120 BCE), when determining a value for the precession of the Earth over 2100 years ago, and 1000

years before Al-Batani.

Evaluation and iteration

Testing and improvement

The scientific process is iterative. At any stage it is possible that some consideration will lead the

scientist to repeat an earlier part of the process.

Failure to develop an interesting hypothesis may lead a scientist to re-define the subject they are considering.

Failure of a hypothesis to produce interesting and testable predictions may lead to reconsideration of the hypothesis or of

the definition of the subject. Failure of the experiment to produce interesting results may

lead the scientist to reconsidering the experimental method, the hypothesis or the definition of the subject.

Other scientists may start their own research and enter the process at any stage.

They might adopt the characterization and formulate their own hypothesis, or they might adopt the hypothesis and deduce their own predictions.

Often the experiment is not done by the person who made the prediction and the characterization is based

on experiments done by someone else.

Published results of experiments can also serve as a hypothesis predicting their own reproducibility.

ConfirmationScience is a social enterprise, and scientific work tends to be accepted by the

community when it has been confirmed.

Crucially, experimental and theoretical results must be reproduced by others within the science community.

Researchers have given their lives for this vision; Georg Wilhelm Richmann was killed by lightning (1753) when attempting to replicate the 1752 kite-

flying experiment of Benjamin Franklin.

To protect against bad science and fraudulent data, government research granting agencies like NSF and science journals like Nature

and Science have a policy that researchers must archive their data and methods so other researchers can access it, test the data and methods

and build on the research that has gone before.

Models of scientific inquiry

Classical model

The classical model of scientific inquiry derives from Aristotle , who distinguished the forms of approximate

and exact reasoning, set out the threefold scheme of abductive, deductive, and inductive inference, and also

treated the compound forms such as reasoning by analogy.

Pragmatic model: Pragmatic theory of truth

Charles Peirce considered scientific inquiry to be a species of the genus inquiry, which he defined as any means of fixing belief, that is, any means of arriving

at a settled opinion on a matter in question.

He observed that inquiry in general begins with a state of uncertainty and moves toward a state of certainty, sufficient at

least to terminate the inquiry for the time being. He graded the prevalent forms of inquiry according to their evident

success in achieving their common objective, scoring scientific inquiry at the high end of this scale.

At the low end he placed what he called the method of tenacity, a die-hard attempt to deny uncertainty and

fixate on a favored belief.

Next in line he placed the method of authority, a determined attempt to conform to a chosen source of

ready-made beliefs.

After that he placed what might be called the method of congruity, also called the a priori, the dilettante, or the

what is agreeable to reason method.

Peirce observed the fact of human nature that almost everybody uses almost all of these methods at one time or another, and that even scientists, being human, use

the method of authority far more than they like to admit.

But what recommends the specifically scientific method of inquiry above all others is the fact that it is

deliberately designed to arrive at the ultimately most secure beliefs, upon which the most successful actions

can be based.

Computational approaches

Many subspecialties of applied logic and computer science, to name a few, artificial intelligence, machine learning,

computational learning theory, inferential statistics, and knowledge representation, are concerned with setting out computational, logical, and statistical frameworks for the various types of inference involved in scientific inquiry, in particular, hypothesis formation, logical deduction, and

empirical testing.

Some of these applications draw on measures of complexity from algorithmic information theory to guide the making of

predictions from prior distributions of experience, for example, see the complexity measure called the speed prior from which a

computable strategy for optimal inductive reasoning can be derived.

Philosophy and sociology of science

While the philosophy of science has limited direct impact on day-to-day scientific practice, it plays a vital role in justifying and defending the scientific approach. Philosophy of science

looks at the underpinning logic of the scientific method, at what separates science from non-science,and the ethic that is implicit

in science.

We find ourselves in a world that is not directly understandable. We find that we sometimes disagree with

others as to the facts of the things we see in the world around us, and we find that there are things in the world that are at

odds with our present understanding.

The scientific method attempts to provide a way in which we can reach agreement and understanding.

A "perfect" scientific method might work in such a way that rational application of the method would always result in agreement and understanding; a perfect method would

arguably be algorithmic, and so not leave any room for rational agents to disagree.

As with all philosophical topics, the search has been neither straightforward nor simple.

Logical Positivist, empiricist, falsificationist, and other theories have claimed to give a definitive account of the logic of science,

but each has in turn been criticized.

Thomas Samuel Kuhn examined the history of science in his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and found that the actual

method used by scientists differed dramatically from the then-espoused method.

Paul Feyerabend similarly examined the history of science, and was led to deny that science is genuinely a methodological

process.

In his book Against Method he argues that scientific progress is not the result of applying any particular method. In essence, he

says that "anything goes", by which he meant that for any specific methodology or norm of science, successful science has

been done in violation of it.

Criticisms such as his led to the strong programme, a radical approach to the sociology of science.

