Editing Scientific method (section)

{{Short description|Interplay between observation, experiment, and theory in science}}
{{Hatnote group|
{{broader|Research|Epistemology}}
{{other uses}}
}}
{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}}
{{Use dmy dates|cs1-dates=ly|date=August 2021}}
<!--
←-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Please do not change the following lead paragraph without first discussing it on the talk page:
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 -->

{{Science|expanded=Overview}}
The '''scientific method''' is an [[Empirical evidence|empirical]] method for acquiring [[knowledge]] that has been referred to while doing [[science]] since at least the 17th century. Historically, it was developed through the centuries from the ancient and medieval world. The scientific method involves careful [[observation]] coupled with rigorous [[skepticism]], because [[Philosophy of science#Observation inseparable from theory|cognitive assumptions]] can distort the interpretation of the [[Perception#Process and terminology|observation]]. Scientific inquiry includes creating a testable<!--Do not link testable because doing so is a violation of MOS guidelines (specifically [[MOS:OVERLINK]] and [[MOS:SEAOFBLUE]]--> [[hypothesis]] through [[inductive reasoning]], testing it through experiments and statistical analysis, and adjusting or discarding the hypothesis based on the results.<ref name="principia">{{Cite book|title=Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica|last=Newton|first=Isaac|series=The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy |publisher=University of California Press|others=Includes "A Guide to Newton's Principia" by I. Bernard Cohen, pp. 1–370. (The ''Principia'' itself is on pp. 371–946)|isbn=978-0-520-08817-7|location=Berkeley, CA|date=1999|at=791–796 ("Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy"); ''see also'' [[Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica#Rules of Reason]]|translator-last=Cohen|translator-first=I. Bernard|trans-title=Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy|orig-year=1726 (3rd ed.)|translator-last2=Whitman|translator-first2=Anne|translator-last3=Budenz|translator-first3=Julia|title-link=Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica}}</ref><ref>{{Citation|title=Oxford Dictionaries: British and World English|date=2016|chapter-url=http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/scientific-method|chapter=scientific method|access-date=28 May 2016|archive-date=2016-06-20 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160620062539/http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/scientific-method|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/383323|title=Oxford English Dictionary|via=OED Online|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2014|edition=3rd|location=Oxford|url-access=subscription|access-date=2018-05-31 |archive-date=2023-11-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231129112639/https://www.oed.com/dictionary/scientific-method_n|url-status=live}}</ref>

Although procedures vary across [[Branches of science|fields]], the underlying [[#Process|process]] is often similar. In more detail: the scientific method involves making [[conjecture]]s (hypothetical explanations), predicting the logical consequences of hypothesis, then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions.<ref name="NA">{{cite wikisource|title=A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God|date=1908|first=Charles Sanders|last=Peirce|wslink=A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God|volume=7|pages=90–112|journal=Hibbert Journal}} with added notes. Reprinted with previously unpublished part, ''Collected Papers'' v. 6, paragraphs 452–85, ''The Essential Peirce'' v. 2, pp. 434–450, and elsewhere. N.B. 435.30 'living institution': Hibbert J. mis-transcribed 'living institution': ("constitution" for "institution")</ref> A hypothesis is a conjecture based on knowledge obtained while seeking answers to the question. Hypotheses can be very specific or broad but must be [[falsifiable]], implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment or observation that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.{{sfnp|Popper|1959|p=273}}

While the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, it actually represents a set of general principles. Not all steps take place in every [[#Scientific inquiry|scientific inquiry]] (nor to the same degree), and they are not always in the same order.<ref name="allScience">{{harvp|Gauch|2003|p=3}}: "The scientific method 'is often misrepresented as a fixed sequence of steps,' rather than being seen for what it truly is, 'a highly variable and creative process' (AAAS 2000:18). The claim here is that science has general principles that must be mastered to increase productivity and enhance perspective, not that these principles provide a simple and automated sequence of steps to follow."</ref><ref name="Inductive Science 1837">[[William Whewell]], ''History of Inductive Science'' (1837), and in ''Philosophy of Inductive Science'' (1840)</ref> Numerous discoveries have not followed the textbook model of the scientific method and chance has played a role, for instance.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Krauss |first1=Alexander |title=Redefining the scientific method: as the use of sophisticated scientific methods that extend our mind |journal=PNAS Nexus |date=28 March 2024 |volume=3 |issue=4 |pages=pgae112 |doi=10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae112|pmid=38560527 |pmc=10981393 }}</ref><ref name="DunbarLuck" /><ref name="Serendip">{{cite book |last1=Merton |first1=Robert King |last2=Barber |first2=Elinor |last3=Barber |first3=Elinor G. |title=The Travels and Adventures of Serendipity: A Study in Sociological Semantics and the Sociology of Science |date=2006 |publisher=Princeton Univ. Press |chapter=Accidental Discovery in Science|location=Princeton, NJ |isbn=0691126305}}</ref>

{{TOC limit|3}}