Choose Your Test
- Search Blogs By Category
- College Admissions
- AP and IB Exams
- GPA and Coursework
The 6 Scientific Method Steps and How to Use Them
General Education
When you’re faced with a scientific problem, solving it can seem like an impossible prospect. There are so many possible explanations for everything we see and experience—how can you possibly make sense of them all? Science has a simple answer: the scientific method.
The scientific method is a method of asking and answering questions about the world. These guiding principles give scientists a model to work through when trying to understand the world, but where did that model come from, and how does it work?
In this article, we’ll define the scientific method, discuss its long history, and cover each of the scientific method steps in detail.
What Is the Scientific Method?
At its most basic, the scientific method is a procedure for conducting scientific experiments. It’s a set model that scientists in a variety of fields can follow, going from initial observation to conclusion in a loose but concrete format.
The number of steps varies, but the process begins with an observation, progresses through an experiment, and concludes with analysis and sharing data. One of the most important pieces to the scientific method is skepticism —the goal is to find truth, not to confirm a particular thought. That requires reevaluation and repeated experimentation, as well as examining your thinking through rigorous study.
There are in fact multiple scientific methods, as the basic structure can be easily modified. The one we typically learn about in school is the basic method, based in logic and problem solving, typically used in “hard” science fields like biology, chemistry, and physics. It may vary in other fields, such as psychology, but the basic premise of making observations, testing, and continuing to improve a theory from the results remain the same.
The History of the Scientific Method
The scientific method as we know it today is based on thousands of years of scientific study. Its development goes all the way back to ancient Mesopotamia, Greece, and India.
The Ancient World
In ancient Greece, Aristotle devised an inductive-deductive process , which weighs broad generalizations from data against conclusions reached by narrowing down possibilities from a general statement. However, he favored deductive reasoning, as it identifies causes, which he saw as more important.
Aristotle wrote a great deal about logic and many of his ideas about reasoning echo those found in the modern scientific method, such as ignoring circular evidence and limiting the number of middle terms between the beginning of an experiment and the end. Though his model isn’t the one that we use today, the reliance on logic and thorough testing are still key parts of science today.
The Middle Ages
The next big step toward the development of the modern scientific method came in the Middle Ages, particularly in the Islamic world. Ibn al-Haytham, a physicist from what we now know as Iraq, developed a method of testing, observing, and deducing for his research on vision. al-Haytham was critical of Aristotle’s lack of inductive reasoning, which played an important role in his own research.
Other scientists, including Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī, Ibn Sina, and Robert Grosseteste also developed models of scientific reasoning to test their own theories. Though they frequently disagreed with one another and Aristotle, those disagreements and refinements of their methods led to the scientific method we have today.
Following those major developments, particularly Grosseteste’s work, Roger Bacon developed his own cycle of observation (seeing that something occurs), hypothesis (making a guess about why that thing occurs), experimentation (testing that the thing occurs), and verification (an outside person ensuring that the result of the experiment is consistent).
After joining the Franciscan Order, Bacon was granted a special commission to write about science; typically, Friars were not allowed to write books or pamphlets. With this commission, Bacon outlined important tenets of the scientific method, including causes of error, methods of knowledge, and the differences between speculative and experimental science. He also used his own principles to investigate the causes of a rainbow, demonstrating the method’s effectiveness.
Scientific Revolution
Throughout the Renaissance, more great thinkers became involved in devising a thorough, rigorous method of scientific study. Francis Bacon brought inductive reasoning further into the method, whereas Descartes argued that the laws of the universe meant that deductive reasoning was sufficient. Galileo’s research was also inductive reasoning-heavy, as he believed that researchers could not account for every possible variable; therefore, repetition was necessary to eliminate faulty hypotheses and experiments.
All of this led to the birth of the Scientific Revolution , which took place during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In 1660, a group of philosophers and physicians joined together to work on scientific advancement. After approval from England’s crown , the group became known as the Royal Society, which helped create a thriving scientific community and an early academic journal to help introduce rigorous study and peer review.
Previous generations of scientists had touched on the importance of induction and deduction, but Sir Isaac Newton proposed that both were equally important. This contribution helped establish the importance of multiple kinds of reasoning, leading to more rigorous study.
As science began to splinter into separate areas of study, it became necessary to define different methods for different fields. Karl Popper was a leader in this area—he established that science could be subject to error, sometimes intentionally. This was particularly tricky for “soft” sciences like psychology and social sciences, which require different methods. Popper’s theories furthered the divide between sciences like psychology and “hard” sciences like chemistry or physics.
Paul Feyerabend argued that Popper’s methods were too restrictive for certain fields, and followed a less restrictive method hinged on “anything goes,” as great scientists had made discoveries without the Scientific Method. Feyerabend suggested that throughout history scientists had adapted their methods as necessary, and that sometimes it would be necessary to break the rules. This approach suited social and behavioral scientists particularly well, leading to a more diverse range of models for scientists in multiple fields to use.
The Scientific Method Steps
Though different fields may have variations on the model, the basic scientific method is as follows:
#1: Make Observations
Notice something, such as the air temperature during the winter, what happens when ice cream melts, or how your plants behave when you forget to water them.
#2: Ask a Question
Turn your observation into a question. Why is the temperature lower during the winter? Why does my ice cream melt? Why does my toast always fall butter-side down?
This step can also include doing some research. You may be able to find answers to these questions already, but you can still test them!
#3: Make a Hypothesis
A hypothesis is an educated guess of the answer to your question. Why does your toast always fall butter-side down? Maybe it’s because the butter makes that side of the bread heavier.
A good hypothesis leads to a prediction that you can test, phrased as an if/then statement. In this case, we can pick something like, “If toast is buttered, then it will hit the ground butter-first.”
#4: Experiment
Your experiment is designed to test whether your predication about what will happen is true. A good experiment will test one variable at a time —for example, we’re trying to test whether butter weighs down one side of toast, making it more likely to hit the ground first.
The unbuttered toast is our control variable. If we determine the chance that a slice of unbuttered toast, marked with a dot, will hit the ground on a particular side, we can compare those results to our buttered toast to see if there’s a correlation between the presence of butter and which way the toast falls.
If we decided not to toast the bread, that would be introducing a new question—whether or not toasting the bread has any impact on how it falls. Since that’s not part of our test, we’ll stick with determining whether the presence of butter has any impact on which side hits the ground first.
#5: Analyze Data
After our experiment, we discover that both buttered toast and unbuttered toast have a 50/50 chance of hitting the ground on the buttered or marked side when dropped from a consistent height, straight down. It looks like our hypothesis was incorrect—it’s not the butter that makes the toast hit the ground in a particular way, so it must be something else.
Since we didn’t get the desired result, it’s back to the drawing board. Our hypothesis wasn’t correct, so we’ll need to start fresh. Now that you think about it, your toast seems to hit the ground butter-first when it slides off your plate, not when you drop it from a consistent height. That can be the basis for your new experiment.
#6: Communicate Your Results
Good science needs verification. Your experiment should be replicable by other people, so you can put together a report about how you ran your experiment to see if other peoples’ findings are consistent with yours.
This may be useful for class or a science fair. Professional scientists may publish their findings in scientific journals, where other scientists can read and attempt their own versions of the same experiments. Being part of a scientific community helps your experiments be stronger because other people can see if there are flaws in your approach—such as if you tested with different kinds of bread, or sometimes used peanut butter instead of butter—that can lead you closer to a good answer.
A Scientific Method Example: Falling Toast
We’ve run through a quick recap of the scientific method steps, but let’s look a little deeper by trying again to figure out why toast so often falls butter side down.
#1: Make Observations
At the end of our last experiment, where we learned that butter doesn’t actually make toast more likely to hit the ground on that side, we remembered that the times when our toast hits the ground butter side first are usually when it’s falling off a plate.
The easiest question we can ask is, “Why is that?”
We can actually search this online and find a pretty detailed answer as to why this is true. But we’re budding scientists—we want to see it in action and verify it for ourselves! After all, good science should be replicable, and we have all the tools we need to test out what’s really going on.
Why do we think that buttered toast hits the ground butter-first? We know it’s not because it’s heavier, so we can strike that out. Maybe it’s because of the shape of our plate?
That’s something we can test. We’ll phrase our hypothesis as, “If my toast slides off my plate, then it will fall butter-side down.”
Just seeing that toast falls off a plate butter-side down isn’t enough for us. We want to know why, so we’re going to take things a step further—we’ll set up a slow-motion camera to capture what happens as the toast slides off the plate.
We’ll run the test ten times, each time tilting the same plate until the toast slides off. We’ll make note of each time the butter side lands first and see what’s happening on the video so we can see what’s going on.
When we review the footage, we’ll likely notice that the bread starts to flip when it slides off the edge, changing how it falls in a way that didn’t happen when we dropped it ourselves.
That answers our question, but it’s not the complete picture —how do other plates affect how often toast hits the ground butter-first? What if the toast is already butter-side down when it falls? These are things we can test in further experiments with new hypotheses!
Now that we have results, we can share them with others who can verify our results. As mentioned above, being part of the scientific community can lead to better results. If your results were wildly different from the established thinking about buttered toast, that might be cause for reevaluation. If they’re the same, they might lead others to make new discoveries about buttered toast. At the very least, you have a cool experiment you can share with your friends!
Key Scientific Method Tips
Though science can be complex, the benefit of the scientific method is that it gives you an easy-to-follow means of thinking about why and how things happen. To use it effectively, keep these things in mind!
Don’t Worry About Proving Your Hypothesis
One of the important things to remember about the scientific method is that it’s not necessarily meant to prove your hypothesis right. It’s great if you do manage to guess the reason for something right the first time, but the ultimate goal of an experiment is to find the true reason for your observation to occur, not to prove your hypothesis right.
Good science sometimes means that you’re wrong. That’s not a bad thing—a well-designed experiment with an unanticipated result can be just as revealing, if not more, than an experiment that confirms your hypothesis.
Be Prepared to Try Again
If the data from your experiment doesn’t match your hypothesis, that’s not a bad thing. You’ve eliminated one possible explanation, which brings you one step closer to discovering the truth.
The scientific method isn’t something you’re meant to do exactly once to prove a point. It’s meant to be repeated and adapted to bring you closer to a solution. Even if you can demonstrate truth in your hypothesis, a good scientist will run an experiment again to be sure that the results are replicable. You can even tweak a successful hypothesis to test another factor, such as if we redid our buttered toast experiment to find out whether different kinds of plates affect whether or not the toast falls butter-first. The more we test our hypothesis, the stronger it becomes!
What’s Next?
Want to learn more about the scientific method? These important high school science classes will no doubt cover it in a variety of different contexts.
Test your ability to follow the scientific method using these at-home science experiments for kids !
Need some proof that science is fun? Try making slime
Trending Now
How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League
How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA
How to Write an Amazing College Essay
What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?
ACT vs. SAT: Which Test Should You Take?
When should you take the SAT or ACT?
Get Your Free
Find Your Target SAT Score
Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests
How to Get a Perfect SAT Score, by an Expert Full Scorer
Score 800 on SAT Math
Score 800 on SAT Reading and Writing
How to Improve Your Low SAT Score
Score 600 on SAT Math
Score 600 on SAT Reading and Writing
Find Your Target ACT Score
Complete Official Free ACT Practice Tests
How to Get a Perfect ACT Score, by a 36 Full Scorer
Get a 36 on ACT English
Get a 36 on ACT Math
Get a 36 on ACT Reading
Get a 36 on ACT Science
How to Improve Your Low ACT Score
Get a 24 on ACT English
Get a 24 on ACT Math
Get a 24 on ACT Reading
Get a 24 on ACT Science
Stay Informed
Get the latest articles and test prep tips!
Melissa Brinks graduated from the University of Washington in 2014 with a Bachelor's in English with a creative writing emphasis. She has spent several years tutoring K-12 students in many subjects, including in SAT prep, to help them prepare for their college education.
What is the Scientific Method: How does it work and why is it important?
The scientific method is a systematic process involving steps like defining questions, forming hypotheses, conducting experiments, and analyzing data. It minimizes biases and enables replicable research, leading to groundbreaking discoveries like Einstein's theory of relativity, penicillin, and the structure of DNA. This ongoing approach promotes reason, evidence, and the pursuit of truth in science.
Updated on November 18, 2023
Beginning in elementary school, we are exposed to the scientific method and taught how to put it into practice. As a tool for learning, it prepares children to think logically and use reasoning when seeking answers to questions.
Rather than jumping to conclusions, the scientific method gives us a recipe for exploring the world through observation and trial and error. We use it regularly, sometimes knowingly in academics or research, and sometimes subconsciously in our daily lives.
