Quote Originally Posted by pctower
I respectfully disagree. There are four basic steps to the scientific method:

1. Observe something.

2. Come up with an explanation (an hypothesis) to explain what you observed.

3. Use this explanation to predict new things you would see if the explanation is correct.

4. Put the explanation to the test by finding out if the things you predict will actually occur (through empirical testing).

You can wander in and out of those steps, as I tried to describe in my prior post. But sooner or latter you've got to pass the ultimate test - you must make it past step 4.

See:

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/ph...AppendixE.html

and

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics...00000000000000
Because "method" means procedure or process, the steps seem to imply a recipe or cookbook approach to science, which may be misleading. It ain't necessarily the way things happen, which may be what you mean by "wander in and out." According to William McComas, in his Ten Myths of Science , many pre-college texts are getting away from this list of steps approach in favor of discussions of methods of science:


"Myth 3: A General and Universal Scientific Method Exists


The notion that a common series of steps is followed by all research scientists must be among the most pervasive myths of science given the appearance of such a list in the introductory chapters of many precollege science texts. This myth has been part of the folklore of school science ever since its proposal by statistician Karl Pearson (1937). The steps listed for the scientific method vary from text to text but usually include, a) define the problem, b) gather background information, c) form a hypothesis, d) make observations, e) test the hypothesis, and f) draw conclusions. Some texts conclude their list of the steps of the scientific method by listing communication of results as the final ingredient.


One of the reasons for the widespread belief in a general scientific method may be the way in which results are presented for publication in research journals. The standardized style makes it appear that scientists follow a standard research plan. Medawar (1990) reacted to the common style exhibited by research papers by calling the scientific paper a fraud since the final journal report rarely outlines the actual way in which the problem was investigated.


Philosophers of science who have studied scientists at work have shown that no research method is applied universally (Carey, 1994; Gibbs & Lawson, 1992; Chalmers, 1990; Gjertsen, 1989). The notion of a single scientific method is so pervasive it seems certain that many students must be disappointed when they discover that scientists do not have a framed copy of the steps of the scientific method posted high above each laboratory workbench.


Close inspection will reveal that scientists approach and solve problems with imagination, creativity, prior knowledge and perseverance. These, of course, are the same methods used by all problem-solvers. The lesson to be learned is that science is no different from other human endeavors when puzzles are investigated. Fortunately, this is one myth that may eventually be displaced since many newer texts are abandoning or augmenting the list in favor of discussions of methods of science."

http://www.amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html