The scientific methodology 101

[StSanta]

Having earlier discussed what a scientific theory/fact is or isn't in this thread: http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=71568 we can now move on to discussing the scientifc process itself. It'll further help to illustrate just why a scientific theory cannot be compared to a JFK assassination theory or faith in religious deities.

The following figure illustrates the flow of events in the methodology of science:



I'll make use of an example, that things tend to fall, to illustrate and clarify. It's just meant to illustrate so don't blast minor inconsistencies, they're not the heart of this post.

First, there is an observation. "Things fall down when dropped" or alternatively 'things seem not to be able to support themselves in air if they're heavier than air". It's important that the observation can be said to be true and isn't too much in doubt. "Things fall away from the centre of the planet Tellus if dropped on the surface of said planet" would not be adequate for instance. Generally it's just an observation of a fact.

From this, a hypothesis is formed. This is what most people think of as a 'theory'. A hypothesis is simply a possible explanation to an observation. It is of itself NOT evidence, nor is it circular in nature - that is, the hypothesis does not try to prove itself. It's just a possible explanation. In our example, we'll have two: the first is that there is a force that acts upon all things called gravity. The second is that the weight of all the gasses in the atmosphere pushes things down.

Now that we've formed our hypothesis(es), we're gonna test them. We're gonna see if they match up with reality.
This is done by using socalled controlled experiments. Such an experiment is one in which all treatments (that is, that which is investigated) are identical except that some are exposed to the hypothetical cause and some are not. Any differences in the way the treatments behave is then directly related to the presence or absence of the cause. The experiments are to be repeatable so other scientists can validate them and find eventual flaws.

In my example, we can test if air is causing things to fall by letting a rock fall in a container full of air and in  a vacuum. To test gravity we can use centrifugal force to see if we can get a rock to 'fall upwards'.

If the results are consistent with the hypothesis, the result can be said to be evidence in support of the hypothesis. When enough evidence accumulate, the hypothesis is said to be a scientific theory. In the case with gravity, it's consistent with the hypothesis - a force causes things to be 'fall'.

If the results are inconsistent with the hypothesis, you revise your hypothesis and do more controlled experiments. This way, one can accumulate evidence that suggest that the hypothesis is NOT consistent with reality.

Therein lies the beauty of science - don't like a theory? Form a hypothesis, do experiments, gather evidence and have it removed/corrected! Science is its own friend in this way - self correcting. Nothing is set in stone (although many scientists are quite unwilling to let go of their pet theories) and ANY theory can, given enough evidence, be declared true or false, or alternatively go from theory to 'merely' a well supported hypothesis.

Why JFK assassination theories ain't scientific
It is true - they start with an observation. JFK was killed by a number of bullets. Also, there's a hypothesis, ranging from one shooter to aliens secretly kidnapping him and faking his death. But there are no controlled experiments (am talking conspiracies here). A person sauying "I think it's likely that there were two shooters because, like, one dude couldn't have done it" is offering his hypothesis and evidence in the same sentence without giving more evidence. There aren't any experiments and thus no results to match against a hypothesis.

Why Creationism isn't science
Will cover this in another thread so as to not dilute this one.

Hope I haven't been too 'low level' or anything or come across as looking down my nose - I just want it laid out plainly so we can agree and with it form the basis for discussions regarding scientific theories - including evolution and alternatives to it.

This is by no means near a description of the whole methodology itself - rather just outlying the basics, which is enough for most discussions (some discussions require detailed criticism of the scientific methodology, but it's usually discussions on levels way above my own).

Any disagreements?

[Kieran]

Christianity is not science, agreed. Don't make the illogical leap of logic that scientists cannot be Christian.

[straffo]

Originally posted by StSanta

Any disagreements?

Yes ...
You are ruining the fun of the poster of the other thread

Remind me of the university with the good old Karl Popper and Claude Bernard.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by StSanta
Therein lies the beauty of science - don't like a theory? Form a hypothesis, do experiments, gather evidence and have it removed/corrected! Science is its own friend in this way - self correcting. Nothing is set in stone (although many scientists are quite unwilling to let go of their pet theories) and ANY theory can, given enough evidence, be declared true or false, or alternatively go from theory to 'merely' a well supported hypothesis.