In this article we will refresh our memories on the particulars of the scientific method, discussing where it comes from, which elements comprise it, and how it is put into practice. Then, we will consider the importance of the scientific method, who uses it and under what circumstances.
What is the scientific method?
The scientific method is a dynamic process that involves objectively investigating questions through observation and experimentation . Applicable to all scientific disciplines, this systematic approach to answering questions is more accurately described as a flexible set of principles than as a fixed series of steps.
The following representations of the scientific method illustrate how it can be both condensed into broad categories and also expanded to reveal more and more details of the process. These graphics capture the adaptability that makes this concept universally valuable as it is relevant and accessible not only across age groups and educational levels but also within various contexts.
Steps in the scientific method
While the scientific method is versatile in form and function, it encompasses a collection of principles that create a logical progression to the process of problem solving:
- Define a question : Constructing a clear and precise problem statement that identifies the main question or goal of the investigation is the first step. The wording must lend itself to experimentation by posing a question that is both testable and measurable.
- Gather information and resources : Researching the topic in question to find out what is already known and what types of related questions others are asking is the next step in this process. This background information is vital to gaining a full understanding of the subject and in determining the best design for experiments.
- Form a hypothesis : Composing a concise statement that identifies specific variables and potential results, which can then be tested, is a crucial step that must be completed before any experimentation. An imperfection in the composition of a hypothesis can result in weaknesses to the entire design of an experiment.
- Perform the experiments : Testing the hypothesis by performing replicable experiments and collecting resultant data is another fundamental step of the scientific method. By controlling some elements of an experiment while purposely manipulating others, cause and effect relationships are established.
- Analyze the data : Interpreting the experimental process and results by recognizing trends in the data is a necessary step for comprehending its meaning and supporting the conclusions. Drawing inferences through this systematic process lends substantive evidence for either supporting or rejecting the hypothesis.
- Report the results : Sharing the outcomes of an experiment, through an essay, presentation, graphic, or journal article, is often regarded as a final step in this process. Detailing the project's design, methods, and results not only promotes transparency and replicability but also adds to the body of knowledge for future research.
- Retest the hypothesis : Repeating experiments to see if a hypothesis holds up in all cases is a step that is manifested through varying scenarios. Sometimes a researcher immediately checks their own work or replicates it at a future time, or another researcher will repeat the experiments to further test the hypothesis.
Where did the scientific method come from?
Oftentimes, ancient peoples attempted to answer questions about the unknown by:
- Making simple observations
- Discussing the possibilities with others deemed worthy of a debate
- Drawing conclusions based on dominant opinions and preexisting beliefs
For example, take Greek and Roman mythology. Myths were used to explain everything from the seasons and stars to the sun and death itself.
However, as societies began to grow through advancements in agriculture and language, ancient civilizations like Egypt and Babylonia shifted to a more rational analysis for understanding the natural world. They increasingly employed empirical methods of observation and experimentation that would one day evolve into the scientific method .
In the 4th century, Aristotle, considered the Father of Science by many, suggested these elements , which closely resemble the contemporary scientific method, as part of his approach for conducting science:
- Study what others have written about the subject.
- Look for the general consensus about the subject.
- Perform a systematic study of everything even partially related to the topic.
By continuing to emphasize systematic observation and controlled experiments, scholars such as Al-Kindi and Ibn al-Haytham helped expand this concept throughout the Islamic Golden Age .
In his 1620 treatise, Novum Organum , Sir Francis Bacon codified the scientific method, arguing not only that hypotheses must be tested through experiments but also that the results must be replicated to establish a truth. Coming at the height of the Scientific Revolution, this text made the scientific method accessible to European thinkers like Galileo and Isaac Newton who then put the method into practice.
As science modernized in the 19th century, the scientific method became more formalized, leading to significant breakthroughs in fields such as evolution and germ theory. Today, it continues to evolve, underpinning scientific progress in diverse areas like quantum mechanics, genetics, and artificial intelligence.
Why is the scientific method important?
The history of the scientific method illustrates how the concept developed out of a need to find objective answers to scientific questions by overcoming biases based on fear, religion, power, and cultural norms. This still holds true today.
By implementing this standardized approach to conducting experiments, the impacts of researchers’ personal opinions and preconceived notions are minimized. The organized manner of the scientific method prevents these and other mistakes while promoting the replicability and transparency necessary for solid scientific research.
The importance of the scientific method is best observed through its successes, for example:
- “ Albert Einstein stands out among modern physicists as the scientist who not only formulated a theory of revolutionary significance but also had the genius to reflect in a conscious and technical way on the scientific method he was using.” Devising a hypothesis based on the prevailing understanding of Newtonian physics eventually led Einstein to devise the theory of general relativity .
- Howard Florey “Perhaps the most useful lesson which has come out of the work on penicillin has been the demonstration that success in this field depends on the development and coordinated use of technical methods.” After discovering a mold that prevented the growth of Staphylococcus bacteria, Dr. Alexander Flemimg designed experiments to identify and reproduce it in the lab, thus leading to the development of penicillin .
- James D. Watson “Every time you understand something, religion becomes less likely. Only with the discovery of the double helix and the ensuing genetic revolution have we had grounds for thinking that the powers held traditionally to be the exclusive property of the gods might one day be ours. . . .” By using wire models to conceive a structure for DNA, Watson and Crick crafted a hypothesis for testing combinations of amino acids, X-ray diffraction images, and the current research in atomic physics, resulting in the discovery of DNA’s double helix structure .
Final thoughts
As the cases exemplify, the scientific method is never truly completed, but rather started and restarted. It gave these researchers a structured process that was easily replicated, modified, and built upon.
While the scientific method may “end” in one context, it never literally ends. When a hypothesis, design, methods, and experiments are revisited, the scientific method simply picks up where it left off. Each time a researcher builds upon previous knowledge, the scientific method is restored with the pieces of past efforts.
By guiding researchers towards objective results based on transparency and reproducibility, the scientific method acts as a defense against bias, superstition, and preconceived notions. As we embrace the scientific method's enduring principles, we ensure that our quest for knowledge remains firmly rooted in reason, evidence, and the pursuit of truth.
The AJE Team
See our "Privacy Policy"
What Are The Steps Of The Scientific Method?
Julia Simkus
Editor at Simply Psychology
BA (Hons) Psychology, Princeton University
Julia Simkus is a graduate of Princeton University with a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology. She is currently studying for a Master's Degree in Counseling for Mental Health and Wellness in September 2023. Julia's research has been published in peer reviewed journals.
Learn about our Editorial Process
Saul McLeod, PhD
Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester
Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.
Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc
Associate Editor for Simply Psychology
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education
Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.
On This Page:
Science is not just knowledge. It is also a method for obtaining knowledge. Scientific understanding is organized into theories.
The scientific method is a step-by-step process used by researchers and scientists to determine if there is a relationship between two or more variables. Psychologists use this method to conduct psychological research, gather data, process information, and describe behaviors.
It involves careful observation, asking questions, formulating hypotheses, experimental testing, and refining hypotheses based on experimental findings.
How it is Used
The scientific method can be applied broadly in science across many different fields, such as chemistry, physics, geology, and psychology. In a typical application of this process, a researcher will develop a hypothesis, test this hypothesis, and then modify the hypothesis based on the outcomes of the experiment.
The process is then repeated with the modified hypothesis until the results align with the observed phenomena. Detailed steps of the scientific method are described below.
Keep in mind that the scientific method does not have to follow this fixed sequence of steps; rather, these steps represent a set of general principles or guidelines.
7 Steps of the Scientific Method
Psychology uses an empirical approach.
Empiricism (founded by John Locke) states that the only source of knowledge comes through our senses – e.g., sight, hearing, touch, etc.
Empirical evidence does not rely on argument or belief. Thus, empiricism is the view that all knowledge is based on or may come from direct observation and experience.
The empiricist approach of gaining knowledge through experience quickly became the scientific approach and greatly influenced the development of physics and chemistry in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Step 1: Make an Observation (Theory Construction)
Every researcher starts at the very beginning. Before diving in and exploring something, one must first determine what they will study – it seems simple enough!
By making observations, researchers can establish an area of interest. Once this topic of study has been chosen, a researcher should review existing literature to gain insight into what has already been tested and determine what questions remain unanswered.
This assessment will provide helpful information about what has already been comprehended about the specific topic and what questions remain, and if one can go and answer them.
Specifically, a literature review might implicate examining a substantial amount of documented material from academic journals to books dating back decades. The most appropriate information gathered by the researcher will be shown in the introduction section or abstract of the published study results.
The background material and knowledge will help the researcher with the first significant step in conducting a psychology study, which is formulating a research question.
This is the inductive phase of the scientific process. Observations yield information that is used to formulate theories as explanations. A theory is a well-developed set of ideas that propose an explanation for observed phenomena.
Inductive reasoning moves from specific premises to a general conclusion. It starts with observations of phenomena in the natural world and derives a general law.
Step 2: Ask a Question
Once a researcher has made observations and conducted background research, the next step is to ask a scientific question. A scientific question must be defined, testable, and measurable.
A useful approach to develop a scientific question is: “What is the effect of…?” or “How does X affect Y?”
To answer an experimental question, a researcher must identify two variables: the independent and dependent variables.
The independent variable is the variable manipulated (the cause), and the dependent variable is the variable being measured (the effect).
An example of a research question could be, “Is handwriting or typing more effective for retaining information?” Answering the research question and proposing a relationship between the two variables is discussed in the next step.
Step 3: Form a Hypothesis (Make Predictions)
A hypothesis is an educated guess about the relationship between two or more variables. A hypothesis is an attempt to answer your research question based on prior observation and background research. Theories tend to be too complex to be tested all at once; instead, researchers create hypotheses to test specific aspects of a theory.
For example, a researcher might ask about the connection between sleep and educational performance. Do students who get less sleep perform worse on tests at school?
It is crucial to think about different questions one might have about a particular topic to formulate a reasonable hypothesis. It would help if one also considered how one could investigate the causalities.
It is important that the hypothesis is both testable against reality and falsifiable. This means that it can be tested through an experiment and can be proven wrong.
The falsification principle, proposed by Karl Popper , is a way of demarcating science from non-science. It suggests that for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be able to be tested and conceivably proven false.
To test a hypothesis, we first assume that there is no difference between the populations from which the samples were taken. This is known as the null hypothesis and predicts that the independent variable will not influence the dependent variable.
Examples of “if…then…” Hypotheses:
- If one gets less than 6 hours of sleep, then one will do worse on tests than if one obtains more rest.
- If one drinks lots of water before going to bed, one will have to use the bathroom often at night.
- If one practices exercising and lighting weights, then one’s body will begin to build muscle.
The research hypothesis is often called the alternative hypothesis and predicts what change(s) will occur in the dependent variable when the independent variable is manipulated.
It states that the results are not due to chance and that they are significant in terms of supporting the theory being investigated.
Although one could state and write a scientific hypothesis in many ways, hypotheses are usually built like “if…then…” statements.
Step 4: Run an Experiment (Gather Data)
The next step in the scientific method is to test your hypothesis and collect data. A researcher will design an experiment to test the hypothesis and gather data that will either support or refute the hypothesis.
The exact research methods used to examine a hypothesis depend on what is being studied. A psychologist might utilize two primary forms of research, experimental research, and descriptive research.
The scientific method is objective in that researchers do not let preconceived ideas or biases influence the collection of data and is systematic in that experiments are conducted in a logical way.
Experimental Research
Experimental research is used to investigate cause-and-effect associations between two or more variables. This type of research systematically controls an independent variable and measures its effect on a specified dependent variable.
Experimental research involves manipulating an independent variable and measuring the effect(s) on the dependent variable. Repeating the experiment multiple times is important to confirm that your results are accurate and consistent.
One of the significant advantages of this method is that it permits researchers to determine if changes in one variable cause shifts in each other.
While experiments in psychology typically have many moving parts (and can be relatively complex), an easy investigation is rather fundamental. Still, it does allow researchers to specify cause-and-effect associations between variables.
Most simple experiments use a control group, which involves those who do not receive the treatment, and an experimental group, which involves those who do receive the treatment.
An example of experimental research would be when a pharmaceutical company wants to test a new drug. They give one group a placebo (control group) and the other the actual pill (experimental group).
Descriptive Research
Descriptive research is generally used when it is challenging or even impossible to control the variables in question. Examples of descriptive analysis include naturalistic observation, case studies , and correlation studies .
One example of descriptive research includes phone surveys that marketers often use. While they typically do not allow researchers to identify cause and effect, correlational studies are quite common in psychology research. They make it possible to spot associations between distinct variables and measure the solidity of those relationships.
Step 5: Analyze the Data and Draw Conclusions
Once a researcher has designed and done the investigation and collected sufficient data, it is time to inspect this gathered information and judge what has been found. Researchers can summarize the data, interpret the results, and draw conclusions based on this evidence using analyses and statistics.
