The scientific method has five basic steps plus one feedback step:
- Make an observation.
- Ask a question.
- Form a hypothesis or testable explanation.
- Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
- Test the prediction.
- Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.
Why do scientists need to find a scientific explanation?
Scientists must find a scientific explanation to conclude that a particular factor causes an outcome. A scientific theory is a general explanation that applies to a wide range of situations and examples. As technology develops more data can be collected and new types of observations made.
What do scientists do to draw scientific conclusions?
Scientists go through processes of collecting and evaluating evidence in order to draw scientific conclusions. Learn more about scientific explanation, its definitions, purposes, and processes with examples.
What are the components of a scientific explanation?
According to the Deductive-Nomological Model, a scientific explanation consists of two major “constituents”: an explanandum, a sentence “describing the phenomenon to be explained” and an explanans, “the class of those sentences which are adduced to account for the phenomenon” (Hempel and Oppenheim, 1948, reprinted in Hempel, 1965, p. 247).
Are all scientific explanations causal?
A related issue has to do with whether all scientific explanations are causal and if not, what distinguishes causal from non-causal explanations.
How do scientists develop new ideas?
Scientific ideas come from evidence, but it takes brilliant thinking to imagine them. New ideas come from collecting evidence and looking at it to figure it out, but often it isn't as simple as it sounds.
What are scientific explanations?
The definition of a scientific explanation is a reason for something on the principles of science. An example of a scientific explanation is a logical reason for a ghost sighting.
What are the 3 ways that scientists gain knowledge?
Although different scientific disciplines may have different ways of gathering knowledge, in general, the scientific method comprises observation, experimentation, and then analysis of experimental data.
How do scientists develop hypothesis?
Hypotheses are often specific predictions about what will happen in a particular study. They are developed by considering existing evidence and using reasoning to infer what will happen in the specific context of interest. Hypotheses are often but not always derived from theories.
How do you make an explanation?
10 ways to explain things more effectively.Keep in mind others' point of view. ... Listen and respond to questions. ... Avoid talking over student's head or talking down to them. ... Ask questions to determine student's understanding. ... Take it step by step. ... Use direct eye contact. ... Use analogies to make concepts clearer.More items...
What are the three parts of a scientific explanation?
The figure below explains the three components of a scientific argument - the claim (or the explanation), the evidence (or the observations), and the rationale (or the reasoning). Reasoning that explains the evidence and why it supports the claim.
Where does scientific knowledge come from?
Scientific knowledge is a collection of reliable new information about the physical world. It is gained through the intensive process of data collection, experimentation, and analysis.
How do the methods of scientists lead to knowledge?
Scientific knowledge is advanced through a process known as the scientific method. Basically, ideas (in the form of theories and hypotheses) are tested against the real world (in the form of empirical observations), and those empirical observations lead to more ideas that are tested against the real world, and so on.
How the scientific method is used to develop new knowledge?
The scientific method is the process of objectively establishing facts through testing and experimentation. The basic process involves making an observation, forming a hypothesis, making a prediction, conducting an experiment and finally analyzing the results.
How do scientific test their hypothesis?
When possible, scientists test their hypotheses using controlled experiments. A controlled experiment is a scientific test done under controlled conditions, meaning that just one (or a few) factors are changed at a time, while all others are kept constant.
What are the steps of scientific method?
Here are the five steps.Define a Question to Investigate. As scientists conduct their research, they make observations and collect data. ... Make Predictions. Based on their research and observations, scientists will often come up with a hypothesis. ... Gather Data. ... Analyze the Data. ... Draw Conclusions.
What might a hypothesis develop into?
Theory – an explanation based on repeated hypotheses and experimentation. Principle or Law: a theory that is valid against long-term testing. Experiments are based on: Careful planning and design.
What are some types of scientific explanations?
Types of explanation involve appropriate types of reasoning, such as Deductive-nomological, Functional, Historical, Psychological, Reductive, Teleological, Methodological explanations.
What are the main types of scientific explanation?
