explain the scientific method essay

Scientific Method: Role and Importance Essay

The scientific method is a problem-solving strategy that is at the heart of biology and other sciences. There are five steps included in the scientific method that is making an observation, asking a question, forming a hypothesis or an explanation that could be tested, and predicting the test. After that, in the feedback step that is iterating, the results are used to make new predictions. The scientific method is almost always an iterative process. In other words, rather than a straight line, it is a cycle. The outcome of one round of questioning generates feedback that helps to enhance the next round of questioning.

Science is an activity that involves the logical explanation, prediction, and control of empirical phenomena. The concepts of reasoning applicable to the pursuit of this endeavor are referred to as scientific reasoning (Cowles, 2020). They include topics such as experimental design, hypothesis testing, and data interpretation. All sciences, including social sciences, follow the scientific method (Cowles, 2020). Different questions and tests are asked and performed by scientists in various domains. They do, however, have a common approach to finding logical and evidence-based answers.

Scientific reasoning is fundamental for all types of scientific study, not simply institutional research. Scientists do employ specific ideas that non-scientists do not have to use in everyday life. However, many reasoning principles are useful in everyday life. Even if one is not a scientist, they must use excellent reasoning to understand, anticipate, and regulate the events that occur in the environment. When one wants to start their careers, preserve their finances, or enhance their health, they need to acquire evidence to determine the most effective method for achieving our goals. Good scientific thinking skills come in handy in all of these situations.

Experiments, surveys, case studies, descriptive studies, and non-descriptive studies are all forms of research used in the scientific method. In an experiment, a researcher manipulates certain factors in a controlled environment and assesses their impact on other variables (Black, 2018). Descriptive research focuses on the nature of the relationship between the variables being studied rather than on cause and effect. A case study is a detailed examination of a single instance in which something unexpected has occurred. This is normally done with a single individual in extreme or exceptional instances. Large groups of individuals are polled to answer questions about certain topics in surveys. Correlational approaches are used in non-descriptive investigations to anticipate the link between two or more variables.

The Lau and Chan technique describes how to assess the validity of a theory or hypothesis using the scientific method, also known as the hypothetical-deductive method (Lau & Chan, 2017). For testing theories or hypotheses, the hypothetical-deductive technique (HD method) is highly useful. It is sometimes referred to as “scientific procedure.” This is not quite right because science can’t possibly employ only one approach. However, the HD technique is critical since it is one of the most fundamental approaches used in many scientific disciplines, including economics, physics, and biochemistry. Its implementation can be broken down into four stages. The stages include using the hypothetical-deductive method, identifying the testable hypothesis, generating the predictions according to the hypothesis, and using experiments in order to check the predictions (Cowles, 2020). If the predictions that are tested turn out to be correct, the hypothesis will be confirmed. Suppose the results are incorrect; the hypothesis would be disconfirmed.

The HD method instructs us on how to test a hypothesis, and each scientific theory must be testable.

One cannot discover evidence to illustrate whether a theory is likely or not if it cannot be tested. It cannot be considered scientific information in that circumstance. Consider the possibility that there are ghosts that people cannot see, cannot communicate with, and cannot be detected directly or indirectly. This hypothesis is defined in such a way that testing is not possible. It could still be real, and there could be such ghosts, but people would never know; thus, this cannot be considered a scientific hypothesis. In general, validating a theory’s predictions raises the likelihood that it is right. However, this does not establish definitively that the theory is right in and of itself. When given additional assumptions, a hypothesis frequently creates a prediction. When a forecast fails in this way, the theory may still be valid.

When a theory makes a faulty prediction, it might be difficult to determine whether the theory should be rejected or whether the auxiliary assumptions are flawed. Astronomers in the 19th century, for example, discovered that Newtonian physics could not adequately explain the orbit of the planet Mercury. This is due to the fact that Newtonian physics is incorrect, and you require relativity to get a more accurate orbit prediction. When astronomers discovered Uranus in 1781, they discovered that its orbit did not match Newtonian physics predictions. However, astronomers concluded that it could be explained if Uranus was being affected by another planet, and Neptune was discovered as a result.

I had several instances where I have made assumptions on an important issue regardless of evidence. Once I have prepared the work on the topic of power distribution in the workplace and its relation to gender, I have assumed that possibly because of the general feminine traits, women are less likely to create a strong image of power in comparison with men. In fact, such a hypothesis needs to be tested, and it is testable. For example, I could first define what is meant by feminine traits by collecting data from different biological and psychological sources. After that, I could observe the information regarding what factors or behavior patterns contribute to establishing power in the workplace. If I found the correlation between the feminine character traits, communication style, and behavioral patterns with the distribution of power in the workplace, then I could confirm my hypothesis.

Thus, applying the scientific method can help to improve critical reasoning by using tools from scientific reasoning. By supporting the provided hypothesis with evidence from scientific research and statistical data, one can make their claim more valuable and objective. The scientific method is essential for the creation of scientific theories that explain information and ideas in a scientifically rational manner. In a typical scientific method application, a researcher makes a hypothesis, tests it using various methods, and then alters it based on the results of the tests and experiments. The new hypothesis is then retested, further changed, and retested until it matches observable events and testing results. Hypotheses serve as tools for scientists to collect data in this way. Scientists can build broad general explanations, or scientific theories, based on that evidence and the numerous scientific experiments conducted to investigate possibilities. In conclusion, a scientific method is an important approach to examining the hypothesis. By using the tools of the scientific method, the inferences become rational and objective.

Black, M. (2018). Critical thinking: An introduction to logic and scientific method . Pickle Partners Publishing.

Cowles, H. M. (2020). The Scientific Method . Harvard University Press.

Lau, J., & Chan, J. (2017). Scientific methodology: Tutorials 1-9 .

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, March 14). Scientific Method: Role and Importance. https://ivypanda.com/essays/scientific-method-role-and-importance/

"Scientific Method: Role and Importance." IvyPanda , 14 Mar. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/scientific-method-role-and-importance/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Scientific Method: Role and Importance'. 14 March.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Scientific Method: Role and Importance." March 14, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/scientific-method-role-and-importance/.

1. IvyPanda . "Scientific Method: Role and Importance." March 14, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/scientific-method-role-and-importance/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Scientific Method: Role and Importance." March 14, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/scientific-method-role-and-importance/.

• Science Theories' Application to the Natural World
• "Theories of Human Nature" by Peter Lopson
• Albert Einstein, His Life and Career
• The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
• Utilization of Space and Time in Design
• Rheology of Engine Oils: Testing Engine Oil Types
• The Concept of String Theory
• The Earth's orbit and Other Astronomical Phenomena Affect the Earth’s
• The Cosmic Dance of Siva
• A Trip to Mars: Approximate Time, Attaining Synchrony & Parking Orbit
• Pragmatic Development Description and Explanation
• Outreach Chicago's Study Variables and Research Design
• Types of Studies for the Outreach Chicago Firm
• Nobel Prize for Natural Experiments
• System Dynamics and Soft Systems and Action Research

What is the Scientific Method: How does it work and why is it important?

The scientific method is a systematic process involving steps like defining questions, forming hypotheses, conducting experiments, and analyzing data. It minimizes biases and enables replicable research, leading to groundbreaking discoveries like Einstein's theory of relativity, penicillin, and the structure of DNA. This ongoing approach promotes reason, evidence, and the pursuit of truth in science.

Updated on November 18, 2023

Beginning in elementary school, we are exposed to the scientific method and taught how to put it into practice. As a tool for learning, it prepares children to think logically and use reasoning when seeking answers to questions.

Rather than jumping to conclusions, the scientific method gives us a recipe for exploring the world through observation and trial and error. We use it regularly, sometimes knowingly in academics or research, and sometimes subconsciously in our daily lives.

In this article we will refresh our memories on the particulars of the scientific method, discussing where it comes from, which elements comprise it, and how it is put into practice. Then, we will consider the importance of the scientific method, who uses it and under what circumstances.

What is the scientific method?

The scientific method is a dynamic process that involves objectively investigating questions through observation and experimentation . Applicable to all scientific disciplines, this systematic approach to answering questions is more accurately described as a flexible set of principles than as a fixed series of steps.

The following representations of the scientific method illustrate how it can be both condensed into broad categories and also expanded to reveal more and more details of the process. These graphics capture the adaptability that makes this concept universally valuable as it is relevant and accessible not only across age groups and educational levels but also within various contexts.

Steps in the scientific method

While the scientific method is versatile in form and function, it encompasses a collection of principles that create a logical progression to the process of problem solving:

• Define a question : Constructing a clear and precise problem statement that identifies the main question or goal of the investigation is the first step. The wording must lend itself to experimentation by posing a question that is both testable and measurable.
• Gather information and resources : Researching the topic in question to find out what is already known and what types of related questions others are asking is the next step in this process. This background information is vital to gaining a full understanding of the subject and in determining the best design for experiments. 
• Form a hypothesis : Composing a concise statement that identifies specific variables and potential results, which can then be tested, is a crucial step that must be completed before any experimentation. An imperfection in the composition of a hypothesis can result in weaknesses to the entire design of an experiment.
• Perform the experiments : Testing the hypothesis by performing replicable experiments and collecting resultant data is another fundamental step of the scientific method. By controlling some elements of an experiment while purposely manipulating others, cause and effect relationships are established.
• Analyze the data : Interpreting the experimental process and results by recognizing trends in the data is a necessary step for comprehending its meaning and supporting the conclusions. Drawing inferences through this systematic process lends substantive evidence for either supporting or rejecting the hypothesis.
• Report the results : Sharing the outcomes of an experiment, through an essay, presentation, graphic, or journal article, is often regarded as a final step in this process. Detailing the project's design, methods, and results not only promotes transparency and replicability but also adds to the body of knowledge for future research.
• Retest the hypothesis : Repeating experiments to see if a hypothesis holds up in all cases is a step that is manifested through varying scenarios. Sometimes a researcher immediately checks their own work or replicates it at a future time, or another researcher will repeat the experiments to further test the hypothesis.

Where did the scientific method come from?

Oftentimes, ancient peoples attempted to answer questions about the unknown by:

• Making simple observations
• Discussing the possibilities with others deemed worthy of a debate
• Drawing conclusions based on dominant opinions and preexisting beliefs

For example, take Greek and Roman mythology. Myths were used to explain everything from the seasons and stars to the sun and death itself.

However, as societies began to grow through advancements in agriculture and language, ancient civilizations like Egypt and Babylonia shifted to a more rational analysis for understanding the natural world. They increasingly employed empirical methods of observation and experimentation that would one day evolve into the scientific method . 

In the 4th century, Aristotle, considered the Father of Science by many, suggested these elements , which closely resemble the contemporary scientific method, as part of his approach for conducting science:

• Study what others have written about the subject.
• Look for the general consensus about the subject.
• Perform a systematic study of everything even partially related to the topic.

By continuing to emphasize systematic observation and controlled experiments, scholars such as Al-Kindi and Ibn al-Haytham helped expand this concept throughout the Islamic Golden Age . 

In his 1620 treatise, Novum Organum , Sir Francis Bacon codified the scientific method, arguing not only that hypotheses must be tested through experiments but also that the results must be replicated to establish a truth. Coming at the height of the Scientific Revolution, this text made the scientific method accessible to European thinkers like Galileo and Isaac Newton who then put the method into practice.

As science modernized in the 19th century, the scientific method became more formalized, leading to significant breakthroughs in fields such as evolution and germ theory. Today, it continues to evolve, underpinning scientific progress in diverse areas like quantum mechanics, genetics, and artificial intelligence.