Upon completion of the experiment, you can collect your measurements and analyze the data using statistics. Based on the outcomes, you will either reject or confirm your hypothesis.
Analyze the Data
So, how does a researcher determine what the results of their study mean? Statistical analysis can either support or refute a researcher’s hypothesis and can also be used to determine if the conclusions are statistically significant.
When outcomes are said to be “statistically significant,” it is improbable that these results are due to luck or chance. Based on these observations, investigators must then determine what the results mean.
An experiment will support a hypothesis in some circumstances, but sometimes it fails to be truthful in other cases.
What occurs if the developments of a psychology investigation do not endorse the researcher’s hypothesis? It does mean that the study was worthless. Simply because the findings fail to defend the researcher’s hypothesis does not mean that the examination is not helpful or instructive.
This kind of research plays a vital role in supporting scientists in developing unexplored questions and hypotheses to investigate in the future. After decisions have been made, the next step is to communicate the results with the rest of the scientific community.
This is an integral part of the process because it contributes to the general knowledge base and can assist other scientists in finding new research routes to explore.
If the hypothesis is not supported, a researcher should acknowledge the experiment’s results, formulate a new hypothesis, and develop a new experiment.
We must avoid any reference to results proving a theory as this implies 100% certainty, and there is always a chance that evidence may exist that could refute a theory.
Draw Conclusions and Interpret the Data
When the empirical observations disagree with the hypothesis, a number of possibilities must be considered. It might be that the theory is incorrect, in which case it needs altering, so it fully explains the data.
Alternatively, it might be that the hypothesis was poorly derived from the original theory, in which case the scientists were expecting the wrong thing to happen.
It might also be that the research was poorly conducted, or used an inappropriate method, or there were factors in play that the researchers did not consider. This will begin the process of the scientific method again.
If the hypothesis is supported, the researcher can find more evidence to support their hypothesis or look for counter-evidence to strengthen their hypothesis further.
In either scenario, the researcher should share their results with the greater scientific community.
Step 6: Share Your Results
One of the final stages of the research cycle involves the publication of the research. Once the report is written, the researcher(s) may submit the work for publication in an appropriate journal.
Usually, this is done by writing up a study description and publishing the article in a professional or academic journal. The studies and conclusions of psychological work can be seen in peer-reviewed journals such as Developmental Psychology , Psychological Bulletin, the Journal of Social Psychology, and numerous others.
Scientists should report their findings by writing up a description of their study and any subsequent findings. This enables other researchers to build upon the present research or replicate the results.
As outlined by the American Psychological Association (APA), there is a typical structure of a journal article that follows a specified format. In these articles, researchers:
- Supply a brief narrative and background on previous research
- Give their hypothesis
- Specify who participated in the study and how they were chosen
- Provide operational definitions for each variable
- Explain the measures and methods used to collect data
- Describe how the data collected was interpreted
- Discuss what the outcomes mean
A detailed record of psychological studies and all scientific studies is vital to clearly explain the steps and procedures used throughout the study. So that other researchers can try this experiment too and replicate the results.
The editorial process utilized by academic and professional journals guarantees that each submitted article undergoes a thorough peer review to help assure that the study is scientifically sound. Once published, the investigation becomes another piece of the current puzzle of our knowledge “base” on that subject.
This last step is important because all results, whether they supported or did not support the hypothesis, can contribute to the scientific community. Publication of empirical observations leads to more ideas that are tested against the real world, and so on. In this sense, the scientific process is circular.
The editorial process utilized by academic and professional journals guarantees that each submitted article undergoes a thorough peer review to help assure that the study is scientifically sound.
Once published, the investigation becomes another piece of the current puzzle of our knowledge “base” on that subject.
By replicating studies, psychologists can reduce errors, validate theories, and gain a stronger understanding of a particular topic.
Step 7: Repeat the Scientific Method (Iteration)
Now, if one’s hypothesis turns out to be accurate, find more evidence or find counter-evidence. If one’s hypothesis is false, create a new hypothesis or try again.
One may wish to revise their first hypothesis to make a more niche experiment to design or a different specific question to test.
The amazingness of the scientific method is that it is a comprehensive and straightforward process that scientists, and everyone, can utilize over and over again.
So, draw conclusions and repeat because the scientific method is never-ending, and no result is ever considered perfect.
The scientific method is a process of:
- Making an observation.
- Forming a hypothesis.
- Making a prediction.
- Experimenting to test the hypothesis.
The procedure of repeating the scientific method is crucial to science and all fields of human knowledge.
Further Information
- Karl Popper – Falsification
- Thomas – Kuhn Paradigm Shift
- Positivism in Sociology: Definition, Theory & Examples
- Is Psychology a Science?
- Psychology as a Science (PDF)
List the 6 steps of the scientific methods in order
- Make an observation (theory construction)
- Ask a question. A scientific question must be defined, testable, and measurable.
- Form a hypothesis (make predictions)
- Run an experiment to test the hypothesis (gather data)
- Analyze the data and draw conclusions
- Share your results so that other researchers can make new hypotheses
What is the first step of the scientific method?
The first step of the scientific method is making an observation. This involves noticing and describing a phenomenon or group of phenomena that one finds interesting and wishes to explain.
Observations can occur in a natural setting or within the confines of a laboratory. The key point is that the observation provides the initial question or problem that the rest of the scientific method seeks to answer or solve.
What is the scientific method?
The scientific method is a step-by-step process that investigators can follow to determine if there is a causal connection between two or more variables.
Psychologists and other scientists regularly suggest motivations for human behavior. On a more casual level, people judge other people’s intentions, incentives, and actions daily.
While our standard assessments of human behavior are subjective and anecdotal, researchers use the scientific method to study psychology objectively and systematically.
All utilize a scientific method to study distinct aspects of people’s thinking and behavior. This process allows scientists to analyze and understand various psychological phenomena, but it also provides investigators and others a way to disseminate and debate the results of their studies.
The outcomes of these studies are often noted in popular media, which leads numerous to think about how or why researchers came to the findings they did.
Why Use the Six Steps of the Scientific Method
The goal of scientists is to understand better the world that surrounds us. Scientific research is the most critical tool for navigating and learning about our complex world.
Without it, we would be compelled to rely solely on intuition, other people’s power, and luck. We can eliminate our preconceived concepts and superstitions through methodical scientific research and gain an objective sense of ourselves and our world.
All psychological studies aim to explain, predict, and even control or impact mental behaviors or processes. So, psychologists use and repeat the scientific method (and its six steps) to perform and record essential psychological research.
So, psychologists focus on understanding behavior and the cognitive (mental) and physiological (body) processes underlying behavior.
In the real world, people use to understand the behavior of others, such as intuition and personal experience. The hallmark of scientific research is evidence to support a claim.
Scientific knowledge is empirical, meaning it is grounded in objective, tangible evidence that can be observed repeatedly, regardless of who is watching.
The scientific method is crucial because it minimizes the impact of bias or prejudice on the experimenter. Regardless of how hard one tries, even the best-intentioned scientists can’t escape discrimination. can’t
It stems from personal opinions and cultural beliefs, meaning any mortal filters data based on one’s experience. Sadly, this “filtering” process can cause a scientist to favor one outcome over another.
For an everyday person trying to solve a minor issue at home or work, succumbing to these biases is not such a big deal; in fact, most times, it is important.
But in the scientific community, where results must be inspected and reproduced, bias or discrimination must be avoided.
When to Use the Six Steps of the Scientific Method ?
One can use the scientific method anytime, anywhere! From the smallest conundrum to solving global problems, it is a process that can be applied to any science and any investigation.
Even if you are not considered a “scientist,” you will be surprised to know that people of all disciplines use it for all kinds of dilemmas.
Try to catch yourself next time you come by a question and see how you subconsciously or consciously use the scientific method.
Lucidly exploring and applying philosophy
- Fun Quizzes
- Logic Course
- Ethics Course
- Philosophy Course
Chapter 6: Scientific Problem Solving
If you prefer a video, click this button:
Scientific Problem Solving Video
Science is a method to discover empirical truths and patterns. Roughly speaking, the scientific method consists of
1) Observing
2) Forming a hypothesis
3) Testing the hypothesis and
4) Interpreting the data to confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis.
The beauty of science is that any scientific claim can be tested if you have the proper knowledge and equipment.
You can also use the scientific method to solve everyday problems: 1) Observe and clearly define the problem, 2) Form a hypothesis, 3) Test it, and 4) Confirm the hypothesis... or disconfirm it and start over.
So, the next time you are cursing in traffic or emotionally reacting to a problem, take a few deep breaths and then use this rational and scientific approach. Slow down, observe, hypothesize, and test.
Explain how you would solve these problems using the four steps of the scientific process.
Example: The fire alarm is not working.
1) Observe/Define the problem: it does not beep when I push the button.
2) Hypothesis: it is caused by a dead battery.
3) Test: try a new battery.
4) Confirm/Disconfirm: the alarm now works. If it does not work, start over by testing another hypothesis like “it has a loose wire.”
- My car will not start.
- My child is having problems reading.
- I owe $20,000, but only make $10 an hour.
- My boss is mean. I want him/her to stop using rude language towards me.
- My significant other is lazy. I want him/her to help out more.
6-8. Identify three problems where you can apply the scientific method.
*Answers will vary.
Application and Value
Science is more of a process than a body of knowledge. In our daily lives, we often emotionally react and jump to quick solutions when faced with problems, but following the four steps of the scientific process can help us slow down and discover more intelligent solutions.
In your study of philosophy, you will explore deeper questions about science. For example, are there any forms of knowledge that are nonscientific? Can science tell us what we ought to do? Can logical and mathematical truths be proven in a scientific way? Does introspection give knowledge even though I cannot scientifically observe your introspective thoughts? Is science truly objective? These are challenging questions that should help you discover the scope of science without diminishing its awesome power.
But the first step in answering these questions is knowing what science is, and this chapter clarifies its essence. Again, Science is not so much a body of knowledge as it is a method of observing, hypothesizing, and testing. This method is what all the sciences have in common.
Perhaps too science should involve falsifiability, which is a concept explored in the next chapter.
Return to Logic Home Next (Chapter 7, Falsifiability)
Click on my affiliate link above (Logic Book Image) to explore the most popular introduction to logic. If you purchase it, I recommend buying a less expensive older edition.
- Science Notes Posts
- Contact Science Notes
- Todd Helmenstine Biography
- Anne Helmenstine Biography
- Free Printable Periodic Tables (PDF and PNG)
- Periodic Table Wallpapers
- Interactive Periodic Table
- Periodic Table Posters
- Science Experiments for Kids
- How to Grow Crystals
- Chemistry Projects
- Fire and Flames Projects
- Holiday Science
- Chemistry Problems With Answers
- Physics Problems
- Unit Conversion Example Problems
- Chemistry Worksheets
- Biology Worksheets
- Periodic Table Worksheets
- Physical Science Worksheets
- Science Lab Worksheets
- My Amazon Books
Steps of the Scientific Method 2
The scientific method is a system scientists and other people use to ask and answer questions about the natural world. In a nutshell, the scientific method works by making observations, asking a question or identifying a problem, and then designing and analyzing an experiment to test a prediction of what you expect will happen. It’s a powerful analytical tool because once you draw conclusions, you may be able to answer a question and make predictions about future events.
These are the steps of the scientific method:
- Make observations.
Sometimes this step is omitted in the list, but you always make observations before asking a question, whether you recognize it or not. You always have some background information about a topic. However, it’s a good idea to be systematic about your observations and to record them in a lab book or another way. Often, these initial observations can help you identify a question. Later on, this information may help you decide on another area of investigation of a topic.
- Ask a question, identify a problem, or state an objective.
There are various forms of this step. Sometimes you may want to state an objective and a problem and then phrase it in the form of a question. The reason it’s good to state a question is because it’s easiest to design an experiment to answer a question. A question helps you form a hypothesis, which focuses your study.
- Research the topic.
You should conduct background research on your topic to learn as much as you can about it. This can occur both before and after you state an objective and form a hypothesis. In fact, you may find yourself researching the topic throughout the entire process.
- Formulate a hypothesis.
A hypothesis is a formal prediction. There are two forms of a hypothesis that are particularly easy to test. One is to state the hypothesis as an “if, then” statement. An example of an if-then hypothesis is: “If plants are grown under red light, then they will be taller than plants grown under white light.” Another good type of hypothesis is what is called a “ null hypothesis ” or “no difference” hypothesis. An example of a null hypothesis is: “There is no difference in the rate of growth of plants grown under red light compared with plants grown under white light.”
- Design and perform an experiment to test the hypothesis.
