Science as a way of knowing

The process of science

So how does this process work? The processes that generate scientific knowledge are known as the scientific method . But even as you learn this method, it is important to realize that this is not a set recipe or process that MUST be followed in all cases. The scientific method is best understood as a statement of the core logical principles underlying how science works. The process of science always uses these core logical principles, but any individual scientific enterprise might not adhere exactly to the method outlined below ( [link] ).

All science starts with an observation , or set of observations, about the natural world. You might observe a pair of male elk fighting in a high-country meadow in Colorado, for example. The next step, if you want to think about this scientifically, is to formulate some hypothesis to explain that observation. A hypothesis is a statement that is simply an educated guess about the cause(s) of the observed phenomenon. In order for that hypothesis to be useful in a scientific sense, however, it must have some additional characters. A scientific hypothesis must be testable , and it must be falsifiable . It does no good to generate a hypothesis that you cannot test in the real world. Thus it would not be a scientific hypothesis if you stated that the elk were fighting because invisible men in an invisible spaceship parked on the far side of the moon were controlling these elk with undetectable brain waves. That might be the actual explanation, but you can’t test it, and you can’t falsify it.

A good scientific hypothesis lends itself to making testable predictions ; if the hypothesis is true, then X must be true. In this case you might state generate this hypothesis – these are male elk, and they are fighting for control of a herd of female elk. Immediately some predictions come to mind. If this hypothesis is true, you should be able to detect that these are male elk. Without getting too close, you can see that they have antlers, and previous work by other scientists (part of the set of accumulated observations that you are relying on) has shown that only male elk have antlers. Prediction confirmed. Another prediction might be that there should be one or more female elk nearby, and that these females would eventually go with the male who wins the fight or drives off the other male. You look around, and you see a herd of 10 or so female (antlerless) elk watching the spectacle. Another prediction confirmed. You will have to wait until the fight is over before you know if the prediction about the females staying with the winner is confirmed. But you have two predictions confirmed, and so far your hypothesis is supported by the evidence. More importantly, it has not been falsified . All of the data so far support it.