Flowchart on "Standard" Scientific Method


"Science isn't a body of facts, it's a way of thinking." -- Carl Sagan


---------------------------
|     Observations        |
| (Observe the Universe,  |
|  and wonder how         |
|  something works)       |
---------------------------
           |      ______________________
           |     |                      |
           v     v                      |
---------------------------             |
|    Hypothesis           |             |
| (Make an educated guess |             |
|  on how it works)       |             |
---------------------------             |
           |                            |
           v                            |
---------------------------             |
|       Theory            |             |
| (Use the hypothesis to  |             |
| develop an organized    |             |
| theory of how it works) |             |
---------------------------             |
           |                            |
           v                            |
---------------------------             |
|      Experiment         |             |
| (Test the theory by     |             |
|      experiment,        |             |
|  or by critical         |             |
|    observations,        |             |
| in sciences like        |             |
|      astronomy          |             |
| where you can't easily  |             |
| fit the subject matter  |             |
| into a laboratory       |             |
| to do experiments)      |             |
---------------------------             |
           |                            |
           v                            |
Does the Experiment    --------------- NO
Agree with the Theory?
           |
          YES
           |
           v 
      ------------
      | PUBLISH! |
      ------------

This last step, publishing, is often neglected in elementary descriptions
of the scientific method.  This is too bad, because it is essential:  
somehow, scientific results have to become known to the world.  
Otherwise, why bother doing the science in the first place?

Note also:  The word "theory" is often misused in everyday speech, where
it generally means a hypothesis, or a guess.  What theory really means is
any organized body of knowledge, such as Film Theory, Music Theory, Theory
of Literary Criticism (which its practitioners often refer to as just
"Theory"), or Einstein's Theory of Relativity.  There's no doubt about the
validity of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, by the way: it's tested, or
rather demonstrated, many, many times every day in every high-energy
physics lab in the world.

Be careful, too: this flowchart is an idealized (really oversimplified)
description of the scientific method.  The steps can be, and often are,
done in any order---sometimes to good effect, sometimes not.  
(Publication before doing any other work is not recommended.)


To be scientific, an idea must be:

- Verifiable, by experiment.
- Falsifiable.  There has to be at least one thing one can do that can
  prove it false!
- Repeatable and objective: it must work for anyone, in a fair test.

Science need NOT: involve lots of expensive equipment, which goes PING!

- Corroborating evidence is also important.  Good science usually doesn't
happen as isolated incidents: it _fits together_, like a jigsaw puzzle.
Anything important really should have multiple lines of evidence, and
usually does.


"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -- attributed to
Carl Sagan


But then, only one _correct_ line of evidence can be enough.
_Multiple_ incorrect lines of evidence can well be _wrong_.


"It's important to keep an open mind, but not so far open that your brains
fall out."  -- Jim Oberg

Now you know why I remain unconvinced that UFOs are extraterrestrial
spacecraft.  The actual physical evidence for them is typically broken
tree branches and burned spots on the ground---really not much more
convincing than that of the reality of ghosts.  If a UFO occupant were to
drop an artifact of a technology that clearly couldn't have been made on
Earth (e.g., a ray gun), or if a UFO were to land on the front lawn of the
White House and open up diplomatic relations, I'd be convinced---because
in those cases, the evidence would be so clear, I'd have to be convinced.


Related to this is an important philosophical principle, called:

	Occam's razor

This is the idea that the best explanation is usually the one that
requires the fewest assumptions.

It was named for William of Occam, who in the 1300s wrote that when
constructing an argument, one should not go beyond what is logically
required.  Occam's razor therefore "cuts out" extraneous assumptions.



When proved wrong, scientists are supposed to be good sports, and let go
of the old, wrong ideas.  This is what makes science such powerful magic:
errors are corrected, since scientific ideas are falsifiable.

Unlike in other human endeavors (e.g. politics), scientists who are quick
"see the light" and change their ways often get more respect.  This
doesn't mean they should abandon old ideas at the first sign of trouble:
just that, when shown clearly that the old ideas are _wrong_, they should
not hesitate to abandon them.

There can sometimes be a problem with this: scientists are human.
Therefore, the human ego has, more often than we like, 
delayed or gotten in the way of much great science.
We don't like this, and try to avoid it whenever we can.