In his 1958 book, Personal Knowledge, chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi (1891-1976) criticized the common view that

the scientific method is purely objective and generates objective knowledge. Polanyi cast this view as a misunderstanding of the

scientific method and of the nature of scientific inquiry, generally.

He argued that scientists do and must follow personal passions in appraising facts and in determining which scientific

questions to investigate. He concluded that a structure of liberty is essential for the

advancement of science - that the freedom to pursue science for its own sake is a prerequisite for the production of knowledge

through peer review and the scientific method.

The postmodernist critiques of science have themselves been the subject of intense controversy and heated

dialogue. This ongoing debate, known as the science wars, is the

result of the conflicting values and assumptions held by the postmodernist and realist camps.

Whereas postmodernists assert that scientific knowledge is simply another discourse and not representative of any

form of fundamental truth, realists in the scientific community maintain that scientific knowledge does reveal

real and fundamental truths about reality.

Many books have been written by scientists which take on this problem and challenge the assertions of the postmodernists while

defending science as a legitimate method of deriving truth

Communication, community, culture

Frequently the scientific method is not employed by a single person, but by several people

cooperating directly or indirectly.

Such cooperation can be regarded as one of the defining elements of a scientific community.

Various techniques have been developed to ensure the integrity of the scientific method within such

an environment.

Peer review evaluation

Scientific journals use a process of peer review, in which scientists' manuscripts are submitted by editors of scientific journals to (usually one to three) fellow (usually anonymous)

scientists familiar with the field for evaluation.

The referees may or may not recommend publication, publication with suggested modifications, or, sometimes,

publication in another journal.

This serves to keep the scientific literature free of unscientific or crackpot work, helps to cut down on obvious errors, and

generally otherwise improve the quality of the scientific literature.

Karya yang dipublikasikan dalam media-populer tanpa melalui proses “peer review” biasanya sangat

disukai.

Kadang-kadang peer-review menghambat sirkulasi karya-ilmiah yang tidak lazim, tetapi pada saat lain

mungkin terlalu permisif.

Proses peer-review tidak selalu berhasil, tetapi sangat banyak diadopsi oleh komunitas ilmiah.

Documentation and replication

Sometimes experimenters may make systematic errors during their experiments, unconsciously veer from the

scientific method (Pathological science) for various reasons, or (in rare cases) deliberately falsify their

results.

Consequently, it is a common practice for other scientists to attempt to repeat the experiments in order

to duplicate the results, thus further validating the hypothesis.

Archiving

As a result, researchers are expected to practice scientific data archiving in compliance with the policies of

government funding agencies and scientific journals.

Detailed records of their experimental procedures, raw data, statistical analyses and source code are preserved in order to

provide evidence of the effectiveness and integrity of the procedure and assist in reproduction.

These procedural records may also assist in the conception of new experiments to test the hypothesis, and may prove useful to

engineers who might examine the potential practical applications of a discovery.

Dearchiving

When additional information is needed before a study can be reproduced, the author of the study is expected to provide it promptly - although a small charge may

apply.

If the author refuses to provide information, it is called data withholding and appeals can be made to the journal editors who published the study or to the

institution who funded the research.

Limitations

Note that it is not possible for a scientist to record everything that took place in an experiment.

He must select the facts he believes to be relevant to the experiment and report them.

This may lead, unavoidably, to problems later if some supposedly irrelevant feature is questioned.

For example, Heinrich Hertz did not report the size of the room used to test Maxwell's equations, which later turned out to account for a small

deviation in the results.

The problem is that parts of the theory itself need to be assumed in order to select and report the experimental conditions. The observations are hence sometimes described as being 'theory-

laden'.

Dimensions of practiceThe primary constraints on contemporary western science are:

1. Publication, i.e. Peer review 2. Resources (mostly funding)

It has not always been like this: in the old days of the "gentleman scientist" funding (and to a lesser extent publication)

were far weaker constraints.

Both of these constraints indirectly bring in a scientific method — work that too obviously violates the constraints will be

difficult to publish and difficult to get funded.

Journals do not require submitted papers to conform to anything more specific than "good scientific practice"

and this is mostly enforced by peer review. Originality, importance and interest are more important

- see for example the author guidelines for Nature.

Criticisms (see Critical theory) of these restraints are that they are so nebulous in definition (e.g. "good

scientific practice") and open to ideological, or even political, manipulation apart from a rigorous practice of a scientific method, that they often serve to censor rather

than promote scientific discovery.

Sensor yang ketat menolak untuk mempublikasikan ide-ide yang tidak populer

bagi para ilmuwan mainstream (tidak populer karena alasan ideologis dan / atau karena

bertentangan dengan teori ilmiah yang telah lama berlaku) telah memburuk persepsi

populer bahwa ilmuwan adalah netral dan pencari kebenaran , dan seringkali dapat

merendahkan persepsi tentang ilmu secara keseluruhan.

History: History of scientific method

The development of the scientific method is inseparable from the history of science itself.