Once you have a hypothesis, you need to find a way to test it. This involves an experiment . There are many ways to set up an experiment. A basic experiment contains variables, which are factors you can measure. The two main variables are the independent variable (the one you control or change) and the dependent variable (the one you measure to see if it is affected when you change the independent variable).
- Record and analyze the data you obtain from the experiment.
It’s a good idea to record notes alongside your data, stating anything unusual or unexpected. Once you have the data, draw a chart, table, or graph to present your results. Next, analyze the results to understand what it all means.
- Determine whether you accept or reject the hypothesis.
Do the results support the hypothesis or not? Keep in mind, it’s okay if the hypothesis is not supported, especially if you are testing a null hypothesis. Sometimes excluding an explanation answers your question! There is no “right” or “wrong” here. However, if you obtain an unexpected result, you might want to perform another experiment.
- Draw a conclusion and report the results of the experiment.
What good is knowing something if you keep it to yourself? You should report the outcome of the experiment, even if it’s just in a notebook. What did you learn from the experiment?
How Many Steps Are There?
You may be asked to list the 5 steps of the scientific method or the 6 steps of the method or some other number. There are different ways of grouping together the steps outlined here, so it’s a good idea to learn the way an instructor wants you to list the steps. No matter how many steps there are, the order is always the same.
Related Posts
2 thoughts on “ steps of the scientific method ”.
You raise a valid point, but peer review has its limitations. Consider the case of Galileo, for example.
That’s a good point too. But that was a rare limitation due to religion, and scientific consensus prevailed in the end. It’s nowhere near a reason to doubt scientific consensus in general. I’m thinking about issues such as climate change where so many people are skeptical despite 97% consensus among climate scientists. I was just surprised to see that this is not included as an important part of the process.
Comments are closed.
The Scientific Method by Science Made Simple
Understanding and using the scientific method.
The Scientific Method is a process used to design and perform experiments. It's important to minimize experimental errors and bias, and increase confidence in the accuracy of your results.
In the previous sections, we talked about how to pick a good topic and specific question to investigate. Now we will discuss how to carry out your investigation.
Steps of the Scientific Method
- Observation/Research
- Experimentation
Now that you have settled on the question you want to ask, it's time to use the Scientific Method to design an experiment to answer that question.
If your experiment isn't designed well, you may not get the correct answer. You may not even get any definitive answer at all!
The Scientific Method is a logical and rational order of steps by which scientists come to conclusions about the world around them. The Scientific Method helps to organize thoughts and procedures so that scientists can be confident in the answers they find.
OBSERVATION is first step, so that you know how you want to go about your research.
HYPOTHESIS is the answer you think you'll find.
PREDICTION is your specific belief about the scientific idea: If my hypothesis is true, then I predict we will discover this.
EXPERIMENT is the tool that you invent to answer the question, and
CONCLUSION is the answer that the experiment gives.
Don't worry, it isn't that complicated. Let's take a closer look at each one of these steps. Then you can understand the tools scientists use for their science experiments, and use them for your own.
OBSERVATION
This step could also be called "research." It is the first stage in understanding the problem.
After you decide on topic, and narrow it down to a specific question, you will need to research everything that you can find about it. You can collect information from your own experiences, books, the internet, or even smaller "unofficial" experiments.
Let's continue the example of a science fair idea about tomatoes in the garden. You like to garden, and notice that some tomatoes are bigger than others and wonder why.
Because of this personal experience and an interest in the problem, you decide to learn more about what makes plants grow.
For this stage of the Scientific Method, it's important to use as many sources as you can find. The more information you have on your science fair topic, the better the design of your experiment is going to be, and the better your science fair project is going to be overall.
Also try to get information from your teachers or librarians, or professionals who know something about your science fair project. They can help to guide you to a solid experimental setup.
The next stage of the Scientific Method is known as the "hypothesis." This word basically means "a possible solution to a problem, based on knowledge and research."
The hypothesis is a simple statement that defines what you think the outcome of your experiment will be.
All of the first stage of the Scientific Method -- the observation, or research stage -- is designed to help you express a problem in a single question ("Does the amount of sunlight in a garden affect tomato size?") and propose an answer to the question based on what you know. The experiment that you will design is done to test the hypothesis.
Using the example of the tomato experiment, here is an example of a hypothesis:
TOPIC: "Does the amount of sunlight a tomato plant receives affect the size of the tomatoes?"
HYPOTHESIS: "I believe that the more sunlight a tomato plant receives, the larger the tomatoes will grow.
This hypothesis is based on:
(1) Tomato plants need sunshine to make food through photosynthesis, and logically, more sun means more food, and;
(2) Through informal, exploratory observations of plants in a garden, those with more sunlight appear to grow bigger.
The hypothesis is your general statement of how you think the scientific phenomenon in question works.
Your prediction lets you get specific -- how will you demonstrate that your hypothesis is true? The experiment that you will design is done to test the prediction.
An important thing to remember during this stage of the scientific method is that once you develop a hypothesis and a prediction, you shouldn't change it, even if the results of your experiment show that you were wrong.
An incorrect prediction does NOT mean that you "failed." It just means that the experiment brought some new facts to light that maybe you hadn't thought about before.
Continuing our tomato plant example, a good prediction would be: Increasing the amount of sunlight tomato plants in my experiment receive will cause an increase in their size compared to identical plants that received the same care but less light.
This is the part of the scientific method that tests your hypothesis. An experiment is a tool that you design to find out if your ideas about your topic are right or wrong.
It is absolutely necessary to design a science fair experiment that will accurately test your hypothesis. The experiment is the most important part of the scientific method. It's the logical process that lets scientists learn about the world.
On the next page, we'll discuss the ways that you can go about designing a science fair experiment idea.
The final step in the scientific method is the conclusion. This is a summary of the experiment's results, and how those results match up to your hypothesis.
You have two options for your conclusions: based on your results, either:
(1) YOU CAN REJECT the hypothesis, or
(2) YOU CAN NOT REJECT the hypothesis.
This is an important point!
You can not PROVE the hypothesis with a single experiment, because there is a chance that you made an error somewhere along the way.
What you can say is that your results SUPPORT the original hypothesis.
If your original hypothesis didn't match up with the final results of your experiment, don't change the hypothesis.
Instead, try to explain what might have been wrong with your original hypothesis. What information were you missing when you made your prediction? What are the possible reasons the hypothesis and experimental results didn't match up?
Remember, a science fair experiment isn't a failure simply because does not agree with your hypothesis. No one will take points off if your prediction wasn't accurate. Many important scientific discoveries were made as a result of experiments gone wrong!
A science fair experiment is only a failure if its design is flawed. A flawed experiment is one that (1) doesn't keep its variables under control, and (2) doesn't sufficiently answer the question that you asked of it.
Search This Site:
Science Fairs
- Introduction
- Project Ideas
- Types of Projects
- Pick a Topic
- Scientific Method
- Design Your Experiment
- Present Your Project
- What Judges Want
- Parent Info
Recommended *
- Sample Science Projects - botany, ecology, microbiology, nutrition
* This site contains affiliate links to carefully chosen, high quality products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
- Terms of Service
Copyright © 2006 - 2023, Science Made Simple, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
The science fair projects & ideas, science articles and all other material on this website are covered by copyright laws and may not be reproduced without permission.
- Science, Tech, Math ›
Scientific Method Example
Illustration by J.R. Bee. ThoughtCo.
- Cell Biology
- Weather & Climate
- B.A., Biology, Emory University
- A.S., Nursing, Chattahoochee Technical College
The scientific method is a series of steps that scientific investigators follow to answer specific questions about the natural world. Scientists use the scientific method to make observations, formulate hypotheses , and conduct scientific experiments .
A scientific inquiry starts with an observation. Then, the formulation of a question about what has been observed follows. Next, the scientist will proceed through the remaining steps of the scientific method to end at a conclusion.
The six steps of the scientific method are as follows:
Observation
The first step of the scientific method involves making an observation about something that interests you. Taking an interest in your scientific discovery is important, for example, if you are doing a science project , because you will want to work on something that holds your attention. Your observation can be of anything from plant movement to animal behavior, as long as it is something you want to know more about. This step is when you will come up with an idea if you are working on a science project.
Once you have made your observation, you must formulate a question about what you observed. Your question should summarize what it is you are trying to discover or accomplish in your experiment. When stating your question, be as specific as possible. For example, if you are doing a project on plants , you may want to know how plants interact with microbes. Your question could be: Do plant spices inhibit bacterial growth ?
The hypothesis is a key component of the scientific process. A hypothesis is an idea that is suggested as an explanation for a natural event, a particular experience, or a specific condition that can be tested through definable experimentation. It states the purpose of your experiment, the variables used, and the predicted outcome of your experiment. It is important to note that a hypothesis must be testable. That means that you should be able to test your hypothesis through experimentation . Your hypothesis must either be supported or falsified by your experiment. An example of a good hypothesis is: If there is a relation between listening to music and heart rate, then listening to music will cause a person's resting heart rate to either increase or decrease.
Once you have developed a hypothesis, you must design and conduct an experiment that will test it. You should develop a procedure that states clearly how you plan to conduct your experiment. It is important you include and identify a controlled variable or dependent variable in your procedure. Controls allow us to test a single variable in an experiment because they are unchanged. We can then make observations and comparisons between our controls and our independent variables (things that change in the experiment) to develop an accurate conclusion.
The results are where you report what happened in the experiment. That includes detailing all observations and data made during your experiment. Most people find it easier to visualize the data by charting or graphing the information.
Developing a conclusion is the final step of the scientific method. This is where you analyze the results from the experiment and reach a determination about the hypothesis. Did the experiment support or reject your hypothesis? If your hypothesis was supported, great. If not, repeat the experiment or think of ways to improve your procedure.
- Glycolysis Steps
- Biology Prefixes and Suffixes: chrom- or chromo-
- Biology Prefixes and Suffixes: proto-
- 6 Things You Should Know About Biological Evolution
- Biology Prefixes and Suffixes: Aer- or Aero-
- Taxonomy and Organism Classification
- Homeostasis
- Biology Prefixes and Suffixes: diplo-
- The Biology Suffix -lysis
- Biology Prefixes and Suffixes Index
- Biology Prefixes and Suffixes: tel- or telo-
- Parasitism: Definition and Examples
- Biology Prefixes and Suffixes: Erythr- or Erythro-
- Biology Prefixes and Suffixes: ana-
- Biology Prefixes and Suffixes: phago- or phag-
- Biology Prefixes and Suffixes: -phyll or -phyl
- A to Z Guides
What Is the Scientific Method?
The scientific method is a systematic way of conducting experiments or studies so that you can explore the things you observe in the world and answer questions about them. The scientific method, also known as the hypothetico-deductive method, is a series of steps that can help you accurately describe the things you observe or improve your understanding of them.
Ultimately, your goal when you use the scientific method is to:
- Find a cause-and-effect relationship by asking a question about something you observed
- Collect as much evidence as you can about what you observed, as this can help you explore the connection between your evidence and what you observed
- Determine if all your evidence can be combined to answer your question in a way that makes sense
Francis Bacon and René Descartes are usually credited with formalizing the process in the 16th and 17th centuries. The two philosophers argued that research shouldn’t be guided by preset metaphysical ideas of how reality works. They supported the use of inductive reasoning to come up with hypotheses and understand new things about reality.
Scientific Method Steps
The scientific method is a step-by-step problem-solving process. These steps include:
Observe the world around you. This will help you come up with a topic you are interested in and want to learn more about. In many cases, you already have a topic in mind because you have a related question for which you couldn't find an immediate answer.
Either way, you'll start the process by finding out what people before you already know about the topic, as well as any questions that people are still asking about. You may need to look up and read books and articles from academic journals or talk to other people so that you understand as much as you possibly can about your topic. This will help you with your next step.
Ask questions. Asking questions about what you observed and learned from reading and talking to others can help you figure out what the "problem" is. Scientists try to ask questions that are both interesting and specific and can be answered with the help of a fairly easy experiment or series of experiments. Your question should have one part (called a variable) that you can change in your experiment and another variable that you can measure. Your goal is to design an experiment that is a "fair test," which is when all the conditions in the experiment are kept the same except for the one you change (called the experimental or independent variable).
Form a hypothesis and make predictions based on it. A hypothesis is an educated guess about the relationship between two or more variables in your question. A good hypothesis lets you predict what will happen when you test it in an experiment. Another important feature of a good hypothesis is that, if the hypothesis is wrong, you should be able to show that it's wrong. This is called falsifiability. If your experiment shows that your prediction is true, then your hypothesis is supported by your data.
Test your prediction by doing an experiment or making more observations. The way you test your prediction depends on what you are studying. The best support comes from an experiment, but in some cases, it's too hard or impossible to change the variables in an experiment. Sometimes, you may need to do descriptive research where you gather more observations instead of doing an experiment. You will carefully gather notes and measurements during your experiments or studies, and you can share them with other people interested in the same question as you. Ideally, you will also repeat your experiment a couple more times because it's possible to get a result by chance, but it's less possible to get the same result more than once by chance.
