tanszek:oktatas:techcomm:information_-_basics:scientific_method
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| tanszek:oktatas:techcomm:information_-_basics:scientific_method [2024/09/16 05:50] – knehez | tanszek:oktatas:techcomm:information_-_basics:scientific_method [2025/09/22 17:15] (current) – knehez | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | < | ||
| - | flowchart TD | ||
| - | A[Observation] --> B[Defining the Problem] --> C[Setting up Hypothesis or Methods] --> D[Predictions Based on Hypothesis (Deduction)] --> E[Experiments and Empirical Verification] --> F[Formulating the Hypothesis or Principle] | ||
| - | | ||
| - | %% Observation Details | ||
| - | subgraph Observation_Details | ||
| - | direction TB | ||
| - | A_note1[Primary basis for any scientific method.] | ||
| - | A_note2[If it cannot be observed, it cannot be scientifically tested.] | ||
| - | A_note3[Note: | ||
| - | A_note4[Example: | ||
| - | A_note1 --> A_note2 --> A_note3 --> A_note4 | ||
| - | end | ||
| - | A -.-> | ||
| - | | ||
| - | %% Hypothesis Details | ||
| - | subgraph Hypothesis_Details | ||
| - | direction TB | ||
| - | C_note1[Solution defined by the scientist.] | ||
| - | C_note2[May be a hypothesis or a method.] | ||
| - | C_note3[Different hypotheses can be set up when analyzing data.] | ||
| - | Occam[Occam' | ||
| - | Occam_note[Choose the hypothesis with fewer assumptions.] | ||
| - | Occam_warning[Note: | ||
| - | Examples1[Examples: | ||
| - | C_note1 --> C_note2 --> C_note3 --> Occam | ||
| - | Occam --> Occam_note --> Occam_warning --> Examples1 | ||
| - | end | ||
| - | C -.-> | ||
| - | | ||
| - | %% Predictions Details | ||
| - | subgraph Predictions_Details | ||
| - | direction TB | ||
| - | D_note1[Involves making forecasts.] | ||
| - | D_note2[Useful predictions must be tested.] | ||
| - | D_note3[Hypotheses need examination.] | ||
| - | Falsifiability[Falsifiability (Karl Popper)] | ||
| - | Falsifiability_note[Hypothesis is falsifiable if it can be contradicted.] | ||
| - | Example2[Example: | ||
| - | Criticism[Criticism of Popper' | ||
| - | Criticism_note[Inconsistencies may be due to theory or insufficient information.] | ||
| - | Uranus[Example: | ||
| - | D_note1 --> D_note2 --> D_note3 --> Falsifiability | ||
| - | Falsifiability --> Falsifiability_note --> Example2 | ||
| - | Falsifiability --> Criticism --> Criticism_note --> Uranus | ||
| - | end | ||
| - | D -.-> | ||
| - | | ||
| - | %% Experiments Details | ||
| - | subgraph Experiments_Details | ||
| - | direction TB | ||
| - | E_note1[Involves repeatability and reproducibility.] | ||
| - | E_note2[Same results under identical conditions.] | ||
| - | E_note1 --> E_note2 | ||
| - | end | ||
| - | E -.-> | ||
| - | </ | ||
| - | |||
| ====== The main steps of the scientific method ====== | ====== The main steps of the scientific method ====== | ||
| - | 1) **Observation** : this is the primary basis for any scientific method. If it cannot be observed, then it cannot be scientifically tested. | + | 1) **Observation** : this is the primary basis for any scientific method. If something |
| - | Important note: this point only applies to the natural sciences. For example, if we would like to analyze a battle | + | Important note: this point only applies to the natural sciences. For example, if we would like to analyze a battle |
| - | 2) **Defining the problem**: after the observation procedure we have to define the problem in a way that it can give us a further guide and goal as well. | + | 2) **Defining the problem**: after the observation procedure, we have to define the problem in a way that it can give us a further guide and goal as well. |
| - | 3) **Setting up the hypothesis or methods**: the solution for the given problem has to be done in a certain way which is defined by the scientist. It may be a hypothesis, or if the problem covers a larger area it may be a whole method. When the data have to be analysed different hypotheses can be set up for the task. In this case scientists usually use the so-called Occam’s razor, which is the following: | + | 3) **Setting up the hypothesis or methods**: the solution for the given problem has to be done in a certain way defined by the scientist. It may be a hypothesis, or if the problem covers a larger area, it may be a whole method. When the data have to be analysed different hypotheses can be set up for the task. In this case, scientists usually use the so-called |
| - | if we have one or more hypotheses | + | |
| + | If we have one or more hypotheses | ||
| (Astronomical example: Kepler’s law of physics, physical example: Hooke’s law - "an elastic deformation of the body is proportional to the force causing the deformation" | (Astronomical example: Kepler’s law of physics, physical example: Hooke’s law - "an elastic deformation of the body is proportional to the force causing the deformation" | ||
| - | 4) **Predictions** based on the hypothesis or method (deduction). Every scientific method will necessarily involve certain forecasts. | + | 4) **Predictions** based on the hypothesis or method (deduction). Every scientific method will necessarily involve certain |
| - | The hypotheses made during the scientific progress have to be examined. One of the criteria during these tests is called falsifiability. This criterion comes from Karl Popper (a scientific philosopher). | + | The hypotheses made during the scientific progress have to be examined. One of the criteria during these tests is called |
| - | Falsifiability in this case has to be seen in the following way: if there is any kind of way (even just logical) which can contradict our hypothesis, then it is falsifiable. (For example: all swans are white. Of course there are black swans so the statement is not true, therefore falsifiable). | + | //Falsifiability// in this case has to be seen in the following way: if there is any kind of way (even just logical) which can contradict our hypothesis, then it is falsifiable. (For example: all swans are white. Of course, there are black swans, so the statement is not true (and therefore falsifiable). |
| - | Criticism of the Popper method: If the observation is inconsistent with the theory, then it is equally possible that the theory is correct or wrong or the required information is insufficient or false. (Astronomical example: our observations about Uranus let us predict that its movement | + | Criticism of //Popper' |
| - | 5) **Experiments and empirical verification**: | + | 5) **Experiments and empirical verification**: |
| 6) Wording/ | 6) Wording/ | ||
| + | |||
| + | < | ||
| + | flowchart LR | ||
| + | A[Observation] --> B[Define Problem] --> C[Set Hypothesis/ | ||
| + | E --> C | ||
| + | </ | ||
tanszek/oktatas/techcomm/information_-_basics/scientific_method.1726465831.txt.gz · Last modified: 2024/09/16 05:50 by knehez
