What is the basis of the Scientific method.?
548186
The definition I prefer to use is this:\n\nThe scientific method is the exercise of specific philosophy of deduction.  An analysis is considered scientific if the following steps are performed...\n1) a theory is developed, which makes testable predictions.  A prediction is only testable if it proposes that some possible outcome of the test would prove the theory to be *wrong*.  If you can't prove the theory wrong, it's not scientific.  There's no such thing in science as proving a theory "right".\n2) the scientist now tries to prove that (s)he is wrong.  There's no way to prove the theory right, so all they can do is try to prove that the theory is wrong.\n3) if (s)he fails to prove that the theory is wrong, (s)he shares the idea with other scientists, and they try to prove it wrong.\n\nIt's more of a philosophical approach to deduction than a recipe of steps.  If a theory can't be disproven, it's not scientific (that doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means that science has no bearing on the theory).  The result of performing science is simply a collection of theories that nobody has yet disproven.\n\nAn example of a scientific theory is: "there is a leprechaun wearing a yellow tie standing behind me".  This is the theory.  There is a testable prediction, that if I look behind myself, and I see no leprechaun, then the theory is wrong.  If I see something which resembles a leprechaun, well, I have to do more tests.  But, the first thing the scientist does is looks for the leprechaun.  In my case, the leprechaun is not there, the theory fails, and I discard it.\n\nA non-scientific theory would be "There is an invisible, intangible, unmeasurable leprechaun standing behind me.  It can neither influence nor be influenced by anything I can see or do."  Well, there's no way to prove this is wrong, so this is not a scientific theory.  There may be such a leprechaun behind me, but science can't offer any opinion on the question.
157437
It is a 7 letter word.\n\n#\n\n   1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.\n   2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.\n   3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.\n\n# Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.\n# An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.\n# Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
146440
1. Identify the problem. \n\n2. Refer to as many sources as possible.\n\n3. Ask an appropriate question. \n\n4. Develop a hypothesis.\n\n5. Do the experiment.\n\n6. Keep good records of the methods and results.\n\n7. Report the experiment.\n\n8. Analyze the results.\n\n9. Develop a conclusion.
960714
relatedness, embeddedness, coordinating principle, correspondence, scientific parsimony, complementarity, and continuity.
668817
I think trial and error is a part of the scientific method. You think you know something. You do testing (trial) to see if it is true (possible error). If it isn't, you adjust you thinking and test again until you either prove or disprove your idea.
391361
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation. \n\nTheory: A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
155348
The nature of science is to always question everything.  It isn't so much proving ideas right than proving them wrong.
1033638
The scientific method is the generally accepted method to investigate anything while maintaining the ability to reasonably state that you accomplished what you were looking to do. For a simple example, if you had 12 people drink a gallon of milk everyday for a month, and measured their weight at the beginning and end of the month, you would just have the data of those people with nothing to compare it to. Part of the scientific method, that of maintaining the validity of your information, would be to have had another group of twelve people who drank no milk during the month, and then report the results as the milk drinkers versus the non-milk drinkers. Further, to be employing the "scientific method," you would make sure all the milk drinkers had the same kind of milk, and control for all kinds of other things during this comparison, such as that all of one group were not running in a marathon during the month. Making sure results clearly show what they should, and that you did everything you could to design and conduct any comparison or experiment properly.
1167871
Pure science is just theory.\n\nApplied science is the application of this theory as a method for investigation.
51941
The scientific method or scientific process is fundamental to scientific investigation and to the acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence by the scientific community. Scientists use observations and reasoning to propose tentative explanations for phenomena, termed hypotheses. Under the working assumption of methodological materialism, observable events in the natural world (including the artificial works of humanity) are explained only by natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. Predictions from these hypotheses are tested by various experiments, which should be reproducible. An important aspect of a hypothesis is that it must be falsifiable, in other words, it must be conceivable to prove the hypothesis to be false. If a proposition is not falsifiable, then it is not a hypothesis, and instead an opinion or statement outside of the scope of scientific inquiry. It should also be noted that a hypothesis cannot be proven, rather, the data from a given experiment designed to test a hypothesis can either support or disprove that hypothesis.
1024670
I'd suggest you look in the front of your textbook.  It will be along the lines of "The principles of biology are. . . ."  Usually when they ask open ended questions like these they don't want a thoughtful and insightful answer like the ones given above but rather, for you to parrot the aforementioned sentence back to them.
763023
The scientific method is the only self-critical and verifiable method used to explain phenomonology.  If something in the Bible stood up to the scientific method that could confirm the existance of a Christian God, I'd believe.\n\nUntil then, probaby not.
248397
science is based on the CONSISTENT AND UNIVERSAL reproduction of experiments. Given the exact conditions and the exact procedures it has to produce the exact same outcome every time without fail.
767627
Quantitative methodologies... statistical analysis?   How many pages allowed on here... there are books and books about it... try reading literature on the above... infinite (well almost!) sources available on line, at the library and in book shops
145438
The scientific study of the origin, history, and structure of the earth. \nThe structure of a specific region of the earth's crust. \nA book on geology. \nThe scientific study of the origin, history, and structure of the solid matter of a celestial body.
978427
you mean What are physical science principles?\nwww.ask.com
238657
Usually theories and models help to define the way that you design experiments.  So for example, if you start with the theoretical framework of the big bang, then there are things that you can assume about what the appropriate baseline red-shift of an object should be.  Deviations from this baseline can tell you information about the objects relative motion to you or internal motion in the object.\n\nMost research builds on previous theories and ideas to push the envelope to new ideas.  Using an established theoretical framework is just part of good science.  Now an important additional note is that sometimes your experiement will bring the theoretical framework into question, because the results will violate what you'd expect given the parameters of the framework.  In this case, it is also good science to question and revise your framework.