Scientific Method Steps

Why This Matters

The scientific method isn't just a checklist you memorize for an exam—it's the epistemological backbone of how we distinguish reliable knowledge from mere opinion. You're being tested on your understanding of why each step exists, what philosophical problems it solves, and how the steps interconnect to form a self-correcting system of inquiry. Concepts like falsifiability, empiricism, inductive reasoning, and the demarcation problem all live within this framework.

When exam questions probe the scientific method, they're really asking: What makes science science? Can you identify where bias enters? Do you understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory? Don't just memorize the sequence—know what epistemic function each step serves and how removing any step would compromise the entire enterprise.

---

Grounding Knowledge: From World to Question

Science begins with the world itself. These initial steps establish the empirical foundation—the raw material from which all scientific reasoning flows. Empiricism holds that knowledge derives from sensory experience, and these steps operationalize that principle.

Observation

• Systematic sensory data gathering—uses instruments or direct perception to identify phenomena worth investigating
• Foundation of empiricism—without reliable observation, science has no raw material to analyze or explain
• Requires bias mitigation through careful methodology; theory-laden observation is a key philosophical concern here

Question Formulation

• Transforms observations into testable inquiries—moves from "I noticed X" to "Why does X occur?"
• Directs research focus and determines what counts as relevant evidence
• Must be specific and answerable—vague questions produce unfalsifiable investigations

---

Constructing Testable Claims

Here's where science distinguishes itself from other ways of knowing. The requirement that claims be testable and falsifiable is what Karl Popper identified as the demarcation criterion separating science from pseudoscience.

Hypothesis Development

• Proposes a tentative, falsifiable explanation—must make predictions that could, in principle, be proven wrong
• Falsifiability is essential—a hypothesis that explains everything actually explains nothing (Popper's criterion)
• Guides experimental design by specifying what evidence would support or refute the claim

Experimental Design

• Creates controlled conditions to test hypotheses—manipulates independent variables while holding others constant
• Controls and sample sizes ensure results reflect the hypothesis, not confounding factors
• Minimizes bias through techniques like randomization, blinding, and control groups

---

Gathering and Interpreting Evidence

These steps constitute the empirical test—where claims meet reality. The integrity of science depends entirely on honest, systematic data practices. Inductive reasoning operates here, as we move from specific observations to general conclusions.

Data Collection

• Systematic information gathering—must be accurate, consistent, and replicable across researchers
• Includes quantitative and qualitative data—numerical measurements and descriptive observations both count
• Integrity is paramount—fabricated or selectively reported data undermines the entire scientific enterprise

Data Analysis

• Identifies patterns and relationships within collected data using statistical methods
• Determines statistical significance—distinguishes genuine effects from random variation
• Tests hypothesis directly—analysis reveals whether predictions were confirmed or refuted

---

Drawing Meaning and Building Knowledge

Science doesn't stop at data—it interprets, synthesizes, and builds toward broader understanding. These steps reflect the cumulative and progressive nature of scientific knowledge.

Conclusion Drawing

• Summarizes findings relative to the hypothesis—states clearly whether evidence supported or refuted the prediction
• Acknowledges limitations and alternative explanations; intellectual honesty is a scientific virtue
• Generates new questions—good conclusions open more avenues for inquiry

Theory Formation

• Integrates multiple hypotheses into comprehensive explanations—theories unify diverse findings under common principles
• Requires substantial, converging evidence—theories like evolution or relativity rest on thousands of confirmed predictions
• Remains provisional—even well-established theories can be revised or replaced (scientific revolutions, per Kuhn)

---

Validating and Strengthening Claims

Science is self-correcting because it builds in mechanisms for checking itself. These steps embody the social and iterative nature of scientific knowledge—no single study, however well-designed, establishes truth.

Peer Review

• Expert evaluation before publication—catches errors, challenges interpretations, and ensures methodological rigor
• Gatekeeping function maintains quality standards across scientific literature
• Fosters collaborative improvement—reviewers often suggest refinements that strengthen the work

Replication

• Independent repetition of experiments—verifies that results aren't artifacts of one lab's methods or errors
• Essential for reliability—findings that can't be replicated shouldn't be trusted (replication crisis is a current concern)
• Identifies hidden biases and strengthens confidence in genuine effects

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. Which two steps most directly address Popper's falsifiability criterion, and why is this criterion philosophically significant?

2. Compare and contrast a hypothesis and a theory—how do they differ in scope, evidence requirements, and revisability?

3. If a study's results cannot be replicated by independent researchers, which steps in the original study might have failed, and what does this reveal about scientific knowledge?

4. How do peer review and replication work together to make science self-correcting? Could one function without the other?

5. An FRQ asks you to explain why astrology fails to qualify as science under the scientific method. Which specific steps does astrology violate, and what philosophical principle does this illustrate?