Why is the scientific method important?

The history of the scientific method illustrates how the concept developed out of a need to find objective answers to scientific questions by overcoming biases based on fear, religion, power, and cultural norms. This still holds true today.

By implementing this standardized approach to conducting experiments, the impacts of researchers’ personal opinions and preconceived notions are minimized. The organized manner of the scientific method prevents these and other mistakes while promoting the replicability and transparency necessary for solid scientific research.

The importance of the scientific method is best observed through its successes, for example: 

• “ Albert Einstein stands out among modern physicists as the scientist who not only formulated a theory of revolutionary significance but also had the genius to reflect in a conscious and technical way on the scientific method he was using.” Devising a hypothesis based on the prevailing understanding of Newtonian physics eventually led Einstein to devise the theory of general relativity .
• Howard Florey “Perhaps the most useful lesson which has come out of the work on penicillin has been the demonstration that success in this field depends on the development and coordinated use of technical methods.” After discovering a mold that prevented the growth of Staphylococcus bacteria, Dr. Alexander Flemimg designed experiments to identify and reproduce it in the lab, thus leading to the development of penicillin .
• James D. Watson “Every time you understand something, religion becomes less likely. Only with the discovery of the double helix and the ensuing genetic revolution have we had grounds for thinking that the powers held traditionally to be the exclusive property of the gods might one day be ours. . . .” By using wire models to conceive a structure for DNA, Watson and Crick crafted a hypothesis for testing combinations of amino acids, X-ray diffraction images, and the current research in atomic physics, resulting in the discovery of DNA’s double helix structure .

Final thoughts

As the cases exemplify, the scientific method is never truly completed, but rather started and restarted. It gave these researchers a structured process that was easily replicated, modified, and built upon. 

While the scientific method may “end” in one context, it never literally ends. When a hypothesis, design, methods, and experiments are revisited, the scientific method simply picks up where it left off. Each time a researcher builds upon previous knowledge, the scientific method is restored with the pieces of past efforts.

By guiding researchers towards objective results based on transparency and reproducibility, the scientific method acts as a defense against bias, superstition, and preconceived notions. As we embrace the scientific method's enduring principles, we ensure that our quest for knowledge remains firmly rooted in reason, evidence, and the pursuit of truth.

The AJE Team

See our "Privacy Policy"

Scientific Method

Illustration by J.R. Bee. ThoughtCo. 

• Cell Biology
• Weather & Climate
• B.A., Biology, Emory University
• A.S., Nursing, Chattahoochee Technical College

The scientific method is a series of steps followed by scientific investigators to answer specific questions about the natural world. It involves making observations, formulating a hypothesis , and conducting scientific experiments . Scientific inquiry starts with an observation followed by the formulation of a question about what has been observed. The steps of the scientific method are as follows:

1.3: The Scientific Method

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 24429

Learning Objectives

• To identify the components of the scientific method

Scientists search for answers to questions and solutions to problems by using a procedure called the scientific method . This procedure consists of making observations, formulating hypotheses, and designing experiments, which in turn lead to additional observations, hypotheses, and experiments in repeated cycles (Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\)).

Observations can be qualitative or quantitative. Qualitative observations describe properties or occurrences in ways that do not rely on numbers. Examples of qualitative observations include the following: the outside air temperature is cooler during the winter season, table salt is a crystalline solid, sulfur crystals are yellow, and dissolving a penny in dilute nitric acid forms a blue solution and a brown gas. Quantitative observations are measurements, which by definition consist of both a number and a unit. Examples of quantitative observations include the following: the melting point of crystalline sulfur is 115.21 °C, and 35.9 grams of table salt—whose chemical name is sodium chloride—dissolve in 100 grams of water at 20 °C. An example of a quantitative observation was the initial observation leading to the modern theory of the dinosaurs’ extinction: iridium concentrations in sediments dating to 66 million years ago were found to be 20–160 times higher than normal. The development of this theory is a good exemplar of the scientific method in action (see Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\) below).

After deciding to learn more about an observation or a set of observations, scientists generally begin an investigation by forming a hypothesis , a tentative explanation for the observation(s). The hypothesis may not be correct, but it puts the scientist’s understanding of the system being studied into a form that can be tested. For example, the observation that we experience alternating periods of light and darkness corresponding to observed movements of the sun, moon, clouds, and shadows is consistent with either of two hypotheses:

• Earth rotates on its axis every 24 hours, alternately exposing one side to the sun, or
• The sun revolves around Earth every 24 hours.

Suitable experiments can be designed to choose between these two alternatives. For the disappearance of the dinosaurs, the hypothesis was that the impact of a large extraterrestrial object caused their extinction. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), this hypothesis does not lend itself to direct testing by any obvious experiment, but scientists collected additional data that either support or refute it.

After a hypothesis has been formed, scientists conduct experiments to test its validity. Experiments are systematic observations or measurements, preferably made under controlled conditions—that is, under conditions in which a single variable changes. For example, in the dinosaur extinction scenario, iridium concentrations were measured worldwide and compared. A properly designed and executed experiment enables a scientist to determine whether the original hypothesis is valid. Experiments often demonstrate that the hypothesis is incorrect or that it must be modified. More experimental data are then collected and analyzed, at which point a scientist may begin to think that the results are sufficiently reproducible (i.e., dependable) to merit being summarized in a law , a verbal or mathematical description of a phenomenon that allows for general predictions. A law simply says what happens; it does not address the question of why.

One example of a law, the Law of Definite Proportions , which was discovered by the French scientist Joseph Proust (1754–1826), states that a chemical substance always contains the same proportions of elements by mass. Thus sodium chloride (table salt) always contains the same proportion by mass of sodium to chlorine, in this case 39.34% sodium and 60.66% chlorine by mass, and sucrose (table sugar) is always 42.11% carbon, 6.48% hydrogen, and 51.41% oxygen by mass. Some solid compounds do not strictly obey the law of definite proportions. The law of definite proportions should seem obvious—we would expect the composition of sodium chloride to be consistent—but the head of the US Patent Office did not accept it as a fact until the early 20th century.

Whereas a law states only what happens, a theory attempts to explain why nature behaves as it does. Laws are unlikely to change greatly over time unless a major experimental error is discovered. In contrast, a theory, by definition, is incomplete and imperfect, evolving with time to explain new facts as they are discovered. The theory developed to explain the extinction of the dinosaurs, for example, is that Earth occasionally encounters small- to medium-sized asteroids, and these encounters may have unfortunate implications for the continued existence of most species. This theory is by no means proven, but it is consistent with the bulk of evidence amassed to date. Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\) summarizes the application of the scientific method in this case.

Example \(\PageIndex{1}\)

Classify each statement as a law, a theory, an experiment, a hypothesis, a qualitative observation, or a quantitative observation.

• Ice always floats on liquid water.
• Birds evolved from dinosaurs.
• Hot air is less dense than cold air, probably because the components of hot air are moving more rapidly.
• When 10 g of ice were added to 100 mL of water at 25 °C, the temperature of the water decreased to 15.5 °C after the ice melted.
• The ingredients of Ivory soap were analyzed to see whether it really is 99.44% pure, as advertised.

Given : components of the scientific method

Asked for : statement classification

Strategy: Refer to the definitions in this section to determine which category best describes each statement.

• This is a general statement of a relationship between the properties of liquid and solid water, so it is a law.
• This is a possible explanation for the origin of birds, so it is a hypothesis.
• This is a statement that tries to explain the relationship between the temperature and the density of air based on fundamental principles, so it is a theory.
• The temperature is measured before and after a change is made in a system, so these are quantitative observations.
• This is an analysis designed to test a hypothesis (in this case, the manufacturer’s claim of purity), so it is an experiment.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{1}\)

• Measured amounts of acid were added to a Rolaids tablet to see whether it really “consumes 47 times its weight in excess stomach acid.”
• Heat always flows from hot objects to cooler ones, not in the opposite direction.
• The universe was formed by a massive explosion that propelled matter into a vacuum.
• Michael Jordan is the greatest pure shooter ever to play professional basketball.
• Limestone is relatively insoluble in water but dissolves readily in dilute acid with the evolution of a gas.
• Gas mixtures that contain more than 4% hydrogen in air are potentially explosive.

qualitative observation

quantitative observation

Because scientists can enter the cycle shown in Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\) at any point, the actual application of the scientific method to different topics can take many different forms. For example, a scientist may start with a hypothesis formed by reading about work done by others in the field, rather than by making direct observations.

It is important to remember that scientists have a tendency to formulate hypotheses in familiar terms simply because it is difficult to propose something that has never been encountered or imagined before. As a result, scientists sometimes discount or overlook unexpected findings that disagree with the basic assumptions behind the hypothesis or theory being tested. Fortunately, truly important findings are immediately subject to independent verification by scientists in other laboratories, so science is a self-correcting discipline. When the Alvarezes originally suggested that an extraterrestrial impact caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, the response was almost universal skepticism and scorn. In only 20 years, however, the persuasive nature of the evidence overcame the skepticism of many scientists, and their initial hypothesis has now evolved into a theory that has revolutionized paleontology and geology.

Chemists expand their knowledge by making observations, carrying out experiments, and testing hypotheses to develop laws to summarize their results and theories to explain them. In doing so, they are using the scientific method.

Fundamental Definitions in Chemistry: https://youtu.be/SBwjbkFNkdw

Science and the scientific method: Definitions and examples

Here's a look at the foundation of doing science — the scientific method.

The scientific method

Hypothesis, theory and law, a brief history of science, additional resources, bibliography.

Science is a systematic and logical approach to discovering how things in the universe work. It is also the body of knowledge accumulated through the discoveries about all the things in the universe. 

The word "science" is derived from the Latin word "scientia," which means knowledge based on demonstrable and reproducible data, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary . True to this definition, science aims for measurable results through testing and analysis, a process known as the scientific method. 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 focuses only on the natural world, according to the University of California, Berkeley . Anything that is considered supernatural, or beyond physical reality, does not fit into the definition of science.

When conducting research, scientists use the scientific method to collect measurable, empirical evidence in an experiment related to a hypothesis (often in the form of an if/then statement) that is designed to support or contradict a scientific theory .

"As a field biologist, my favorite part of the scientific method is being in the field collecting the data," Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College, told Live Science. "But what really makes that fun is knowing that you are trying to answer an interesting question. 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 steps of the scientific method go something like this, according to Highline College :

• Make an observation or observations.
• Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
• Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
• Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
• Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. "Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility — no science."

Some key underpinnings to the scientific method:

• The hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable, according to North Carolina State University . Falsifiable means that there must be a possible negative answer to the hypothesis.
• Research must involve deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning . Deductive reasoning is the process of using true premises to reach a logical true conclusion while inductive reasoning uses observations to infer an explanation for those observations.
• An experiment should include a dependent variable (which does not change) and an independent variable (which does change), according to the University of California, Santa Barbara .
• An experiment should include an experimental group and a control group. The control group is what the experimental group is compared against, according to Britannica .

The process of generating and testing a hypothesis forms the backbone of the scientific method. When an idea has been confirmed over many experiments, it can be called a scientific theory. While a theory provides an explanation for a phenomenon, a scientific law provides a description of a phenomenon, according to The University of Waikato . One example would be the law of conservation of energy, which is the first law of thermodynamics that says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. 

A law describes an observed phenomenon, but it doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. "In science, laws are a starting place," said Peter Coppinger, an associate professor of biology and biomedical engineering at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. "From there, scientists can then ask the questions, 'Why and how?'"

