Science

=== Scientific method ===
[[File:The Scientific Method.svg|thumb|A diagram variant of scientific method represented as an [[Scientific method#Elements of the scientific method|ongoing process]]|alt=6 steps of the scientific method in a loop]]

Scientific research involves using the [[scientific method]], which seeks to [[objectivity (science)|objectively]] explain the events of [[nature]] in a [[reproducible]] way.<ref name= difrancia1976>{{cite book | last= di Francia | first= Giuliano Toraldo | chapter = The method of physics | title = The Investigation of the Physical World| location = Cambridge, United Kingdom | publisher = Cambridge University Press| year=1976 | pages = 1–52 | isbn=978-0-521-29925-1|quote=The amazing point is that for the first time since the discovery of mathematics, a method has been introduced, the results of which have an intersubjective value!}}</ref> Scientists usually take for granted a set of basic assumptions that are needed to justify the scientific method: there is an [[objective reality]] shared by all rational observers; this objective reality is governed by [[natural law]]s; these laws were discovered by means of systematic [[observation]] and experimentation.<ref name="Heilbron"/> Mathematics is essential in the formation of [[hypothesis|hypotheses]], [[Theory|theories]], and laws, because it is used extensively in quantitative modeling, observing, and collecting [[measurements]].<ref name="popper2002e">{{cite book |last=Popper |first=Karl R. |url=https://archive.org/details/logicscientificd00popp_574 |title=The Logic of Scientific Discovery |publisher=Routledge Classics |year=2002e |isbn=978-0-415-27844-7 |location=New York |pages=[https://archive.org/details/logicscientificd00popp_574/page/n133 3]–26 |chapter=The problem of the empirical basis |oclc=59377149 |orig-date=1959 |url-access=limited}}</ref> Statistics is used to summarize and analyze data, which allows scientists to assess the reliability of experimental results.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Diggle |first1=Peter J. |author-link=Peter Diggle |title=Statistics and Scientific Method: An Introduction for Students and Researchers |last2=Chetwynd |first2=Amanda G. |author2-link=Amanda Chetwynd |year= 2011 |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |isbn=978-0199543182 |pages=1, 2}}</ref>

In the scientific method, an explanatory [[thought experiment]] or hypothesis is put forward as an explanation using [[Occam's razor|parsimony principles]] and is expected to seek [[consilience]]&nbsp;– fitting with other accepted facts related to an observation or scientific question.<ref name= EOWilson>{{cite book| last = Wilson | first = Edward | title = Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge | publisher = Vintage | location = New York | year = 1999 | isbn = 978-0-679-76867-8}}</ref> This tentative explanation is used to make [[falsifiable]] predictions, which are typically posted before being tested by experimentation. Disproof of a prediction is evidence of progress.<ref name = difrancia1976 />{{Rp|pages=4–5}}<ref name = fara2009>{{cite book | last= Fara | first= Patricia | author-link= Patricia Fara | year= 2009 | chapter= Decisions | title= Science: A Four Thousand Year History | location= Oxford, United Kingdom | publisher= Oxford University Press | isbn= 978-0-19-922689-4 | page= [https://archive.org/details/sciencefourthous00fara/page/408 408] | chapter-url= https://archive.org/details/sciencefourthous00fara/page/306}}</ref> Experimentation is especially important in science to help establish [[causality|causal relationships]] to avoid the [[correlation does not imply causation|correlation fallacy]], though in some sciences such as astronomy or geology, a predicted observation might be more appropriate.<ref name="Aldrich1995">{{Cite journal|last=Aldrich |first=John |journal=Statistical Science |volume=10 |year=1995 |pages=364–376 |title=Correlations Genuine and Spurious in Pearson and Yule |jstor=2246135 |doi=10.1214/ss/1177009870 |issue=4 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