[...]
Any disagreements?

Yup. The above quoted paragraph is wrong.

If I dont like a theory, I dont have to form a hypothesis of my own unless I want to. It is enough that I can point to observations that are in conflict with the hypothesis. Should I find any such observation, it will give that the hypothesis is wrong.

This becomes apparent when we are talking about scientific theories that are not based on any observations OR experiments (such as the theory on the origin of life for example).

With your "model" anyone wanting to dispute the current theorem (primordeal soup + lighting = life) would have to come up with some theory of his own and prove that theory before the current theory would be discarded. That is not science.

[straffo]

You're wrong Hort.

If you have an observation proving that the hypothesis is wrong it's not your job to formulate another hypothesis.

But you have to give a scientific observation not just saying you don't "like" the hypothesis.

And a contrario to you I see some observations concerning "théorie of life" hypothesis

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by straffo
You're wrong Hort.

If you have an observation proving that the hypothesis is wrong it's not your job to formulate another hypothesis.

But you have to give a scientific observation not just saying you don't "like" the hypothesis.

And a contrario to you I see some observations concerning "théorie of life" hypothesis

Lets just skip the theory of life part for now.

If you read my post again, maybe you will notice this passage:

It is enough that I can point to observations that are in conflict with the hypothesis. Should I find any such observation, it will give that the hypothesis is wrong.

[straffo]

I didn't discuted this part

I just say :

1- provide a valuable observation

2- your conclusion saying that it's up to you to provide another theory is wrong
it apply on this sentence of your post :

With your "model" anyone wanting to dispute the current theorem (primordeal soup + lighting = life) would have to come up with some theory of his own and prove that theory before the current theory would be discarded. That is not science.

Is that clearer now ?

[StSanta]

Kieran wrote:

Christianity is not science, agreed. Don't make the illogical leap of logic that scientists cannot be Christian.

I wouldn't do this, and aren't suggesting it. In fact, I've said in previous threads that several well known scientists are Christians.

Will dig for it.

Hortlund:
You're partly right - I should have been clearer there. You do not need to make a new hypothesis - all you need is to construct experiments that then are shown to disagree with the theory or hypothesis.  It is in of itself not enough to point to other observations - one must also find the reasons of why that observation is true. An example: I claim gravity pulls down thing to earth. You make an observation that not all things are fall - helium balloons rise. Therefore you conclude that my theory is wrong. This isn't enough; an investigation about what makes the helium balloon rise must take place.

It is worth noting however that the experiment must be linked to the hypothesis. And unless there's more than just one, the existing experiment must be really clear with no other possibilities. It's akin to accumulating evidence. Further, one can discuss say a piece of evidence within a theory and debate whether it is correct or not. If new experiments prove it to be false, it doesn't necessarily tip over the whole theory - it can merely make one piece of supporting evidence invalid.

[straffo]

and this experience must be reproducible ....

[Kieran]

St. Santa-

Don't look; I know you didn't say that, it was a cautionary remark (as you were being very careful in setting up your argument). I know there is more to come, so I am closing that loop before we get there (it won't be you that tries to make that leap, btw).

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by StSanta
Hortlund:
You're partly right - I should have been clearer there. You do not need to make a new hypothesis - all you need is to construct experiments that then are shown to disagree with the theory or hypothesis.  It is in of itself not enough to point to other observations - one must also find the reasons of why that observation is true. An example: I claim gravity pulls down thing to earth. You make an observation that not all things are fall - helium balloons rise. Therefore you conclude that my theory is wrong. This isn't enough; an investigation about what makes the helium balloon rise must take place.

It is worth noting however that the experiment must be linked to the hypothesis. And unless there's more than just one, the existing experiment must be really clear with no other possibilities. It's akin to accumulating evidence. Further, one can discuss say a piece of evidence within a theory and debate whether it is correct or not. If new experiments prove it to be false, it doesn't necessarily tip over the whole theory - it can merely make one piece of supporting evidence invalid.

Well, actually I dont have to construct experiments either. There are more than one way to skin a cat. Same is true for ways to gun down theories.