Laws are generally considered to be without exception, though some laws have been modified over time after further testing found discrepancies. For instance, Newton's laws of motion describe everything we've observed in the macroscopic world, but they break down at the subatomic level.

This does not mean theories are not meaningful. For a hypothesis to become a theory, scientists must conduct rigorous testing, typically across multiple disciplines by separate groups of scientists. Saying something is "just a theory" confuses the scientific definition of "theory" with the layperson's definition. To most people a theory is a hunch. In science, a theory is the framework for observations and facts, Tanner told Live Science.

The earliest evidence of science can be found as far back as records exist. Early tablets contain numerals and information about the solar system , which were derived by using careful observation, prediction and testing of those predictions. Science became decidedly more "scientific" over time, however.

1200s: Robert Grosseteste developed the framework for the proper methods of modern scientific experimentation, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. His works included the principle that an inquiry must be based on measurable evidence that is confirmed through testing.

1400s: Leonardo da Vinci began his notebooks in pursuit of evidence that the human body is microcosmic. The artist, scientist and mathematician also gathered information about optics and hydrodynamics.

1500s: Nicolaus Copernicus advanced the understanding of the solar system with his discovery of heliocentrism. This is a model in which Earth and the other planets revolve around the sun, which is the center of the solar system.

1600s: Johannes Kepler built upon those observations with his laws of planetary motion. Galileo Galilei improved on a new invention, the telescope, and used it to study the sun and planets. The 1600s also saw advancements in the study of physics as Isaac Newton developed his laws of motion.

1700s: Benjamin Franklin discovered that lightning is electrical. He also contributed to the study of oceanography and meteorology. The understanding of chemistry also evolved during this century as Antoine Lavoisier, dubbed the father of modern chemistry , developed the law of conservation of mass.

1800s: Milestones included Alessandro Volta's discoveries regarding electrochemical series, which led to the invention of the battery. John Dalton also introduced atomic theory, which stated that all matter is composed of atoms that combine to form molecules. The basis of modern study of genetics advanced as Gregor Mendel unveiled his laws of inheritance. Later in the century, Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen discovered X-rays , while George Ohm's law provided the basis for understanding how to harness electrical charges.

1900s: The discoveries of Albert Einstein , who is best known for his theory of relativity, dominated the beginning of the 20th century. Einstein's theory of relativity is actually two separate theories. His special theory of relativity, which he outlined in a 1905 paper, " The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies ," concluded that time must change according to the speed of a moving object relative to the frame of reference of an observer. His second theory of general relativity, which he published as " The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity ," advanced the idea that matter causes space to curve.

In 1952, Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine , which reduced the incidence of polio in the United States by nearly 90%, according to Britannica . The following year, James D. Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA , which is a double helix formed by base pairs attached to a sugar-phosphate backbone, according to the National Human Genome Research Institute .

2000s: The 21st century saw the first draft of the human genome completed, leading to a greater understanding of DNA. This advanced the study of genetics, its role in human biology and its use as a predictor of diseases and other disorders, according to the National Human Genome Research Institute .

• This video from City University of New York delves into the basics of what defines science.
• Learn about what makes science science in this book excerpt from Washington State University .
• This resource from the University of Michigan — Flint explains how to design your own scientific study.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Scientia. 2022. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientia

University of California, Berkeley, "Understanding Science: An Overview." 2022. ​​ https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/intro_01  

Highline College, "Scientific method." July 12, 2015. https://people.highline.edu/iglozman/classes/astronotes/scimeth.htm  

North Carolina State University, "Science Scripts." https://projects.ncsu.edu/project/bio183de/Black/science/science_scripts.html  

University of California, Santa Barbara. "What is an Independent variable?" October 31,2017. http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=6045  

Encyclopedia Britannica, "Control group." May 14, 2020. https://www.britannica.com/science/control-group  

The University of Waikato, "Scientific Hypothesis, Theories and Laws." https://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/Theories.shtml  

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Robert Grosseteste. May 3, 2019. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/grosseteste/  

Encyclopedia Britannica, "Jonas Salk." October 21, 2021. https://www.britannica.com/ biography /Jonas-Salk

National Human Genome Research Institute, "​Phosphate Backbone." https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Phosphate-Backbone  

National Human Genome Research Institute, "What is the Human Genome Project?" https://www.genome.gov/human-genome-project/What  

‌ Live Science contributor Ashley Hamer updated this article on Jan. 16, 2022.

Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now

Get the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.

Part of the San Andreas fault may be gearing up for an earthquake

Antarctica is covered in volcanoes, could they erupt?

Pet fox with 'deep relationship with the hunter-gatherer society' buried 1,500 years ago in Argentina

Most Popular

By Anna Gora December 27, 2023

By Anna Gora December 26, 2023

By Anna Gora December 25, 2023

By Emily Cooke December 23, 2023

By Victoria Atkinson December 22, 2023

By Anna Gora December 16, 2023

By Anna Gora December 15, 2023

By Anna Gora November 09, 2023

By Donavyn Coffey November 06, 2023

By Anna Gora October 31, 2023

By Anna Gora October 26, 2023

• 2 Watch live! The total solar eclipse has begun over North America.
• 3 April 8 solar eclipse: What time does totality start in every state?
• 4 Where to get solar eclipse glasses last minute
• 5 8,200-year-old campsite of 'Paleo-Archaic' peoples discovered on US Air Force base in New Mexico
• 2 Giant 'toe biter' water bugs discovered in Cyprus for the 1st time
• 3 When is the next total solar eclipse after 2024 in North America?
• 4 Watch live! The total solar eclipse has begun over North America.

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Scientific Discovery

Scientific discovery is the process or product of successful scientific inquiry. Objects of discovery can be things, events, processes, causes, and properties as well as theories and hypotheses and their features (their explanatory power, for example). Most philosophical discussions of scientific discoveries focus on the generation of new hypotheses that fit or explain given data sets or allow for the derivation of testable consequences. Philosophical discussions of scientific discovery have been intricate and complex because the term “discovery” has been used in many different ways, both to refer to the outcome and to the procedure of inquiry. In the narrowest sense, the term “discovery” refers to the purported “eureka moment” of having a new insight. In the broadest sense, “discovery” is a synonym for “successful scientific endeavor” tout court. Some philosophical disputes about the nature of scientific discovery reflect these terminological variations.

Philosophical issues related to scientific discovery arise about the nature of human creativity, specifically about whether the “eureka moment” can be analyzed and about whether there are rules (algorithms, guidelines, or heuristics) according to which such a novel insight can be brought about. Philosophical issues also arise about the analysis and evaluation of heuristics, about the characteristics of hypotheses worthy of articulation and testing, and, on the meta-level, about the nature and scope of philosophical analysis itself. This essay describes the emergence and development of the philosophical problem of scientific discovery and surveys different philosophical approaches to understanding scientific discovery. In doing so, it also illuminates the meta-philosophical problems surrounding the debates, and, incidentally, the changing nature of philosophy of science.

1. Introduction

2. scientific inquiry as discovery, 3. elements of discovery, 4. pragmatic logics of discovery, 5. the distinction between the context of discovery and the context of justification, 6.1 discovery as abduction, 6.2 heuristic programming, 7. anomalies and the structure of discovery, 8.1 discoverability, 8.2 preliminary appraisal, 8.3 heuristic strategies, 9.1 kinds and features of creativity, 9.2 analogy, 9.3 mental models, 10. machine discovery, 11. social epistemology and discovery, 12. integrated approaches to knowledge generation, other internet resources, related entries.

Philosophical reflection on scientific discovery occurred in different phases. Prior to the 1930s, philosophers were mostly concerned with discoveries in the broad sense of the term, that is, with the analysis of successful scientific inquiry as a whole. Philosophical discussions focused on the question of whether there were any discernible patterns in the production of new knowledge. Because the concept of discovery did not have a specified meaning and was used in a very wide sense, almost all discussions of scientific method and practice could potentially be considered as early contributions to reflections on scientific discovery. In the course of the 18 th century, as philosophy of science and science gradually became two distinct endeavors with different audiences, the term “discovery” became a technical term in philosophical discussions. Different elements of scientific inquiry were specified. Most importantly, during the 19 th century, the generation of new knowledge came to be clearly and explicitly distinguished from its assessment, and thus the conditions for the narrower notion of discovery as the act or process of conceiving new ideas emerged. This distinction was encapsulated in the so-called “context distinction,” between the “context of discovery” and the “context of justification”.

Much of the discussion about scientific discovery in the 20 th century revolved around this distinction It was argued that conceiving a new idea is a non-rational process, a leap of insight that cannot be captured in specific instructions. Justification, by contrast, is a systematic process of applying evaluative criteria to knowledge claims. Advocates of the context distinction argued that philosophy of science is exclusively concerned with the context of justification. The assumption underlying this argument is that philosophy is a normative project; it determines norms for scientific practice. Given this assumption, only the justification of ideas, not their generation, can be the subject of philosophical (normative) analysis. Discovery, by contrast, can only be a topic for empirical study. By definition, the study of discovery is outside the scope of philosophy of science proper.

The introduction of the context distinction and the disciplinary distinction between empirical science studies and normative philosophy of science that was tied to it spawned meta-philosophical disputes. For a long time, philosophical debates about discovery were shaped by the notion that philosophical and empirical analyses are mutually exclusive. Some philosophers insisted, like their predecessors prior to the 1930s, that the philosopher’s tasks include the analysis of actual scientific practices and that scientific resources be used to address philosophical problems. They maintained that it is a legitimate task for philosophy of science to develop a theory of heuristics or problem solving. But this position was the minority view in philosophy of science until the last decades of the 20 th century. Philosophers of discovery were thus compelled to demonstrate that scientific discovery was in fact a legitimate part of philosophy of science. Philosophical reflections about the nature of scientific discovery had to be bolstered by meta-philosophical arguments about the nature and scope of philosophy of science.

Today, however, there is wide agreement that philosophy and empirical research are not mutually exclusive. Not only do empirical studies of actual scientific discoveries in past and present inform philosophical thought about the structure and cognitive mechanisms of discovery, but works in psychology, cognitive science, artificial intelligence and related fields have become integral parts of philosophical analyses of the processes and conditions of the generation of new knowledge. Social epistemology has opened up another perspective on scientific discovery, reconceptualizing knowledge generation as group process.

Prior to the 19 th century, the term “discovery” was used broadly to refer to a new finding, such as a new cure, an unknown territory, an improvement of an instrument, or a new method of measuring longitude. One strand of the discussion about discovery dating back to ancient times concerns the method of analysis as the method of discovery in mathematics and geometry, and, by extension, in philosophy and scientific inquiry. Following the analytic method, we seek to find or discover something – the “thing sought,” which could be a theorem, a solution to a geometrical problem, or a cause – by analyzing it. In the ancient Greek context, analytic methods in mathematics, geometry, and philosophy were not clearly separated; the notion of finding or discovering things by analysis was relevant in all these fields.

In the ensuing centuries, several natural and experimental philosophers, including Avicenna and Zabarella, Bacon and Boyle, the authors of the Port-Royal Logic and Newton, and many others, expounded rules of reasoning and methods for arriving at new knowledge. The ancient notion of analysis still informed these rules and methods. Newton’s famous thirty-first query in the second edition of the Opticks outlines the role of analysis in discovery as follows: “As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths … By this way of Analysis we may proceed from Compounds to Ingredients, and from Motions to the Forces producing them; and in general, from Effects to their Causes, and from particular Causes to more general ones, till the Argument end in the most general. This is the Method of Analysis” (Newton 1718, 380, see Koertge 1980, section VI). Early modern accounts of discovery captured knowledge-seeking practices in the study of living and non-living nature, ranging from astronomy and physics to medicine, chemistry, and agriculture. These rich accounts of scientific inquiry were often expounded to bolster particular theories about the nature of matter and natural forces and were not explicitly labeled “methods of discovery ”, yet they are, in fact, accounts of knowledge generation and proper scientific reasoning, covering topics such as the role of the senses in knowledge generation, observation and experimentation, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, hypotheses, probability, and certainty.

Bacon’s work is a prominent example. His view of the method of science as it is presented in the Novum Organum showed how best to arrive at knowledge about “form natures” (the most general properties of matter) via a systematic investigation of phenomenal natures. Bacon described how first to collect and organize natural phenomena and experimentally produced facts in tables, how to evaluate these lists, and how to refine the initial results with the help of further trials. Through these steps, the investigator would arrive at conclusions about the “form nature” that produces particular phenomenal natures. Bacon expounded the procedures of constructing and evaluating tables of presences and absences to underpin his matter theory. In addition, in his other writings, such as his natural history Sylva Sylvarum or his comprehensive work on human learning De Augmentis Scientiarium , Bacon exemplified the “art of discovery” with practical examples and discussions of strategies of inquiry.

Like Bacon and Newton, several other early modern authors advanced ideas about how to generate and secure empirical knowledge, what difficulties may arise in scientific inquiry, and how they could be overcome. The close connection between theories about matter and force and scientific methodologies that we find in early modern works was gradually severed. 18 th - and early 19 th -century authors on scientific method and logic cited early modern approaches mostly to model proper scientific practice and reasoning, often creatively modifying them ( section 3 ). Moreover, they developed the earlier methodologies of experimentation, observation, and reasoning into practical guidelines for discovering new phenomena and devising probable hypotheses about cause-effect relations.

It was common in 20 th -century philosophy of science to draw a sharp contrast between those early theories of scientific method and modern approaches. 20 th -century philosophers of science interpreted 17 th - and 18 th -century approaches as generative theories of scientific method. They function simultaneously as guides for acquiring new knowledge and as assessments of the knowledge thus obtained, whereby knowledge that is obtained “in the right way” is considered secure (Laudan 1980; Schaffner 1993: chapter 2). On this view, scientific methods are taken to have probative force (Nickles 1985). According to modern, “consequentialist” theories, propositions must be established by comparing their consequences with observed and experimentally produced phenomena (Laudan 1980; Nickles 1985). It was further argued that, when consequentialist theories were on the rise, the two processes of generation and assessment of an idea or hypothesis became distinct, and the view that the merit of a new idea does not depend on the way in which it was arrived at became widely accepted.

More recent research in history of philosophy of science has shown, however, that there was no such sharp contrast. Consequentialist ideas were advanced throughout the 18 th century, and the early modern generative theories of scientific method and knowledge were more pragmatic than previously assumed. Early modern scholars did not assume that this procedure would lead to absolute certainty. One could only obtain moral certainty for the propositions thus secured.

During the 18 th and 19 th centuries, the different elements of discovery gradually became separated and discussed in more detail. Discussions concerned the nature of observations and experiments, the act of having an insight and the processes of articulating, developing, and testing the novel insight. Philosophical discussion focused on the question of whether and to what extent rules could be devised to guide each of these processes.

Numerous 19 th -century scholars contributed to these discussions, including Claude Bernard, Auguste Comte, George Gore, John Herschel, W. Stanley Jevons, Justus von Liebig, John Stuart Mill, and Charles Sanders Peirce, to name only a few. William Whewell’s work, especially the two volumes of Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences of 1840, is a noteworthy and, later, much discussed contribution to the philosophical debates about scientific discovery because he explicitly distinguished the creative moment or “happy thought” as he called it from other elements of scientific inquiry and because he offered a detailed analysis of the “discoverer’s induction”, i.e., the pursuit and evaluation of the new insight. Whewell’s approach is not unique, but for late 20 th -century philosophers of science, his comprehensive, historically informed philosophy of discovery became a point of orientation in the revival of interest in scientific discovery processes.

For Whewell, discovery comprised three elements: the happy thought, the articulation and development of that thought, and the testing or verification of it. His account was in part a description of the psychological makeup of the discoverer. For instance, he held that only geniuses could have those happy thoughts that are essential to discovery. In part, his account was an account of the methods by which happy thoughts are integrated into the system of knowledge. According to Whewell, the initial step in every discovery is what he called “some happy thought, of which we cannot trace the origin; some fortunate cast of intellect, rising above all rules. No maxims can be given which inevitably lead to discovery” (Whewell 1996 [1840]: 186). An “art of discovery” in the sense of a teachable and learnable skill does not exist according to Whewell. The happy thought builds on the known facts, but according to Whewell it is impossible to prescribe a method for having happy thoughts.

In this sense, happy thoughts are accidental. But in an important sense, scientific discoveries are not accidental. The happy thought is not a wild guess. Only the person whose mind is prepared to see things will actually notice them. The “previous condition of the intellect, and not the single fact, is really the main and peculiar cause of the success. The fact is merely the occasion by which the engine of discovery is brought into play sooner or later. It is, as I have elsewhere said, only the spark which discharges a gun already loaded and pointed; and there is little propriety in speaking of such an accident as the cause why the bullet hits its mark.” (Whewell 1996 [1840]: 189).

Having a happy thought is not yet a discovery, however. The second element of a scientific discovery consists in binding together—“colligating”, as Whewell called it—a set of facts by bringing them under a general conception. Not only does the colligation produce something new, but it also shows the previously known facts in a new light. Colligation involves, on the one hand, the specification of facts through systematic observation, measurements and experiment, and on the other hand, the clarification of ideas through the exposition of the definitions and axioms that are tacitly implied in those ideas. This process is extended and iterative. The scientists go back and forth between binding together the facts, clarifying the idea, rendering the facts more exact, and so forth.