When a hypothesis proves unsatisfactory, it is modified or discarded.<ref name = Nola2005k>{{cite book| last1= Nola | first1= Robert | last2= Irzik | first2= Gürol | year= 2005k | chapter = naive inductivism as a methodology in science | title= Philosophy, science, education and culture | volume= 28 | series=Science & technology education library | isbn= 978-1-4020-3769-6 | publisher= Springer | pages = 207–230 }}</ref> If the hypothesis survived testing, it may become adopted into the framework of a [[scientific theory]], a [[deductive logic|valid]]ly [[reason]]ed, self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of certain natural events. A theory typically describes the behavior of much broader sets of observations than a hypothesis; commonly, a large number of hypotheses can be logically bound together by a single theory. Thus a theory is a hypothesis explaining various other hypotheses. In that vein, theories are formulated according to most of the same scientific principles as hypotheses. Scientists may generate a [[Scientific modelling|model]], an attempt to describe or depict an observation in terms of a logical, physical or mathematical representation and to generate new hypotheses that can be tested by experimentation.<ref name = Nola2005j>{{cite book| last1= Nola | first1= Robert | last2= Irzik | first2= Gürol | year=2005j | chapter = The aims of science and critical inquiry | title= Philosophy, science, education and culture | volume= 28 | series= Science & technology education library | isbn= 978-1-4020-3769-6 | publisher= Springer | pages = 207–230 }}</ref>

While performing experiments to test hypotheses, scientists may have a preference for one outcome over another.<ref>{{cite web| last= van Gelder | first= Tim | year= 1999 | url= http://www.philosophy.unimelb.edu.au/tgelder/papers/HeadsIWin.pdf | title="Heads I win, tails you lose": A Foray Into the Psychology of Philosophy | publisher= University of Melbourne | access-date= March 28, 2008 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080409054240/http://www.philosophy.unimelb.edu.au/tgelder/papers/HeadsIWin.pdf <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archive-date = April 9, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | last= Pease | first= Craig | date= September 6, 2006 | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20100619154617/http://law-and-science.net/Science4BLJ/Scientific_Method/Deliberate.bias/Text.htm | archive-date = June 19, 2010 | title= Chapter 23. Deliberate bias: Conflict creates bad science | website= Science for Business, Law and Journalism | publisher=Vermont Law School| url= http://law-and-science.net/Science4BLJ/Scientific_Method/Deliberate.bias/Text.htm}}</ref> Eliminating the bias can be achieved by transparency, careful [[Design of experiments|experimental design]], and a thorough [[peer review]] process of the experimental results and conclusions.<ref>{{cite book | first= David | last= Shatz | year = 2004 | title= Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry | publisher= Rowman & Littlefield | isbn= 978-0-7425-1434-8 | oclc= 54989960}}</ref><ref>{{cite book | first= Sheldon | last= Krimsky | year= 2003 | title= Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted the Virtue of Biomedical Research | publisher= Rowman & Littlefield | isbn= 978-0-7425-1479-9 | oclc= 185926306 | url= https://archive.org/details/scienceinprivate0000krim }}</ref> After the results of an experiment are announced or published, it is normal practice for independent researchers to double-check how the research was performed, and to follow up by performing similar experiments to determine how dependable the results might be.<ref>{{cite book | first= Ruth Ellen | last= Bulger | year= 2002 |author2= Heitman, Elizabeth |author3= Reiser, Stanley Joel | title= The Ethical Dimensions of the Biological and Health Sciences | edition= 2nd | isbn= 978-0-521-00886-0 | publisher= Cambridge University Press | oclc= 47791316 }}</ref> Taken in its entirety, the scientific method allows for highly creative problem solving while minimizing the effects of subjective and [[confirmation bias]].<ref name= backer>{{cite web|last= Backer |first= Patricia Ryaby |date= October 29, 2004 |url= http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/pabacker/scientific_method.htm |title= What is the scientific method? |publisher= San Jose State University |access-date=March 28, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20080408082917/http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/pabacker/scientific_method.htm |archive-date= April 8, 2008 }}</ref> [[Intersubjective verifiability]], the ability to reach a consensus and reproduce results, is fundamental to the creation of all scientific knowledge.<ref name="ziman1978c">{{cite book |last=Ziman |first=John |title=Reliable knowledge: An exploration of the grounds for belief in science |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=1978c |isbn=978-0-521-22087-3 |location=Cambridge |pages=[https://archive.org/details/reliableknowledg00john/page/42 42–76] |chapter=Common observation |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/reliableknowledg00john/page/42}}</ref>