Draw a conclusion. You will analyze what you already know about your topic from your literature research and the data gathered during your experiment. This will help you decide if the conclusion you draw from your data supports or contradicts your hypothesis. If your results contradict your hypothesis, you can use this observation to form a new hypothesis and make a new prediction. This is why scientific research is ongoing and scientific knowledge is changing all the time. It's very common for scientists to get results that don't support their hypotheses. In fact, you sometimes learn more about the world when your experiments don't support your hypotheses because it leads you to ask more questions. And this time around, you already know that one possible explanation is likely wrong.
Use your results to guide your next steps (iterate). For instance, if your hypothesis is supported, you may do more experiments to confirm it. Or you could come up with a hypothesis about why it works this way and design an experiment to test that. If your hypothesis is not supported, you can come up with another hypothesis and do experiments to test it. You'll rarely get the right hypothesis in one go. Most of the time, you'll have to go back to the hypothesis stage and try again. Every attempt offers you important information that helps you improve your next round of questions, hypotheses, and predictions.
Share your results. Scientific research isn't something you can do on your own; you must work with other people to do it. You may be able to do an experiment or a series of experiments on your own, but you can't come up with all the ideas or do all the experiments by yourself .
Scientists and researchers usually share information by publishing it in a scientific journal or by presenting it to their colleagues during meetings and scientific conferences. These journals are read and the conferences are attended by other researchers who are interested in the same questions. If there's anything wrong with your hypothesis, prediction, experiment design, or conclusion, other researchers will likely find it and point it out to you.
It can be scary, but it's a critical part of doing scientific research. You must let your research be examined by other researchers who are as interested and knowledgeable about your question as you. This process helps other researchers by pointing out hypotheses that have been proved wrong and why they are wrong. It helps you by identifying flaws in your thinking or experiment design. And if you don't share what you've learned and let other people ask questions about it, it's not helpful to your or anyone else's understanding of what happens in the world.
Scientific Method Example
Here's an everyday example of how you can apply the scientific method to understand more about your world so you can solve your problems in a helpful way.
Let's say you put slices of bread in your toaster and press the button, but nothing happens. Your toaster isn't working, but you can't afford to buy a new one right now. You might be able to rescue it from the trash can if you can figure out what's wrong with it. So, let's figure out what's wrong with your toaster.
Observation. Your toaster isn't working to toast your bread.
Ask a question. In this case, you're asking, "Why isn't my toaster working?" You could even do a bit of preliminary research by looking in the owner's manual for your toaster. The manufacturer has likely tested your toaster model under many conditions, and they may have some ideas for where to start with your hypothesis.
Form a hypothesis and make predictions based on it. Your hypothesis should be a potential explanation or answer to the question that you can test to see if it's correct. One possible explanation that we could test is that the power outlet is broken. Our prediction is that if the outlet is broken, then plugging it into a different outlet should make the toaster work again.
Test your prediction by doing an experiment or making more observations. You plug the toaster into a different outlet and try to toast your bread.
If that works, then your hypothesis is supported by your experimental data. Results that support your hypothesis don't prove it right; they simply suggest that it's a likely explanation. This uncertainty arises because, in the real world, we can't rule out the possibility of mistakes, wrong assumptions, or weird coincidences affecting the results. If the toaster doesn’t work even after plugging it into a different outlet, then your hypothesis is not supported and it's likely the wrong explanation.
Use your results to guide your next steps (iteration). If your toaster worked, you may decide to do further tests to confirm it or revise it. For example, you could plug something else that you know is working into the first outlet to see if that stops working too. That would be further confirmation that your hypothesis is correct.
If your toaster failed to toast when plugged into the second outlet, you need a new hypothesis. For example, your next hypothesis might be that the toaster has a shorted wire. You could test this hypothesis directly if you have the right equipment and training, or you could take it to a repair shop where they could test that hypothesis for you.
Share your results. For this everyday example, you probably wouldn't want to write a paper, but you could share your problem-solving efforts with your housemates or anyone you hire to repair your outlet or help you test if the toaster has a short circuit.
What the Scientific Method Is Used For
The scientific method is useful whenever you need to reason logically about your questions and gather evidence to support your problem-solving efforts. So, you can use it in everyday life to answer many of your questions; however, when most people think of the scientific method, they likely think of using it to:
Describe how nature works . It can be hard to accurately describe how nature works because it's almost impossible to account for every variable that's involved in a natural process. Researchers may not even know about many of the variables that are involved. In some cases, all you can do is make assumptions. But you can use the scientific method to logically disprove wrong assumptions by identifying flaws in the reasoning.
Do scientific research in a laboratory to develop things such as new medicines.
Develop critical thinking skills. Using the scientific method may help you develop critical thinking in your daily life because you learn to systematically ask questions and gather evidence to find answers. Without logical reasoning, you might be more likely to have a distorted perspective or bias. Bias is the inclination we all have to favor one perspective (usually our own) over another.
The scientific method doesn't perfectly solve the problem of bias, but it does make it harder for an entire field to be biased in the same direction. That's because it's unlikely that all the people working in a field have the same biases. It also helps make the biases of individuals more obvious because if you repeatedly misinterpret information in the same way in multiple experiments or over a period, the other people working on the same question will notice. If you don't correct your bias when others point it out to you, you'll lose your credibility. Other people might then stop believing what you have to say.
Why Is the Scientific Method Important?
When you use the scientific method, your goal is to do research in a fair, unbiased, and repeatable way. The scientific method helps meet these goals because:
It's a systematic approach to problem-solving. It can help you figure out where you're going wrong in your thinking and research if you're not getting helpful answers to your questions. Helpful answers solve problems and keep you moving forward. So, a systematic approach helps you improve your problem-solving abilities if you get stuck.
It can help you solve your problems. The scientific method helps you isolate problems by focusing on what's important. In addition, it can help you make your solutions better every time you go through the process.
It helps you eliminate (or become aware of) your personal biases. It can help you limit the influence of your own personal, preconceived notions . A big part of the process is considering what other people already know and think about your question. It also involves sharing what you've learned and letting other people ask about your methods and conclusions. At the end of the process, even if you still think your answer is best, you have considered what other people know and think about the question.
The scientific method is a systematic way of conducting experiments or studies so that you can explore the world around you and answer questions using reason and evidence. It's a step-by-step problem-solving process that involves: (1) observation, (2) asking questions, (3) forming hypotheses and making predictions, (4) testing your hypotheses through experiments or more observations, (5) using what you learned through experiment or observation to guide further investigation, and (6) sharing your results.
Top doctors in ,
Find more top doctors on, related links.
- Health A-Z News
- Health A-Z Reference
- Health A-Z Slideshows
- Health A-Z Quizzes
- Health A-Z Videos
- WebMDRx Savings Card
- Coronavirus (COVID-19)
- Hepatitis C
- Diabetes Warning Signs
- Rheumatoid Arthritis
- Morning-After Pill
- Breast Cancer Screening
- Psoriatic Arthritis Symptoms
- Heart Failure
- Multiple Myeloma
- Types of Crohn's Disease
- History & Society
- Science & Tech
- Biographies
- Animals & Nature
- Geography & Travel
- Arts & Culture
- Games & Quizzes
- On This Day
- One Good Fact
- New Articles
- Lifestyles & Social Issues
- Philosophy & Religion
- Politics, Law & Government
- World History
- Health & Medicine
- Browse Biographies
- Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
- Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
- Environment
- Fossils & Geologic Time
- Entertainment & Pop Culture
- Sports & Recreation
- Visual Arts
- Demystified
- Image Galleries
- Infographics
- Top Questions
- Britannica Kids
- Saving Earth
- Space Next 50
- Student Center
scientific method
Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.
- University of Nevada, Reno - College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources Extension - The Scientific Method
- World History Encyclopedia - Scientific Method
- LiveScience - What Is Science?
- Verywell Mind - Scientific Method Steps in Psychology Research
- WebMD - What is the Scientific Method?
- Chemistry LibreTexts - The Scientific Method
- National Center for Biotechnology Information - PubMed Central - Redefining the scientific method: as the use of sophisticated scientific methods that extend our mind
- Khan Academy - The scientific method
- Simply Psychology - What are the steps in the Scientific Method?
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Scientific Method
scientific method , mathematical and experimental technique employed in the sciences . More specifically, it is the technique used in the construction and testing of a scientific hypothesis .
The process of observing, asking questions, and seeking answers through tests and experiments is not unique to any one field of science. In fact, the scientific method is applied broadly in science, across many different fields. Many empirical sciences, especially the social sciences , use mathematical tools borrowed from probability theory and statistics , together with outgrowths of these, such as decision theory , game theory , utility theory, and operations research . Philosophers of science have addressed general methodological problems, such as the nature of scientific explanation and the justification of induction .
The scientific method is critical to the development of scientific theories , which explain empirical (experiential) laws in a scientifically rational manner. In a typical application of the scientific method, a researcher develops a hypothesis , tests it through various means, and then modifies the hypothesis on the basis of the outcome of the tests and experiments. The modified hypothesis is then retested, further modified, and tested again, until it becomes consistent with observed phenomena and testing outcomes. In this way, hypotheses serve as tools by which scientists gather data. From that data and the many different scientific investigations undertaken to explore hypotheses, scientists are able to develop broad general explanations, or scientific theories.
See also Mill’s methods ; hypothetico-deductive method .
When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.
- PLOS Biology
- PLOS Climate
- PLOS Complex Systems
- PLOS Computational Biology
- PLOS Digital Health
- PLOS Genetics
- PLOS Global Public Health
- PLOS Medicine
- PLOS Mental Health
- PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
- PLOS Pathogens
- PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
- PLOS Collections
- About This Blog
- Official PLOS Blog
- EveryONE Blog
- Speaking of Medicine
- PLOS Biologue
- Absolutely Maybe
- DNA Science
- PLOS ECR Community
- All Models Are Wrong
- About PLOS Blogs
A Guide to Using the Scientific Method in Everyday Life
The scientific method —the process used by scientists to understand the natural world—has the merit of investigating natural phenomena in a rigorous manner. Working from hypotheses, scientists draw conclusions based on empirical data. These data are validated on large-scale numbers and take into consideration the intrinsic variability of the real world. For people unfamiliar with its intrinsic jargon and formalities, science may seem esoteric. And this is a huge problem: science invites criticism because it is not easily understood. So why is it important, then, that every person understand how science is done?
Because the scientific method is, first of all, a matter of logical reasoning and only afterwards, a procedure to be applied in a laboratory.
Individuals without training in logical reasoning are more easily victims of distorted perspectives about themselves and the world. An example is represented by the so-called “ cognitive biases ”—systematic mistakes that individuals make when they try to think rationally, and which lead to erroneous or inaccurate conclusions. People can easily overestimate the relevance of their own behaviors and choices. They can lack the ability to self-estimate the quality of their performances and thoughts . Unconsciously, they could even end up selecting only the arguments that support their hypothesis or beliefs . This is why the scientific framework should be conceived not only as a mechanism for understanding the natural world, but also as a framework for engaging in logical reasoning and discussion.
A brief history of the scientific method
The scientific method has its roots in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Philosophers Francis Bacon and René Descartes are often credited with formalizing the scientific method because they contrasted the idea that research should be guided by metaphysical pre-conceived concepts of the nature of reality—a position that, at the time, was highly supported by their colleagues . In essence, Bacon thought that inductive reasoning based on empirical observation was critical to the formulation of hypotheses and the generation of new understanding : general or universal principles describing how nature works are derived only from observations of recurring phenomena and data recorded from them. The inductive method was used, for example, by the scientist Rudolf Virchow to formulate the third principle of the notorious cell theory , according to which every cell derives from a pre-existing one. The rationale behind this conclusion is that because all observations of cell behavior show that cells are only derived from other cells, this assertion must be always true.
Inductive reasoning, however, is not immune to mistakes and limitations. Referring back to cell theory, there may be rare occasions in which a cell does not arise from a pre-existing one, even though we haven’t observed it yet—our observations on cell behavior, although numerous, can still benefit from additional observations to either refute or support the conclusion that all cells arise from pre-existing ones. And this is where limited observations can lead to erroneous conclusions reasoned inductively. In another example, if one never has seen a swan that is not white, they might conclude that all swans are white, even when we know that black swans do exist, however rare they may be.
The universally accepted scientific method, as it is used in science laboratories today, is grounded in hypothetico-deductive reasoning . Research progresses via iterative empirical testing of formulated, testable hypotheses (formulated through inductive reasoning). A testable hypothesis is one that can be rejected (falsified) by empirical observations, a concept known as the principle of falsification . Initially, ideas and conjectures are formulated. Experiments are then performed to test them. If the body of evidence fails to reject the hypothesis, the hypothesis stands. It stands however until and unless another (even singular) empirical observation falsifies it. However, just as with inductive reasoning, hypothetico-deductive reasoning is not immune to pitfalls—assumptions built into hypotheses can be shown to be false, thereby nullifying previously unrejected hypotheses. The bottom line is that science does not work to prove anything about the natural world. Instead, it builds hypotheses that explain the natural world and then attempts to find the hole in the reasoning (i.e., it works to disprove things about the natural world).
How do scientists test hypotheses?
Controlled experiments
The word “experiment” can be misleading because it implies a lack of control over the process. Therefore, it is important to understand that science uses controlled experiments in order to test hypotheses and contribute new knowledge. So what exactly is a controlled experiment, then?
Let us take a practical example. Our starting hypothesis is the following: we have a novel drug that we think inhibits the division of cells, meaning that it prevents one cell from dividing into two cells (recall the description of cell theory above). To test this hypothesis, we could treat some cells with the drug on a plate that contains nutrients and fuel required for their survival and division (a standard cell biology assay). If the drug works as expected, the cells should stop dividing. This type of drug might be useful, for example, in treating cancers because slowing or stopping the division of cells would result in the slowing or stopping of tumor growth.
Although this experiment is relatively easy to do, the mere process of doing science means that several experimental variables (like temperature of the cells or drug, dosage, and so on) could play a major role in the experiment. This could result in a failed experiment when the drug actually does work, or it could give the appearance that the drug is working when it is not. Given that these variables cannot be eliminated, scientists always run control experiments in parallel to the real ones, so that the effects of these other variables can be determined. Control experiments are designed so that all variables, with the exception of the one under investigation, are kept constant. In simple terms, the conditions must be identical between the control and the actual experiment.
Coming back to our example, when a drug is administered it is not pure. Often, it is dissolved in a solvent like water or oil. Therefore, the perfect control to the actual experiment would be to administer pure solvent (without the added drug) at the same time and with the same tools, where all other experimental variables (like temperature, as mentioned above) are the same between the two (Figure 1). Any difference in effect on cell division in the actual experiment here can be attributed to an effect of the drug because the effects of the solvent were controlled.
In order to provide evidence of the quality of a single, specific experiment, it needs to be performed multiple times in the same experimental conditions. We call these multiple experiments “replicates” of the experiment (Figure 2). The more replicates of the same experiment, the more confident the scientist can be about the conclusions of that experiment under the given conditions. However, multiple replicates under the same experimental conditions are of no help when scientists aim at acquiring more empirical evidence to support their hypothesis. Instead, they need independent experiments (Figure 3), in their own lab and in other labs across the world, to validate their results.
Often times, especially when a given experiment has been repeated and its outcome is not fully clear, it is better to find alternative experimental assays to test the hypothesis.
Applying the scientific approach to everyday life
So, what can we take from the scientific approach to apply to our everyday lives?
A few weeks ago, I had an agitated conversation with a bunch of friends concerning the following question: What is the definition of intelligence?
Defining “intelligence” is not easy. At the beginning of the conversation, everybody had a different, “personal” conception of intelligence in mind, which – tacitly – implied that the conversation could have taken several different directions. We realized rather soon that someone thought that an intelligent person is whoever is able to adapt faster to new situations; someone else thought that an intelligent person is whoever is able to deal with other people and empathize with them. Personally, I thought that an intelligent person is whoever displays high cognitive skills, especially in abstract reasoning.
The scientific method has the merit of providing a reference system, with precise protocols and rules to follow. Remember: experiments must be reproducible, which means that an independent scientists in a different laboratory, when provided with the same equipment and protocols, should get comparable results. Fruitful conversations as well need precise language, a kind of reference vocabulary everybody should agree upon, in order to discuss about the same “content”. This is something we often forget, something that was somehow missing at the opening of the aforementioned conversation: even among friends, we should always agree on premises, and define them in a rigorous manner, so that they are the same for everybody. When speaking about “intelligence”, we must all make sure we understand meaning and context of the vocabulary adopted in the debate (Figure 4, point 1). This is the first step of “controlling” a conversation.
There is another downside that a discussion well-grounded in a scientific framework would avoid. The mistake is not structuring the debate so that all its elements, except for the one under investigation, are kept constant (Figure 4, point 2). This is particularly true when people aim at making comparisons between groups to support their claim. For example, they may try to define what intelligence is by comparing the achievements in life of different individuals: “Stephen Hawking is a brilliant example of intelligence because of his great contribution to the physics of black holes”. This statement does not help to define what intelligence is, simply because it compares Stephen Hawking, a famous and exceptional physicist, to any other person, who statistically speaking, knows nothing about physics. Hawking first went to the University of Oxford, then he moved to the University of Cambridge. He was in contact with the most influential physicists on Earth. Other people were not. All of this, of course, does not disprove Hawking’s intelligence; but from a logical and methodological point of view, given the multitude of variables included in this comparison, it cannot prove it. Thus, the sentence “Stephen Hawking is a brilliant example of intelligence because of his great contribution to the physics of black holes” is not a valid argument to describe what intelligence is. If we really intend to approximate a definition of intelligence, Steven Hawking should be compared to other physicists, even better if they were Hawking’s classmates at the time of college, and colleagues afterwards during years of academic research.
In simple terms, as scientists do in the lab, while debating we should try to compare groups of elements that display identical, or highly similar, features. As previously mentioned, all variables – except for the one under investigation – must be kept constant.
This insightful piece presents a detailed analysis of how and why science can help to develop critical thinking.
In a nutshell
Here is how to approach a daily conversation in a rigorous, scientific manner:
- First discuss about the reference vocabulary, then discuss about the content of the discussion. Think about a researcher who is writing down an experimental protocol that will be used by thousands of other scientists in varying continents. If the protocol is rigorously written, all scientists using it should get comparable experimental outcomes. In science this means reproducible knowledge, in daily life this means fruitful conversations in which individuals are on the same page.
- Adopt “controlled” arguments to support your claims. When making comparisons between groups, visualize two blank scenarios. As you start to add details to both of them, you have two options. If your aim is to hide a specific detail, the better is to design the two scenarios in a completely different manner—it is to increase the variables. But if your intention is to help the observer to isolate a specific detail, the better is to design identical scenarios, with the exception of the intended detail—it is therefore to keep most of the variables constant. This is precisely how scientists ideate adequate experiments to isolate new pieces of knowledge, and how individuals should orchestrate their thoughts in order to test them and facilitate their comprehension to others.
Not only the scientific method should offer individuals an elitist way to investigate reality, but also an accessible tool to properly reason and discuss about it.
Edited by Jason Organ, PhD, Indiana University School of Medicine.
Simone is a molecular biologist on the verge of obtaining a doctoral title at the University of Ulm, Germany. He is Vice-Director at Culturico (https://culturico.com/), where his writings span from Literature to Sociology, from Philosophy to Science. His writings recently appeared in Psychology Today, openDemocracy, Splice Today, Merion West, Uncommon Ground and The Society Pages. Follow Simone on Twitter: @simredaelli
- Pingback: Case Studies in Ethical Thinking: Day 1 | Education & Erudition
This has to be the best article I have ever read on Scientific Thinking. I am presently writing a treatise on how Scientific thinking can be adopted to entreat all situations.And how, a 4 year old child can be taught to adopt Scientific thinking, so that, the child can look at situations that bothers her and she could try to think about that situation by formulating the right questions. She may not have the tools to find right answers? But, forming questions by using right technique ? May just make her find a way to put her mind to rest even at that level. That is why, 4 year olds are often “eerily: (!)intelligent, I have iften been intimidated and plain embarrassed to see an intelligent and well spoken 4 year old deal with celibrity ! Of course, there are a lot of variables that have to be kept in mind in order to train children in such controlled thinking environment, as the screenplay of little Sheldon shows. Thanking the author with all my heart – #ershadspeak #wearescience #weareallscientists Ershad Khandker
Simone, thank you for this article. I have the idea that I want to apply what I learned in Biology to everyday life. You addressed this issue, and have given some basic steps in using the scientific method.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name and email for the next time I comment.
By Ashley Moses, edited by Andrew S. Cale Each year, millions of scientific research papers are published. Virtually none of them can…
By Ana Santos-Carvalho and Carolina Lebre, edited by Andrew S. Cale Excessive use of technical jargon can be a significant barrier to…
By Ryan McRae and Briana Pobiner, edited by Andrew S. Cale In 2023, the field of human evolution benefited from a plethora…
Login to your account
Change password, your password must have 8 characters or more and contain 3 of the following:.
- a lower case character,
- an upper case character,
- a special character
Password Changed Successfully
Your password has been changed
Create a new account
Can't sign in? Forgot your password?
Enter your email address below and we will send you the reset instructions
If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to reset your password
Request Username
Can't sign in? Forgot your username?
Enter your email address below and we will send you your username
If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username
- Institutional Access
Cookies Notification
System Upgrade on Tue, May 28th, 2024 at 2am (EDT)
Solving Everyday Problems with the Scientific Method
- By (author):
- Don K Mak ,
- Angela T Mak , and
- Anthony B Mak
- Add to favorites
- Download Citations
- Track Citations
- Recommend to Library
- Description
- Supplementary
This book describes how one can use The Scientific Method to solve everyday problems including medical ailments, health issues, money management, traveling, shopping, cooking, household chores, etc. It illustrates how to exploit the information collected from our five senses, how to solve problems when no information is available for the present problem situation, how to increase our chances of success by redefining a problem, and how to extrapolate our capabilities by seeing a relationship among heretofore unrelated concepts.
One should formulate a hypothesis as early as possible in order to have a sense of direction regarding which path to follow. Occasionally, by making wild conjectures, creative solutions can transpire. However, hypotheses need to be well-tested. Through this way, The Scientific Method can help readers solve problems in both familiar and unfamiliar situations. Containing real-life examples of how various problems are solved — for instance, how some observant patients cure their own illnesses when medical experts have failed — this book will train readers to observe what others may have missed and conceive what others may not have contemplated. With practice, they will be able to solve more problems than they could previously imagine.
In this second edition, the authors have added some more theories which they hope can help in solving everyday problems. At the same time, they have updated the book by including quite a few examples which they think are interesting.
Sample Chapter(s) Chapter 1: Prelude (63 KB)
- Preface to the Second Edition
- Preface to the First Edition
- The Scientific Method
- Observation
- Recognition
- Problem Situation and Problem Definition
- Induction and Deduction
- Alternative Solutions
- Mathematics
- Probable Value
- Bibliography
FRONT MATTER
- Pages: i–xvi
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813145313_fmatter
- Claimers and Disclaimers
Chapter 1: Prelude
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813145313_0001
The father put down the newspaper. It had been raining for the last two hours. The rain finally stopped, and the sky looked clear. After all this raining, the negative ions in the atmosphere would have increased, and the air would feel fresh. The father suggested the family of four should go for a stroll. There was a park just about fifteen minutes walk from their house.
Chapter 2: The Scientific Method
- Pages: 3–18
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813145313_0002
In the history of philosophical ideation, scientific discoveries, and engineering inventions, it has almost never happened that a single person (or a single group of people) has come up with an idea or a similar idea that no one has ever dreamed of earlier, or at the same time. This person may not be aware of the previous findings, nor someone else in another part of the world has comparable ideas, and thus – his idea may be very original, as far as he is concerned. However, history tells us that it is highly unlikely that no one has already come up with some related concepts.
Chapter 3: Observation
- Pages: 19–56
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813145313_0003
Observation is the first step of the Scientific Method. However, it can infiltrate the whole scientific process – from the initial perception of a phenomenon, to proposing a solution, and right down to experimentation, where observation of the results is significant.
Chapter 4: Hypothesis
- Pages: 57–95
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813145313_0004
In scientific discipline, a hypothesis is a set of propositions set forth to explain the occurrence of certain phenomena. In daily language, a hypothesis can be interpreted as an assumption or guess. In this book, we employ both these definitions. Within the context of the first definition, we search for an explanation of why the problem occurs to begin with. Within the context of the second definition, we look for a plausible solution to the problem.
Chapter 5: Experiment
- Pages: 96–121
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813145313_0005
In scientific discipline, an experiment is a test under controlled conditions to investigate the validity of a hypothesis. In everyday language, experiment can be interpreted as a testing of an idea. In this book, we employ both these definitions. Within the context of the first definition, we attempt to confirm whether an explanation of an observation is correct. Within the context of the second definition, we check whether a proposed idea for a solution is valid.