Ancient Egyptian documents, such as early papyri, describe methods of medical diagnosis. In ancient Greek

culture, the method of empiricism was described.

The experimental scientific method was developed by Muslim scientists, who introduced the use of experiments

to distinguish between competing scientific theories set within a generally empirical orientation, which emerged

with Alhazen's optical experiments in his Book of Optics (c. 1000).

The fundamental tenets of the modern scientific method crystallized no later than the rise of the modern physical

sciences, in the 17th and 18th centuries. In his work Novum Organum (1620) — a reference to

Aristotle's Organon — Francis Bacon outlined a new system of logic to improve upon the old philosophical process of

syllogism. Then, in 1637, René Descartes established the framework for

a scientific method's guiding principles in his treatise, Discourse on Method.

These writings are considered critical in the historical development of the scientific method.

In the late 19th century, Charles Sanders Peirce proposed a schema that would turn out to have considerable influence in

the development of current scientific method generally.

Peirce accelerated the progress on several fronts. Firstly, speaking in broader context in "How to Make Our

Ideas Clear" (1878) , Peirce outlined an objectively verifiable method to test the truth of putative knowledge on a way that goes beyond mere foundational alternatives, focusing upon

both deduction and induction.

He thus placed induction and deduction in a complementary rather than competitive context (the latter of which had been

the primary trend at least since David Hume, who wrote in the mid-to-late 18th century).

Secondly, and of more direct importance to modern method, Peirce put forth the basic schema for

hypothesis/testing that continues to prevail today. Extracting the theory of inquiry from its raw materials in classical logic, he refined it in parallel with the early

development of symbolic logic to address the then-current problems in scientific reasoning.

Peirce examined and articulated the three fundamental modes of reasoning that, as discussed above in this

article, play a role in inquiry today, the processes that are currently known as abductive, deductive, and

inductive inference.

Thirdly, he played a major role in the progress of symbolic logic itself — indeed this was his primary specialty.

Karl Popper (1902–1994), beginning in the 1930s and with increased vigor after World War II, argued that a hypothesis

must be falsifiable and, following Peirce and others, that science would best progress using deductive reasoning as its

primary emphasis, known as critical rationalism.

His astute formulations of logical procedure helped to rein in excessive use of inductive speculation upon inductive

speculation, and also strengthened the conceptual foundation for today's peer review procedures.

References

Isaac Newton (1687, 1713, 1726). "[4] Rules for the study of natural philosophy", Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Third edition. The General Scholium containing the 4 rules follows Book 3, The System of the World. Reprinted on pages 794-796 of I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman's 1999 translation, University of California Press ISBN 0-520-08817-4, 974 pages.

scientific method, Merriam-Webster Dictionary. In the inquiry-based education paradigm, the stage of "characterization, observation, definition, …" is more briefly summed up under the rubric of a Question. "To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science." p.92, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld (1938), The Evolution of Physics: from early concepts to relativity and quanta ISBN0-671-20156-5

Gauch, Hugh G., Jr., Scientific Method in Practice (2003), esp. chapters 5-8

Crick, Francis (1994), The Astonishing Hypothesis ISBN 0-684-19431-7 p.20

Glen,William (ed.), The Mass-Extinction Debates: How Science Works in a Crisis, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 1994. ISBN 0-8047-2285-4. pp. 37-38.

"The instant I saw the picture my mouth fell open and my pulse began to race." -- James D. Watson (1968), The Double Helix, page 167. New York: Atheneum, Library of Congress card number 68-16217. Page 168 shows the X-shaped pattern of the B-form of DNA, clearly indicating crucial details of its helical structure to Watson and Crick.

^ Aristotle, "Prior Analytics", Hugh Tredennick (trans.), pp. 181-531 in Aristotle, Volume 1, Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann, London, UK, 1938. ^ Peirce, C.S., "Lectures on Pragmatism", Cambridge, MA, March 26 – May 17, 1903. Reprinted in part, Collected Papers, CP 5.14–212. Reprinted with Introduction and Commentary, Patricia Ann Turisi (ed.), Pragmatism as a Principle and a Method of Right Thinking: The 1903 Harvard "Lectures on Pragmatism", State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, 1997. Reprinted, pp. 133–241, Peirce Edition Project (eds.), The Essential Peirce, Selected Philosophical Writings, Volume 2 (1893–1913), Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, 1998. ^ Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997 ^ Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science, Picador; 1st Picador USA Pbk. Ed edition, 1999 ^ The Sokal Hoax: The Sham That Shook the Academy, University of Nebraska Press, 2000 ISBN 0803279957 ^ A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths About Science, Oxford University Press, 2000 ^ Intellectual Impostures, Economist Books, 2003 ^ Rosanna Gorini (2003), "Al-Haytham the Man of Experience, First Steps in the Science of Vision", International Society for the History of Islamic Medicine, Institute of Neurosciences, Laboratory of Psychobiology and Psychopharmacology, Rome, Italy: