Written by George Stadalski on Friday, November 23, 2012
The theory of relativity is accepted because it can be proven through scientific experimentation. The theory of evolution is accepted because study has shown that life is able to change itself to meet the needs of its environment. Experiments that can be repeated by anyone within prescribed parameters combined with the study of documentable events, lend credibility to these theories.
The theory of relativity is accepted because it can be proven through scientific experimentation. The theory of evolution is accepted because study has shown that life is able to change itself to meet the needs of its environment. Experiments that can be repeated by anyone within prescribed parameters combined with the study of documentable events, lend credibility to these theories.
The theories that we are discussing here are
unproven. They are promoted, in general,
by laypeople with rudimentary training in scientific experimentation and a
basic understanding of the scientific method.
How can regular people compete with trained scientists?
By following the same strictures and rules that the
scientists do!
Although Aristotle and the ancient Greeks were the first
to use observation and measurement to answer questions about the world that
they lived in, they did not have enough structure in their system to be
considered the scientific method. The
first use of the scientific method to answer questions by performing
experiments and recording observations is credited to Muslim scholars who began
the practice between the 10th and 14th centuries. The process was continually refined during
the Renaissance and on through the Enlightenment periods, but it was Sir Isaac
Newton that improved the process to the one that we use today.
Prof. Frank L. H. Wolfs
describes it thusly, “The scientific method is the process by which scientists,
collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is,
reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.” He goes on to say that since personal
opinion, religious belief and cultural differences can all sway the way we
interpret natural phenomena, it is important to have a standard practice that
will limit that those pressures when attempting to establish a scientific
theory.
According to Prof.
Wolfs here are the four basic steps to the scientific method:
- Observation and
description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
- Formulation of a
hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often
takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
- Use of the
hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict
quantitatively the results of new observations.
- Performance of
experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters
and properly performed experiments.
If the
experiments prove the hypothesis that has been presented then the hypothesis is
on the way to becoming an accepted theory.
If the hypothesis is disproven, then it must be disregarded or reworked
in light of the new evidence that has been collected.
Experimentation is the crux of
the process. This is where you will
either confirm or disprove your hypothesis.
If you cannot support your original hypothesis with this data, you will
have to use the evidence that you have gathered to modify your hypothesis. For a hypothesis, no matter how wide spread
the concept is or how many people believe it to be true, to be treated as a
scientific theory the experimental data must coincide with the hypothetical
prediction to be accepted by the scientific community.
An experiment can test the
hypothesis directly (EVPs recorded during an investigation) or they can test
the side-effects of the hypothetical process (EMFs, ions, and cold spots
present as an entity manifests). This
step carries the inference that your hypothesis must be testable for it to be
proven (or disproven). It is said within
the scientific community that theories cannot be proven; only disproven.
There are some common mistakes
that tend to occur while using the scientific method. The most common mistake is to accept the
hypothesis as fact before any experimentation is performed. Often, we have been told something so many
times that we believe it to be truth.
Care must be taken to remember that the theories that we are dealing
with are just that, theoretical postulations that have not been proven through
empirical data collection and analysis.
Another mistake is to ignore
data that goes against the hypothesis.
The scientific method is used to remove opinion from experimentation,
but often the researcher can be swayed by personal belief or by social coercion
to attain a specific outcome. Sometimes
it can be as simple as looking for fault in data, or not examining data that
does not agree with desired outcomes.
The next mistake that we want
to touch on is to not account for the possibility of error; systematic,
procedural or human. Often discoveries have been lost in what were inaccurately
labeled as systematic errors. On the
other side of that coin systematic errors have been confused for valid
data. Any type of equipment used to
measure data has the potential for giving a bad reading. This is referred to as a random error. A systematic error is where the procedure for
the collection of data is flawed. This
could be the use of a digital thermometer that registers surface temperature to
record the ambient temperature in a room.
No experiment is perfect, but we must take the precautions to minimize
potential errors. When taking
measurements; whether they be in milligauss, degrees Fahrenheit or decibel
levels; it is important to quote a quantifiable margin of error. Without this margin of error your collected
data has no meaning.
Finally, the last mistake we
will discuss is probably the most common mistake in the field of paranormal
investigation. Within fields that have
active experimentation and open communication among the members studying that
field, the prejudices of different groups or individual investigators tend to
cancel out each other’s findings.
Additionally, the groups that are out there are all using different
equipment with different procedures and are correspondingly getting different
results.
Sources
“Who Invented the Scientific Method?” by
Martyn Shuttleworth, Experiment Resources, 2009: http://www.experiment-resources.com/who-invented-the-scientific-method.html
“Introduction to the Scientific Method” by Prof. Frank L. H. Wolfs, Department of
Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html
No comments:
Post a Comment