What are the four types of scientific explanations?i) Deductive model explanation:-ii) Probabilistic explanation: –iii) Functional or teleological explanation:-iv) Genetic explanation:-
How does a scientific explanation differ from a non scientific explanation?
The scientific method is a logically stepped process used for investigating and acquiring or expanding our understanding. Nonscientific methods rely on tradition, personal experience, intuition, logic and authority to arrive at conclusions.
What is an example of explanation?
The definition of an explanation is something that clarifies or makes clear. An example of an explanation is telling how rain forms.
How do we evaluate scientific explanations?
We evaluate scientific explanations by comparing it to the current evidence and looking at what predictions it makes about the world. Once we see what predictions it makes, we can do further explanations to test whether those predictions come true. If all our data is correct and the predictions the explanation makes turns out to be true, then it's a good scientific explanation.
What is the scientific explanation of the natural world?
Lesson Summary. Science is the study of the natural world through observation and experiment. A scientific explanation is a way of explaining something we see in the natural world that's based on observations and measurements. Examples of scientific explanations include the theory ...
Why do objects fall to the ground?
For example, why do objects fall to the ground? Well, there is a force called gravity that attracts every object in the universe to every other object.
What is the study of the natural world?
Science is the study of the natural world through observation and experiment. A scientific explanation uses observations and measurements to explain something we see in the natural world. Scientific explanations should match the evidence and be logical, or they should at least match as much of the evidence as possible.
Why is gravity so easy to observe?
The earth's gravity is really easy to observe because the earth is huge, and it's nearby.
What is the scattering of light?
We receive white light from the sun, and that light fills the earth's atmosphere. Most of the light that passes overhead keeps going and doesn't reach our eyes at all. But some of it is scattered by the air molecules and bounces into our eyes.
Do you have to be a Study.com member to unlock this lesson?
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
What are the two main components of a scientific explanation?
According to the Deductive-Nomological Model, a scientific explanation consists of two major “constituents”: an explanandum, which is a sentence “describing the phenomenon to be explained” and an explanans , “the class of those sentences which are adduced to account for the phenomenon” (Hempel & Oppenheim 1948 [1965: 247]). For the explanans to successfully explain the explanandum several conditions must be met. First, “the explanandum must be a logical consequence of the explanans” and “the sentences constituting the explanans must be true” (Hempel 1948 [1965: 248]). That is, the explanation should take the form of a sound deductive argument in which the explanandum follows as a conclusion from the premises in the explanans. This is the “deductive” component of the model. Second, the explanans must contain at least one “law of nature” and this must be an essential premise in the derivation in the sense that the derivation of the explanandum would not be valid if this premise were removed. This is the “nomological” component of the model—“nomological” being a philosophical term of art which, suppressing some niceties, means (roughly) “lawful”. In its most general formulation, the DN model is meant to apply both to the explanation of “general regularities” or “laws” such as (to use Hempel and Oppenheim’s examples) why light conforms to the law of refraction and also to the explanation of particular events, conceived as occurring at a particular time and place, such as the bent appearance of the partially submerged oars of a rowboat on a particular occasion of viewing. As an additional illustration of a DN explanation of a particular event, consider a derivation of the position of Mars at some future time from Newton’s laws of motion, the Newtonian inverse square law governing gravity, and information about the mass of the sun, the mass of Mars and the present position and velocity of each. In this derivation the various Newtonian laws figure as essential premises and they are used, in conjunction with appropriate information about initial conditions (the masses of Mars and the sun and so on), to derive the explanandum (the future position of Mars) via a deductively valid argument. The DN criteria are thus satisfied.
Who wrote the book The Nature of Explanation?
Achinstein, Peter, 1983, The Nature of Explanation, New York: Oxford University Press.
What is the unificationist theory of science?
