Editing Science (section)

=== 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="di Francia1976">{{cite book |last=di Francia |first=Giuliano Toraldo |chapter=The method of physics |title=The Investigation of the Physical World |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="Heilbron2003"/> Mathematics is essential in the formation of [[hypotheses]], [[theories]], and laws, because it is used extensively in quantitative modelling, observing, and collecting [[measurements]].<ref>{{cite book |last=Popper |first=Karl R. |url=https://archive.org/details/logicscientificd00popp_574 |title=The Logic of Scientific Discovery |publisher=Routledge |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 |orig-date=1959 |url-access=limited}}</ref> Statistics is used to summarise and analyse 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>{{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="di Francia1976" />{{Rp|pages=4–5}}<ref>{{cite book |last=Fara |first=Patricia |author-link=Patricia Fara |year=2009 |chapter=Decisions |title=Science: A Four Thousand Year History |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 [[causal relationships]] to avoid the [[correlation fallacy]], though in some sciences such as astronomy or geology, a predicted observation might be more appropriate.<ref>{{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. If the hypothesis survives 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 behaviour of certain natural events. A theory typically describes the behaviour 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>{{cite book |last1=Nola |first1=Robert |last2=Irzik |first2=Gürol |year=2005 |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=28 March 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080409054240/http://www.philosophy.unimelb.edu.au/tgelder/papers/HeadsIWin.pdf |archive-date=9 April 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Pease |first=Craig |date=6 September 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100619154617/http://law-and-science.net/Science4BLJ/Scientific_Method/Deliberate.bias/Text.htm |archive-date=19 June 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 through transparency, careful [[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}}</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 |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 |first1=Ruth Ellen |last1=Bulger |year=2002 |last2=Heitman |first2=Elizabeth |last3=Reiser |first3=Stanley Joel |title=The Ethical Dimensions of the Biological and Health Sciences |edition=2nd |isbn=978-0-521-00886-0 |publisher=Cambridge University Press}}</ref> Taken in its entirety, the scientific method allows for highly creative problem solving while minimising the effects of subjective and [[confirmation bias]].<ref>{{cite web |last=Backer |first=Patricia Ryaby |date=29 October 2004 |url=http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/pabacker/scientific_method.htm |title=What is the scientific method? |publisher=San Jose State University |access-date=28 March 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080408082917/http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/pabacker/scientific_method.htm |archive-date=8 April 2008}}</ref> [[Intersubjective verifiability]], the ability to reach a consensus and reproduce results, is fundamental to the creation of all scientific knowledge.<ref>{{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 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/reliableknowledg00john/page/42 42–76] |chapter=Common observation |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/reliableknowledg00john/page/42}}</ref>