Chapter 6: Recognition
- Pages: 122–144
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813145313_0006
Before we can solve any problem, we need to recognize that a problem exists in the first place. That may seem obvious, but while some problems stick out like thorns in a bush, others are hidden like plants in a forest. As such, not only do we need to tune up our observational skills to see that a problem does exist; we should also sharpen our thinking to anticipate that a problem may arise. Thus, recognition can be considered to be a combination of observing and hypothesizing.
Chapter 7: Problem Situation and Problem Definition
- Pages: 145–152
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813145313_0007
For just about any situation, we can look at it from different perspectives. Take the example of a piece of rock, it will look different from the eyes of a landscaper, an architect, a geologist and an artist.
Chapter 8: Induction and Deduction
- Pages: 153–164
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813145313_0008
Once a problem has been defined, we need to find a solution. To determine which route we can take, we will have to take a look at the knowledge that we already have in hand, and we may want to search for more information when necessary. It is therefore, much more convenient if we already have an arsenal of tools that have been stored neatly and categorized in our mind. That simply means, that we should have been observing our surroundings, and preferably have come up with some general principles that can guide us in the present problem.
Chapter 9: Alternative Solutions
- Pages: 165–193
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813145313_0009
While there are various ways to view a problem situation, and thus define a problem differently, there are also different ways to solve a problem once it is defined. Some of the solutions may be better than others. If we have the option of not requiring to make a snap judgement, we should wait till we have come up with several plausible solutions, and then decide which one would be the best. How do we know which solution is the best? We will discuss that in the chapter on Probable Value. Generally speaking, we should train ourselves to come up with a few suggestions, and weigh the pros and cons of each resolution. This would be equivalent to coming up with different hypotheses, and judging which one would provide an optimal result.
Chapter 10: Relation
- Pages: 194–225
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813145313_0010
Relation is the connection and association among different objects, events, and ideas. Problem solving, quite often, is connected with the ability to see the various relations among diversified concepts. Understanding the affiliation of a mixture of notions can be considered as hypothesizing the existence of certain correlation.
Chapter 11: Mathematics
- Pages: 226–306
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813145313_0011
Mathematics, even some simple arithmetic, is so important in solving some of the everyday problems, that we think a whole chapter should be written on it.
Chapter 12: Probable Value
- Pages: 307–318
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813145313_0012
For a certain problem, we may come up with several plausible solutions. Which path should we take? Each path would only have certain chance or probability of success in resolving the problem. If each path or solution has a different reward, we can define the probable value of each path to be the multiplication of the reward by the probability. We should, most likely, choose the path that has the highest probable value. (The term “probable value” is coined by us. The idea is appropriated from the term “expected value” in Statistics. In this sense, expected value can be considered as the sum of all probable values.).
Chapter 13: Epilogue
- Pages: 319–322
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813145313_0013
We run into problems every day. Even when we do not encounter any problems, it does not mean that they do not exist. Sometimes, we wish we could be able to recognize them earlier. The scientific method of observation, hypothesis, and experiment can help us recognize, define, and solve our problems.
BACK MATTER
- Pages: 323–332
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813145313_bmatter
Praise for the First Edition:
“The book was fun: a clever and entertaining introduction to basic logical thinking and maths.”
“This ingenious and entertaining volume should be useful to anyone in the general public interested in self-help books; undergraduate students majoring in education or behavioral psychology; and graduates and researchers interested in problem-solving, creativity, and scientific research methodology.”
Related Books
Tabibito (The Traveler)
Time in Powers of Ten
The Grant Writing and Crowdfunding Guide for Young Investigators in Science
An Outline of Scientific Writing
Security, Cooperation and Disarmament
Enjoy Your Science Meeting!
Speaking Technically
The Briefest History of Time
Publishing and the Advancement of Science
Order and Disorder
Shedding the Veil
Exploring the Integrated Science
Nobel and Lasker Laureates of Chinese Descent
Intelligible Design
A Second Genesis
Handbook of Scientific Tables
Solitons and Particles
Selling Science
Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:
- Student information
- Faculty/Staff information
We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.
Stanford bioengineer Michael Fischbach likes to create problems – but not in the way you may think. Problem is a word that most people dread: a negative hindrance, a roadblock to progress. But in science, and for Fischbach, that’s not the case.
In the realm of research – and beyond – Fischbach says selecting a problem is the first step in working toward a solution. He values problems so much, in fact, that he and his mentor, the late Christopher T. Walsh, developed a framework and a course to help scientists and students find a good problem to work on – which can lead to optimal solutions.
“In every discipline, you find people who have good taste in problems. They work on things that are important, with great opportunities, that have tremendous impact. That’s treated as a rare trait,” said Fischbach. “But I wondered: How could you teach this to someone who didn’t know how to start?”
Below, Fischbach shares a simplified version of this framework, and how it could help anyone choose their next problem with care.
1. Spend more time
When figuring out what problem to work on, people are typically in a rush. But the course Fischbach teaches on this topic encourages students to take months to brainstorm. “It’s the main thesis, more than anything else. We should spend more time practicing and talking about and exercising this skill,” said Fischbach. People don’t automatically think optimally about approaching problems, so taking more time to strategize maximizes the chances that you’ll achieve your end goals.
Fischbach likens choosing a problem to a constant practice like yoga or meditation. And he’s found that the more time a person spends on selecting problems, the more they also develop the skills for coming up with the answers. He also reports that his students really value the slower process – partially because they’ve seen that haste really does make waste when it comes to graduate projects.
2. Use structure as a resource
Getting started can be a challenge if everything lives in your head. “You just have to put something concrete down, something on paper, which makes for good discussion. The one thing that doesn’t work is a blank piece of paper with no structure, because humans get paralyzed by a lack of structure,” said Fischbach. He compared setting these early boundaries to haiku – the rigid rules for a number of syllables and lines engenders creativity and resourcefulness.
3. Spark your inspiration
“There’s no one way to come up with an idea,” Fischbach said. But the prompts in his framework, called “intuition pumps” (from Daniel Dennett’s book Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking ) are made to help guide people along the way.
These prompts include asking how to optimize a current process, imagining how to get from the current state of things to the future, and observing what works and what doesn’t work now. Fischbach said, “It almost doesn’t matter which you use, as long as it gets you thinking.”
4. Avoid the traps
When coming up with a problem, there are some pitfalls that Fischbach warns against – and these will likely sound familiar, even to nonscientists. His framework cautions people against choosing problems just because they’re easy, specializing so much that the problem is no longer useful, joining a trend too late, blaming external factors for issues you come across, and only copying the process of people you observe, rather than developing the actual process yourself.
Fischbach emphasized that conversation is an important part of the problem picking process because others may spot traps that the problem picker has missed.
Sometimes you feel like you need to find something that is sure to succeed. But nothing worth doing has that profile – nothing in life.”
5. Get comfortable with risk
High risk can lead to high reward. But the stakes may often seem too high when they’re tied to your success in a grad program or at work.
Fischbach acknowledged that and said, “I think sometimes you feel like you need to find something that is sure to succeed. But nothing worth doing has that profile – nothing in life. The more honest and useful thing to do is to just be open about what the risks are, and not only that, but to get very comfortable with them.”
Getting other people on board is easier that way too. If you develop a keen awareness of the risks involved with your process, you have better odds of convincing others that the risks are worth it.
6. Go for the goal
Problem picking is about trying to get to a solution and an end goal, but the journey there might take longer if you don’t keep your eye on the prize. Fischbach pointed to solutions for more niche problems, such as a staircase-climbing wheelchair, as a model for this. The developers of that tool created it for a subset of disabled people who it would be beneficial for, Fischbach says, rather than trying to make it have wide market appeal.
“You have to be very honest with yourself about what you’re solving for. If you get that wrong, you might make it hard for other people to understand why you’re doing what you’re doing,” said Fischbach. “So, ask yourself: What is your motivation? What are you aiming for? It’s easier for you to understand what you’re trying to do if you can articulate your goal.”
7. Keep the details flexible
Somewhat the opposite of setting constraints at the beginning of choosing a problem, once you have a goal in mind, embrace that there are a number of possible ways to get there. In the face of so many options, Fischbach recommends answering another question: What is your main focus? From there, allow some flexibility in how solutions evolve.
Take, for example, being interested in both artificial intelligence and climate change. You might move forward assuming that you should simply combine the two interests. But artificial intelligence may not be the right tool for the climate change issue you wanted to address. Forcing the connection between the two as your solution – rather than focusing on the main problem and keeping the approach to solving it flexible – may lead to getting stuck down the line.
The original plan was made when you had less information and things hadn’t progressed. But the practice of anything is 90% doing and 10% switching to a different mode and updating your approach.”
8. Expect twists and turns
Much of the framework that Fischbach teaches is essentially about making the plan before you set out to solve anything. But it’s rarely so straightforward as following your plan from A to Z. “When you start out thinking that your original plan is going to unfold exactly, that is an illusion. There’s no real project I’ve seen that doesn’t go through some serious twists and turns,” said Fischbach.
Fortunately, Fischbach explained that in the planning process, people are actually choosing an ensemble of paths – and when you get knocked off one course, you usually have the ability to switch to a different path.
9. Do the “altitude dance”
As you journey from problem to solution, it can be hard to remember to zoom out every once in a while to make sure you’re navigating around roadblocks. That process is what Fischbach calls the altitude dance – being able to see the bigger picture and make adjustments in your everyday work to get there.
Fischbach said, “The original plan was made when you had less information and things hadn’t progressed. But the practice of anything is 90% doing and 10% switching to a different mode and updating your approach.”
The ability to cycle between active problem solving and evaluating that progress from a more removed perspective is what Fishbach considers the ultimate key to solving problems.
10. Face problems head on
In some martial arts, the practice of nonresistance helps redirect the energy of an opponent. Rather than resisting the move or running away, you allow the opponent to approach and then use their own energy to flip them. Fischbach thinks this is the best approach to any issue.
“Often you confront a problem, and if it feels bad, you want to deny it for a while. Then, when you accept it, you want to turn and run in the other direction,” said Fischbach. “But the problem you’re confronting has incredibly high information content: It’s telling you about key weaknesses in your idea. And often, it’s giving you the clue you need to solve it.”
Even outside of the research context, Fischbach believes that facing adversity and getting yourself out of a tight spot are invaluable. “It’s not a cause for sadness – it’s the quintessential experience of life,” said Fischbach. “And if you can get out of it by using your brain, your creativity, your intuition, the people around you – you take a shortcut to the next level. And you’re unstoppable.”
For more information
Fischbach is the Liu (Liao) Family Professor of Bioengineering in the schools of Engineering and Medicine . He is also an institute scholar at Sarafan ChEM-H , director of the Microbiome Therapies Initiative (MITI) and a member of Stanford Bio-X , the Wu Tsai Human Performance Alliance , the Maternal & Child Health Research Institute (MCHRI) , Stanford Medicine Children’s Health Center for IBD and Celiac Disease , and the Stanford Cancer Institute .
The journal Cell published a paper on this topic by Fischbach titled, “Problem choice and decision trees in science and engineering,” in April 2024.
Filter year:
Find Missing Numbers Reasoning and Problem Solving
Take children's learning to the next level by downloading this Year 5 Find Missing Numbers reasoning and problem solving worksheet. We've included 6 questions on a ready-to-complete format for children to use with addition and subtraction missing number problems.
Great to use after children have practised some varied fluency questions. This is designed as an independent activity although you could use this resource in small groups or in pairs to encourage the use of mathematical talk and reasoning.
Curriculum Objectives
- Add and subtract numbers mentally with increasingly large numbers
- Solve addition and subtraction multi-step problems in contexts, deciding which operations and methods to use and why
Addition and Subtraction
More like this
More Y5 resources
Boiling Point: On bottlenose dolphins and the insidious presence of microplastics
- Copy Link URL Copied!
I’m Susanne Rust, staff writer for the L.A. Times; I’m filling in for Sammy Roth today.
For the last few months, I’ve been largely covering two topics: Bird flu and plastics. And because bird flu has taken up the majority of my time since it jumped into California’s dairy cattle and dairy workers in August, I’m thrilled to take a moment and examine news in my other major cover area: Plastics!
And there was a doozy of a story published across the media landscape ( the New York Times , the Guardian , Smithsonian Magazine , etc.) last week: Bottlenose dolphins living in Florida’s Sarasota Bay and Louisiana’s Barataria Bay not only breathe in plastic when they surface for air, they breathe it out, too.
Researchers found that air samples taken from the playful marine mammals’ blow holes contained plastic polymer fibers and particles — including polyester and polyethylene terephthalate, or PET (the plastic used to make water bottles, string cheese wrappers and microwavable food trays).
Goes without saying, dolphins are not eating their food from these single-use plastic food containers — which means they are getting it from our waste, which has a knack for finding its way into our rivers, oceans and air.