In your picture you have shown a very basic model over the scientific method, or an ideal situation if you will. In reality that picture is a lot more complex. For example, it is very rare that two scientists will draw the same conclusion from the same experiment. This is not true when we are talking about "easy" situations or theories, such as gravity for example, but it is very true when we are talking about complex theories, such as...for example, the theory of evolution, or the origins of life.

To say that I have to construct experiments of my own in order for me to "be allowed" to critizize that theory is wrong. I can aim at other parts of the theory in question.

For example, maybe I can show that the person defending the theory made an error when he interpreted the results from various experiments, and that the results he claims to be in support of his theory actually inconsistent with the theory.

Or maybe I can show that experiments or made are not consistent with the theory, or they are irrelevant. An example of such an irrelevant experiment would be the helium baloon you were talking about earlier. An experiment showing that helium baloons can fly is not really related to the theory of gravity at all.

In my opinion, you are oversimplifying the issue (and I suspect you are doing it to prove a point that will come in a later post of yours).

I disagree with this quote of yours:
If new experiments prove it to be false, it doesn't necessarily tip over the whole theory - it can merely make one piece of supporting evidence invalid.

Here you are talking about apples and oranges. If a new experiment proves the original theory to be wrong, the original theory falls. That is the simple answer to the simplified model you presented in your picture. However, many theories have lots of supporting evidence, and if a new experiment disproves one of those supporting evidences, it doesnt neccesarily follow that the original theory falls, it all depends on how much support that theory has left after we remove the false evidence.

[GRUNHERZ]

So basically Hortlund you are telling us you don't believe in science.... Thats stupid of you, and makes you no better than primitive tribesman dancing for rain to stop.. Do you think the earth is flat too?

[straffo]

@GRUN
earth is not flat ... but there is life inside

Originally posted by Hortlund
Well, actually I dont have to construct experiments either. There are more than one way to skin a cat. Same is true for ways to gun down theories.  

WRONG
Your opinon don't count.
You have to make an reproducible experiment to "gun" a theory.

In your picture you have shown a very basic model over the scientific method, or an ideal situation if you will.  

No need for complexity here KISS theory apply.

In reality that picture is a lot more complex. For example, it is very rare that two scientists will draw the same conclusion from the same experiment. This is not true when we are talking about "easy" situations or theories, such as gravity for example, but it is very true when we are talking about complex theories, such as...for example, the theory of evolution, or the origins of life.  

and so ?

To say that I have to construct experiments of my own in order for me to "be allowed" to critizize that theory is wrong. I can aim at other parts of the theory in question.  

Let picture you scientific approach :
you open the door scream "you're all wrong" and slam it ...
value = 0 (ZERO)

For example, maybe I can show that the person defending the theory made an error when he interpreted the results from various experiments, and that the results he claims to be in support of his theory actually inconsistent with the theory.

You have to prove he is wrong not just say "your wrong" if not you've not provided a valuable counter-point.

Or maybe I can show that experiments or made are not consistent with the theory, or they are irrelevant. An example of such an irrelevant experiment would be the helium baloon you were talking about earlier. An experiment showing that helium baloons can fly is not really related to the theory of gravity at all.  

so gravity don't apply on helium baloon ?

In my opinion, you are oversimplifying the issue (and I suspect you are doing it to prove a point that will come in a later post of yours).  

Complexity never helped having an agreement :


EDIT for non-french speaker
Caption  : why making it simple when you can do it complex ?


EDIT for non-french speaker
Caption  : Trying several time may work... so the more it fail the more it will be succefull

I disagree with this quote of yours:
If new experiments prove it to be false, it doesn't necessarily tip over the whole theory - it can merely make one piece of supporting evidence invalid.

ouch ... you've never done any Epistemoloy I guess ?

Here you are talking about apples and oranges. If a new experiment proves the original theory to be wrong, the original theory falls. That is the simple answer to the simplified model you presented in your picture. However, many theories have lots of supporting evidence, and if a new experiment disproves one of those supporting evidences, it doesnt neccesarily follow that the original theory falls, it all depends on how much support that theory has left after we remove the false evidence.

not affraid of contradiction I see ...

[straffo]

just one more pict


EDIT for non-french speaker
Caption  : If there is no solution it's because there is no problem

shadok are great animals when speaking of science

[GRUNHERZ]

"earth is not flat ... "


Shhh!! Be careful or Hortlund will burn you on the stake!