This is why the scientific framework should be conceived not only as a mechanism for understanding the natural world, but also as a framework for engaging in logical reasoning and discussion. The scientific method has its roots in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In essence, Bacon thought that inductive reasoning based on empirical observation was critical to the formulation of hypotheses and the generation of new understanding : general or universal principles describing how nature works are derived only from observations of recurring phenomena and data recorded from them.
The inductive method was used, for example, by the scientist Rudolf Virchow to formulate the third principle of the notorious cell theory , according to which every cell derives from a pre-existing one. The rationale behind this conclusion is that because all observations of cell behavior show that cells are only derived from other cells, this assertion must be always true.
Inductive reasoning, however, is not immune to mistakes and limitations. And this is where limited observations can lead to erroneous conclusions reasoned inductively.
In another example, if one never has seen a swan that is not white, they might conclude that all swans are white, even when we know that black swans do exist, however rare they may be. The universally accepted scientific method, as it is used in science laboratories today, is grounded in hypothetico-deductive reasoning. Research progresses via iterative empirical testing of formulated, testable hypotheses formulated through inductive reasoning.
A testable hypothesis is one that can be rejected falsified by empirical observations, a concept known as the principle of falsification. Initially, ideas and conjectures are formulated. Experiments are then performed to test them. If the body of evidence fails to reject the hypothesis, the hypothesis stands. It stands however until and unless another even singular empirical observation falsifies it. However, just as with inductive reasoning, hypothetico-deductive reasoning is not immune to pitfalls—assumptions built into hypotheses can be shown to be false, thereby nullifying previously unrejected hypotheses.
The bottom line is that science does not work to prove anything about the natural world. Instead, it builds hypotheses that explain the natural world and then attempts to find the hole in the reasoning i. Therefore, it is important to understand that science uses controlled experiments in order to test hypotheses and contribute new knowledge.
So what exactly is a controlled experiment, then? Let us take a practical example. Our starting hypothesis is the following: we have a novel drug that we think inhibits the division of cells, meaning that it prevents one cell from dividing into two cells recall the description of cell theory above. To test this hypothesis, we could treat some cells with the drug on a plate that contains nutrients and fuel required for their survival and division a standard cell biology assay.
If the drug works as expected, the cells should stop dividing. This type of drug might be useful, for example, in treating cancers because slowing or stopping the division of cells would result in the slowing or stopping of tumor growth. After making a hypothesis, the researcher will then design an experiment to test his or her hypothesis and evaluate the data gathered. These data will either support or refute the hypothesis.
Based on the conclusions drawn from the data, the researcher will then find more evidence to support the hypothesis, look for counter-evidence to further strengthen the hypothesis, revise the hypothesis and create a new experiment, or continue to incorporate the information gathered to answer the research question.
The use of the scientific method is one of the main features that separates modern psychology from earlier philosophical inquiries about the mind. Many of the concepts that psychologists are interested in—such as aspects of the human mind, behavior, and emotions—are subjective and cannot be directly measured. Psychologists often rely instead on behavioral observations and self-reported data, which are considered by some to be illegitimate or lacking in methodological rigor.
Applying the scientific method to psychology, therefore, helps to standardize the approach to understanding its very different types of information. The scientific method allows psychological data to be replicated and confirmed in many instances, under different circumstances, and by a variety of researchers.
Through replication of experiments, new generations of psychologists can reduce errors and broaden the applicability of theories. It also allows theories to be tested and validated instead of simply being conjectures that could never be verified or falsified. All of this allows psychologists to gain a stronger understanding of how the human mind works.
Scientific articles published in journals and psychology papers written in the style of the American Psychological Association i. These papers include an Introduction, which introduces the background information and outlines the hypotheses; a Methods section, which outlines the specifics of how the experiment was conducted to test the hypothesis; a Results section, which includes the statistics that tested the hypothesis and state whether it was supported or not supported, and a Discussion and Conclusion, which state the implications of finding support for, or no support for, the hypothesis.
Writing articles and papers that adhere to the scientific method makes it easy for future researchers to repeat the study and attempt to replicate the results. Privacy Policy. Skip to main content. Researching Psychology.
Search for:. The Scientific Method. Psychology and the Scientific Method: From Theory to Conclusion The scientific method offers a standardized way for psychologists to test hypotheses, build on theories, and gain knowledge about the mind.
Learning Objectives Defend each step of the scientific method as necessary to psychological research. Key Takeaways Key Points The scientific method was first outlined by Sir Francis Bacon to provide logical, rational problem solving across many scientific fields. Science is based on fact, not opinion or preferences. The process of science is designed to challenge ideas through research.
One important aspect of the scientific process is that it is focuses only on the natural world, according to the University of California. Anything that is considered supernatural does not fit into the definition of science. So the first step in identifying questions and generating possible answers hypotheses is also very important and is a creative process.
Then once you collect the data you analyze it to see if your hypothesis is supported or not. The scientific method and science in general can be frustrating. A theory is almost never proven, though a few theories do become scientific laws. One example would be the laws of conservation of energy, which is the first law of thermodynamics.
Linda Boland, a neurobiologist and chairperson of the biology department at the University of Richmond, Virginia, told Live Science that this is her favorite scientific law. This law continually reminds me of the many forms of energy," she said. A law just describes an observed phenomenon, but it doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it.
Laws are generally considered to be without exception, though some laws have been modified over time after further testing found discrepancies. This does not mean theories are not meaningful. For a hypothesis to become a theory, rigorous testing must occur, typically across multiple disciplines by separate groups of scientists.
0コメント