Each year, roughly 2 million tons of plastic end up in the world’s oceans.
I suppose it shouldn’t be surprising that researchers found microplastics in dolphin breath. Seems every time scientists look for microplastics, they find it — from the tops of the planet’s highest snowy mountains and clouds to the deepest depths of our oceans and seas. They’ve been found in whales, birds, crops and invertebrates. And they’ve also been detected in our bodies: Breast milk, semen, lung tissue, brain tissue, blood and heart tissue.
And while scientists don’t yet know how — or if — these plastic particles are harming dolphins, they are concerned. Dolphins have large lung capacity and they pull in a lot of air when they inhale, and then hold it there while they swim and hunt underwater.
I learned not too long ago that the planet’s oceans are some of the largest emitters of microplastics into the atmosphere. Seems dolphins are one of the major biological sentinels of our plastic pollution.
You're reading Boiling Point
Sammy Roth gets you up to speed on climate change, energy and the environment. Sign up to get it in your inbox twice a week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
On that note, here’s what’s happening around the West:
TOP STORIES
From my colleague, Ian James, comes this happy and amazing story of what can happen when conservation strategies succeed: Klamath River Chinook salmon have been spotted in Oregon for the first time in more than a century.
Two months ago, the last of the four decades-old hydroelectric dams along the Klamath River targeted for removal were taken down — opening the river to salmon that had been spawning in those waters for thousands of years before the dams were erected for electrical power.
According to James, biologists with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife announced they found a single fall-run Chinook on Oct. 16 in a tributary upstream from where J.C. Boyle Dam was recently dismantled.
In California, state biologists are also seeing salmon in creeks they hadn’t had access to since the dams were built.
“It’s amazing,” Ron Reed, a Karuk Tribe member and traditional fisherman, told James. “That’s what we’ve prayed for.”
Reed and other Indigenous leaders had been fighting for the opening of the river for decades, arguing the river’s restoration would help struggling salmon populations recover.
And although there’s debate about how effective technologies such as carbon storage will be at slowing greenhouse gas emissions, CalMatters’ Alejandro Lazo reports on a major step in the state’s efforts in this direction.
On Monday, Kern County’s Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a project designed to capture millions of tons of carbon dioxide and inject it into the ground in the San Joaquin Valley.
According to Lazo, the Carbon Terra Vault project, which is run by the California Resources Corp. — the largest producer of oil and gas in the state — is “part of a broader bid by the oil and gas industry to remain viable in a state that is attempting to decarbonize.”
Although the company still faces several hurdles, Monday’s county approval is a crucial first step.
Carbon capture and sequestration are supported by the Newsom administration, and considered a major part of the governor’s action plan to reduce greenhouse gases over the next two decades.
But as Lazo notes, not everyone is happy about this — or these kinds of — project(s).
“Carbon Terra Vault will incentivize new polluting infrastructure throughout Kern County,” Ileana Navarro, a community organizer with the Central California Environmental Justice Network, based in Bakersfield, told the packed county supervisor meeting attendees. “This will not clean our air.”
The oil and gas industry and labor unions say this project and others could preserve jobs in a region where output has slowed and jobs are becoming increasingly scarce. They say it will also ensure that the industry captures and stores more emissions than it emits.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will still have to approve the project. So, too, must the California Air Resources Board.
While gains are being made in some sectors of the green economy, sales of heat pumps are on the decline, according to this story in the Washington Post.
According to the Post’s Shannon Osaka, the reasons: “... a combination of high interest rates, rising costs, misinformation and the cycle of home construction.”
In the last two years, heat pump investments in the U.S. have dropped 4%. In Europe, heat pump sales in 13 countries have dropped nearly in half.
Heat pumps are considered critical for making buildings more climate-friendly. According to Osaka, roughly 60% of American homes are still heated with furnaces fueled by oil, natural gas or propane.
Part of the problem, say experts, is that while the Inflation Reduction Act provides tax incentives for heat pumps, those incentives are targeted at the consumer — not the contractor or installer. As a result, not all contractors and installers offer them.
“In a big part of the northern U.S., there haven’t been really incentives to push people to learn how to do it properly,” Barton James, the president and CEO of the Air Conditioning Contractors of America, told Osaka. “They’re not yet comfortable that it’s actually going to work for the climate.”
POLITICAL CLIMATE
Although the U.S. EPA’s director was quick to recognize the harm caused by lead pipes in Los Angeles’ public housing projects, a new agency order will do little to solve the problem.
That’s because the order “targets lead service lines connecting homes to water mains, it doesn’t address plumbing inside the building that can still pose a risk, such as lead soldering, brass fixtures and interior mains,” wrote Los Angeles Times reporters Tony Briscoe, Ian James and Rebecca Plevin, on the intractable situation.
They say that earlier this month, the EPA’s director, Michael Regan, visited the 700-unit Jordan Downs complex with Mayor Karen Bass. Days later, the environmental agency issued a nationwide order requiring the replacement of lead pipes in drinking water systems within 10 years.
“We’ve known for decades that lead exposure has serious long-term impacts for children’s health. And yet, millions of lead service lines are still delivering drinking water to homes,” Regan said.
According to Briscoe, James and Plevin, lead service lines were banned in 1986. However, roughly 9 million homes nationwide still receive tap water through these aging pipelines.
As these pipes age and corrode, they leach lead — a chemical with no safe level of exposure — into tap water.
“When ingested by children, the heavy metal can cause irreversible brain damage and behavioral issues,” wrote the Times reporters.
AROUND THE WEST
Considered rarities along California’s Central Coast, sperm whales may actually be frequent visitors, new research shows.
Scientists at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute dropped a microphone 18 miles off the Monterey Coast for seven years. They then searched their recordings for sperm whale vocalizations, or clicks.
While local whale boat operators reported sperm whale sightings to average about once every five years, the scientists heard the rarely seen whales on more than one-third of the days they were recorded between 2015 and 2022.
The microphone was dropped 3,000 feet below water’s surface.
“This is an endangered population of marine mammals. If we want to protect them, we first need to understand where they are,” Will Oesterlich, the lead researcher, told Mark DeGraff of the Monterey Herald.
ONE MORE THING
Because H5N1 bird flu is top of my mind these days, I noted this news story from High Country News, which explores a California program that pays rice farmers to create “pop-up” habitats for migrating birds.
For tens of thousands of years, millions of birds have flown along the Pacific Flyway from their Arctic feeding and breeding grounds in the summer, to the forests and woodlands of North, Central and South America. And for millennia, those birds stopped to rest and feed in the wetlands of California’s Central Valley.
However, in the last century, 95% of those wetlands have been drained to make room for development and intensive agriculture (including the more than 1,000 dairy farms of the San Joaquin Valley, where bird flu is currently running rampant). This has had a detrimental effect on wild bird populations, some of which — including the western sandpiper — are now imperiled.
In 2014, a group of conservation organizations got together to try a new strategy: They paid rice farmers to keep their fields flooded a few weeks more than is typical. Extending the flooded season was a win for those weary-trekking birds — as well as for the farmers, who got to put some extra cash into their pockets.
It’s considered a conservation success story — a rare sighting these days.
This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox . Or open the newsletter in your web browser here .
For more climate and environment news, follow @Sammy_Roth on X.
Toward a more sustainable California
Get Boiling Point, our newsletter exploring climate change, energy and the environment, and become part of the conversation — and the solution.
Susanne Rust is an award-winning investigative reporter specializing in environmental issues. She is based in the Bay Area.
More From the Los Angeles Times
Climate & Environment
California’s first carbon capture project gets OK from Kern County
Oct. 22, 2024
How did H5N1 bird flu get introduced to California’s dairy industry?
As bird flu outbreaks rise, piles of dead cattle become shocking Central Valley tableau
Oct. 20, 2024
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
The one we typically learn about in school is the basic method, based in logic and problem solving, typically used in "hard" science fields like biology, chemistry, and physics. It may vary in other fields, such as psychology, but the basic premise of making observations, testing, and continuing to improve a theory from the results remain ...
The six steps of the scientific method include: 1) asking a question about something you observe, 2) doing background research to learn what is already known about the topic, 3) constructing a hypothesis, 4) experimenting to test the hypothesis, 5) analyzing the data from the experiment and drawing conclusions, and 6) communicating the results ...
Steps in the scientific method. While the scientific method is versatile in form and function, it encompasses a collection of principles that create a logical progression to the process of problem solving: Define a question: Constructing a clear and precise problem statement that identifies the main question or goal of the investigation is the ...
List the 6 steps of the scientific methods in order. Make an observation (theory construction) ... The key point is that the observation provides the initial question or problem that the rest of the scientific method seeks to answer or solve. ... From the smallest conundrum to solving global problems, it is a process that can be applied to any ...
With our list of scientific method examples, you can easily follow along with the six steps and understand the process you may be struggling with. ... In the case of this experiment, you may choose to vary the amount of sugar added (during step 3 of the scientific method above) to see if it alters the results as well. This could be a more ...
Explain how you would solve these problems using the four steps of the scientific process. Example: The fire alarm is not working. Answer: 1) Observe/Define the problem: it does not beep when I push the button. 2) Hypothesis: it is caused by a dead battery. 3) Test: try a new battery. 4) Confirm/Disconfirm: the alarm now works.
When Are There Seven Steps? Some teach the scientific method with seven steps instead of six. In the seven-step model, the first step is to make observations. Even if you don't make observations formally, you should think about prior experiences with a subject to ask a question or solve a problem.
The scientific method is a system scientists and other people use to ask and answer questions about the natural world. In a nutshell, the scientific method works by making observations, asking a question or identifying a problem, and then designing and analyzing an experiment to test a prediction of what you expect will happen.
The Scientific Method is a logical and rational order of steps by which scientists come to conclusions about the world around them. The Scientific Method helps to organize thoughts and procedures so that scientists can be confident in the answers they find. OBSERVATION is first step, so that you know how you want to go about your research.
Observation . The first step of the scientific method involves making an observation about something that interests you. Taking an interest in your scientific discovery is important, for example, if you are doing a science project, because you will want to work on something that holds your attention.Your observation can be of anything from plant movement to animal behavior, as long as it is ...
The scientific method is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. The scientific method involves careful observation coupled with rigorous scepticism, because cognitive assumptions can distort the interpretation of the observation.Scientific inquiry includes creating a hypothesis through inductive reasoning ...
The scientific method is a step-by-step problem-solving process. These steps include: ... It's a step-by-step problem-solving process that involves: (1) observation, (2) asking questions, (3 ...
The scientific method is critical to the development of scientific theories, which explain empirical (experiential) laws in a scientifically rational manner.In a typical application of the scientific method, a researcher develops a hypothesis, tests it through various means, and then modifies the hypothesis on the basis of the outcome of the tests and experiments.
The Scientific Method Of Problem Solving. The Basic Steps: State the Problem - A problem can't be solved if it isn't understood.; Form a Hypothesis - This is a possible solution to the problem formed after gathering information about the problem.The term "research" is properly applied here. Test the Hypothesis - An experiment is performed to determine if the hypothesis solves the problem or not.
Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Step 1, Step 2, Step 3 and more. ... Steps in the Scientific Method of Problem Solving. Flashcards; Learn; Test; Match; Q-Chat; Get a hint. Step 1. DEFINE THE SPECIFIC PROBLEM. -The starting point is recognizing and stating a very specific question/
The scientific method—the process used by scientists to understand the natural world—has the merit of investigating natural phenomena in a rigorous manner. Working from hypotheses, scientists draw conclusions based on empirical data. These data are validated on large-scale numbers and take into consideration the intrinsic variability of the real world.
The processes of problem-solving and decision-making can be complicated and drawn out. In this article we look at how the scientific method, along with deductive and inductive reasoning can help simplify these processes. ... Using the Scientific Method to Solve Problems How the Scientific Method and Reasoning Can Help Simplify Processes and ...
Observation is the first step of the Scientific Method. However, it can infiltrate the whole scientific process - from the initial perception of a phenomenon, to proposing a solution, and right down to experimentation, where observation of the results is significant. ... and graduates and researchers interested in problem-solving, creativity ...
A scientific problem can be solved using the steps of the scientific method. Learn how to identify a scientific problem, how to conduct a scientific experiment, and understand how to choose the ...
Bioengineering Professor Michael Fischbach shares his framework for choosing impactful problems to work on and finding optimal solutions.
Take children's learning to the next level by downloading this Year 5 Find Missing Numbers reasoning and problem solving worksheet. We've included 6 questions on a ready-to-complete format for children to use with addition and subtraction missing number problems. Great to use after children have practised some varied fluency questions.
Although the U.S. EPA's director was quick to recognize the harm caused by lead pipes in Los Angeles' public housing projects, a new agency order will do little to solve the problem. Advertisement