In unificationist accounts of explanation developed by philosophers, scientific explanation is a matter of providing a unified account of a range of different phenomena. [ 9] This idea is unquestionably intuitively appealing. Successful unification may exhibit connections or relationships between phenomena previously thought to be unrelated and this seems to be something that we expect good explanations to do. Moreover, theory unification has clearly played an important role in science. Paradigmatic examples include Newton’s unification of terrestrial and celestial theories of motion and Maxwell’s unification of electricity and magnetism. The key question, however, is whether (and which) intuitive notions of unification can be made more precise in a way that allows us to recover the features that we think that good explanations should possess.
What is a causal process?
A causal process is a physical process, like the movement of a baseball through space, that is characterized by the ability to transmit a mark in a continuous way. (“Continuous” generally, although perhaps not always, means “spatio-temporally continuous”.) Intuitively, a mark is some local modification to the structure of a process—for example, a scuff on the surface of a baseball or a dent an automobile fender. A process is capable of transmitting a mark if, once the mark is introduced at one spatio-temporal location, it will persist to other spatio-temporal locations even in the absence of any further interaction. In this sense the baseball will transmit the scuff mark from one location to another. Similarly, a moving automobile is a causal process because a mark in the form of a dent in a fender will be transmitted by this process from one spatio-temporal location to another. Causal processes contrast with pseudo-processes which lack the ability to transmit marks. An example is the shadow of a moving physical object. The intuitive idea is that, if we try to mark the shadow by modifying its shape at one point (for example, by altering a light source or introducing a second occluding object), this modification will not persist unless we continually intervene to maintain it as the shadow occupies successive spatio-temporal positions. In other words, the modification will not be transmitted by the structure of the shadow itself, as it would in the case of a genuine causal process.
What does "explanation" mean in English?
It has often been noted that the word “explanation” is used in a wide variety of ways in ordinary English—we speak of explaining the meaning of a word, explaining how to bake a pie, explaining why one made a certain decision (where this is to offer a justification) and so on.
Who proposed the theory of causal explanation that completely avoids any appeal to counterfactuals?
In more recent work (e.g., Salmon 1994), prompted in part by a desire to avoid certain counterexamples advanced by Philip Kitcher (1989) to his characterization of mark transmission, Salmon attempted to fashion a theory of causal explanation that completely avoids any appeal to counterfactuals.
What is section 7 of the scientific explanation?
Section 7 provides a summary and discusses directions for future work. This article thus discusses treatments of scientific explanation up to the end of the twentieth century. 1. Background and Introduction. 2.
Answer
A scientist could use a model to represent what you are trying to experiment, thus making it possible to come up with an explanation for an answer.
New questions in Biology
MAIN IDEA: CARBON ATOMS HAVE UNIQUE BONDING PROPERTIES. Choose whether the statement is true or false. 1. true / false Carbon atoms form the buildin …
What is the traditional view of science as logic and the postmodern view of science as power?
I suggested in chapter 1 that the traditional view of science as logic and the postmodern view of science as power are both inadequate for understanding how science develops. Their inadequacy was evident in chapters 3 to 6, which described the connected psychological, social, and physical processes that produced the discovery and acceptance of the bacterial theory of ulcers, when Barry Marshall and Robin Warren collaborated to produce observations and experiments that helped change their minds and the minds of others. Chapters 7 to 10 explored cognitive processes involved in causal reasoning and conceptual change, and chapters 11 to 13...
What was the impact of the 1990s on science?
During the 1990s, new technologies have brought about dramatic changes in the way science is conducted, thereby transforming communication and collaboration. Internet technologies, including electronic mail, preprint archives, and the World Wide Web, are now ubiquitous parts of scientific and medical practice.
What is the cause of ulcers?
Between 1983 and 1995, there occurred a dramatic shift in medical beliefs about the causes of ulcers: Most researchers and practicing gastroenterologists concluded that the major factor in peptic ulcers is infection by bacteria of the newly discovered species Helicobacter pylori.
What did Robin Warren and Barry Marshall discover about peptic ulcers?
In 1983, Australian physicians Robin Warren and Barry Marshall reported finding a new kind of bacteria in the stomachs of people with gastritis. Warren and Marshall were soon led to the hypothesis that peptic ulcers are in general caused not by excess acidity or stress but by a bacterial infection.
What is the first task of a physician?
When a patient goes to a physician with a set of complaints and symptoms, the physician’s first task is to make a diagnosis of a disease that explains the symptoms. For example, if the patient has a fever, muscle aches, and a runny nose, the physician may explain these symptoms by saying that the patient has influenza.
What are the diseases that humans are subject to?
Humans are subject to many hundreds of diseases. Some of the diseases, such as cancer and epilepsy, were familiar to the ancient Greeks, whereas others such as AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) and Lyme disease have become known only in recent decades.
What do scientists use to develop explanations?
Scientists use observations, research, and collected data to develop explanations.
What is a scientist?
A scientist is someone who uses knowledge, observations, and evidence to answer testable questions.
Can scientists make sure their observations are accurate?
Scientists can make sure that their observations are accurate and complete .
Background and Introduction
The DN Model
- 2.1 The Basic Idea
According to the Deductive-Nomological Model, a scientific explanationconsists of two major “constituents”: anexplanandum, which is a sentence “describing thephenomenon to be explained” and an explanans,“the class of those sentences which are adduced to account forthe phenomen… - 2.2 The Role of Laws in the DN Model
The notion of a sound deductive argument is (arguably) relativelyclear (or at least something that can be regarded as antecedentlyunderstood from the point of view of characterizing scientificexplanation). But what about the other major component of theDN model—that of a la…
The Sr Model
- 3.1 The Basic Idea
Much of the subsequent literature on explanation has been motivated byattempts to capture the features of causal or explanatory relevancethat appear to be left out of examples like (4) and (5), typically within the empiricist constraints described above. WesleySalmon’s statistical relevanc… - 3.2 The SR Model and Low Probability Events
The SR model has a number of distinctive features that havegenerated substantial discussion. First, note that according to theSR model, and in contrast to the DN/IS model, anexplanation is not an argument—either in the sense of adeductively valid argument in which the explanandum follo…
The Causal Mechanical Model
- 4.1 The Basic Idea
In more recent work (especially, Salmon 1984) Salmon abandoned theattempt to characterize explanation or causal relationships in purelystatistical terms. Instead, he developed a new account which he calledthe Causal Mechanical (CM) model of explanation—anaccount which is … - 4.2 The CM Model and Explanatory Relevance
As the billiard example illustrates, the CM model takes asits paradigms of causal interaction examples such as collisions inwhich there is “action by contact” and no spatio-temporalgaps in the transmission of causal influence. There is little doubtthat explanations in which there are no …
A Unificationist Account of Explanation
- 5.1 The Basic Idea
In unificationist accounts of explanation developed by philosophers,scientific explanation is a matter of providing a unified account of arange of different phenomena.[9]This idea is unquestionably intuitively appealing. Successfulunification may exhibit connections or relations… - 5.2 Illustrations of the Unificationist Model
As an illustration, consider Kitcher’s treatment of the problemof explanatory asymmetries (recall Section 2.5). Our present explanatory practices—call these P—arecommitted to the idea that derivations of a flagpole’s heightfrom the length of its shadow are not explanatory. Kitcher comp…
Pragmatic Theories of Explanation
- 6.1 Introduction
Despite their many differences, the accounts of Hempel (focusing nowon just the DN rather than the IS model), Salmon,Kitcher, and others discussed above, largely share a common overallconception of what the project of constructing a theory of explanationshould involve and … - 6.2 Constructive Empiricism and the Pragmatic Theory of Explanation
One of the most influential recent pragmatic accounts of explanationis associated with constructive empiricism.[12] This is the thesis, defended by Bas van Fraassen in his 1980 book,The Scientific Image, that the aim of science (or at least“pure” science) is the construction …
Conclusions, Open Issues, and Future Directions
- What can we conclude from this recounting of some of the moreprominent recent attempts to construct models of scientificexplanation? What important issues remain open and what are the mostpromising directions for future work? Of course, any effort atstock-taking will reflect a particular point of view, but with thiscaveat in mind, several observations seem plausible, even i…