The final part of the discovery is the verification of the colligation involving the happy thought. This means, first and foremost, that the outcome of the colligation must be sufficient to explain the data at hand. Verification also involves judging the predictive power, simplicity, and “consilience” of the outcome of the colligation. “Consilience” refers to a higher range of generality (broader applicability) of the theory (the articulated and clarified happy thought) that the actual colligation produced. Whewell’s account of discovery is not a deductivist system. It is essential that the outcome of the colligation be inferable from the data prior to any testing (Snyder 1997).

Whewell’s theory of discovery clearly separates three elements: the non-analyzable happy thought or eureka moment; the process of colligation which includes the clarification and explication of facts and ideas; and the verification of the outcome of the colligation. His position that the philosophy of discovery cannot prescribe how to think happy thoughts has been a key element of 20 th -century philosophical reflection on discovery. In contrast to many 20 th -century approaches, Whewell’s philosophical conception of discovery also comprises the processes by which the happy thoughts are articulated. Similarly, the process of verification is an integral part of discovery. The procedures of articulation and test are both analyzable according to Whewell, and his conception of colligation and verification serve as guidelines for how the discoverer should proceed. To verify a hypothesis, the investigator needs to show that it accounts for the known facts, that it foretells new, previously unobserved phenomena, and that it can explain and predict phenomena which are explained and predicted by a hypothesis that was obtained through an independent happy thought-cum-colligation (Ducasse 1951).

Whewell’s conceptualization of scientific discovery offers a useful framework for mapping the philosophical debates about discovery and for identifying major issues of concern in 20 th -century philosophical debates. Until the late 20 th century, most philosophers operated with a notion of discovery that is narrower than Whewell’s. In more recent treatments of discovery, however, the scope of the term “discovery” is limited to either the first of these elements, the “happy thought”, or to the happy thought and its initial articulation. In the narrower conception, what Whewell called “verification” is not part of discovery proper. Secondly, until the late 20 th century, there was wide agreement that the eureka moment, narrowly construed, is an unanalyzable, even mysterious leap of insight. The main disagreements concerned the question of whether the process of developing a hypothesis (the “colligation” in Whewell’s terms) is, or is not, a part of discovery proper – and if it is, whether and how this process is guided by rules. Much of the controversies in the 20 th century about the possibility of a philosophy of discovery can be understood against the background of the disagreement about whether the process of discovery does or does not include the articulation and development of a novel thought. Philosophers also disagreed on the issue of whether it is a philosophical task to explicate these rules.

In early 20 th -century logical empiricism, the view that discovery is or at least crucially involves a non-analyzable creative act of a gifted genius was widespread. Alternative conceptions of discovery especially in the pragmatist tradition emphasize that discovery is an extended process, i.e., that the discovery process includes the reasoning processes through which a new insight is articulated and further developed.

In the pragmatist tradition, the term “logic” is used in the broad sense to refer to strategies of human reasoning and inquiry. While the reasoning involved does not proceed according to the principles of demonstrative logic, it is systematic enough to deserve the label “logical”. Proponents of this view argued that traditional (here: syllogistic) logic is an inadequate model of scientific discovery because it misrepresents the process of knowledge generation as grossly as the notion of an “aha moment”.

Early 20 th -century pragmatic logics of discovery can best be described as comprehensive theories of the mental and physical-practical operations involved in knowledge generation, as theories of “how we think” (Dewey 1910). Among the mental operations are classification, determination of what is relevant to an inquiry, and the conditions of communication of meaning; among the physical operations are observation and (laboratory) experiments. These features of scientific discovery are either not or only insufficiently represented by traditional syllogistic logic (Schiller 1917: 236–7).

Philosophers advocating this approach agree that the logic of discovery should be characterized as a set of heuristic principles rather than as a process of applying inductive or deductive logic to a set of propositions. These heuristic principles are not understood to show the path to secure knowledge. Heuristic principles are suggestive rather than demonstrative (Carmichael 1922, 1930). One recurrent feature in these accounts of the reasoning strategies leading to new ideas is analogical reasoning (Schiller 1917; Benjamin 1934, see also section 9.2 .). However, in academic philosophy of science, endeavors to develop more systematically the heuristics guiding discovery processes were soon eclipsed by the advance of the distinction between contexts of discovery and justification.

The distinction between “context of discovery” and “context of justification” dominated and shaped the discussions about discovery in 20 th -century philosophy of science. The context distinction marks the distinction between the generation of a new idea or hypothesis and the defense (test, verification) of it. As the previous sections have shown, the distinction among different elements of scientific inquiry has a long history but in the first half of the 20 th century, the distinction between the different features of scientific inquiry turned into a powerful demarcation criterion between “genuine” philosophy and other fields of science studies, which became potent in philosophy of science. The boundary between context of discovery (the de facto thinking processes) and context of justification (the de jure defense of the correctness of these thoughts) was now understood to determine the scope of philosophy of science, whereby philosophy of science is conceived as a normative endeavor. Advocates of the context distinction argue that the generation of a new idea is an intuitive, nonrational process; it cannot be subject to normative analysis. Therefore, the study of scientists’ actual thinking can only be the subject of psychology, sociology, and other empirical sciences. Philosophy of science, by contrast, is exclusively concerned with the context of justification.

The terms “context of discovery” and “context of justification” are often associated with Hans Reichenbach’s work. Reichenbach’s original conception of the context distinction is quite complex, however (Howard 2006; Richardson 2006). It does not map easily on to the disciplinary distinction mentioned above, because for Reichenbach, philosophy of science proper is partly descriptive. Reichenbach maintains that philosophy of science includes a description of knowledge as it really is. Descriptive philosophy of science reconstructs scientists’ thinking processes in such a way that logical analysis can be performed on them, and it thus prepares the ground for the evaluation of these thoughts (Reichenbach 1938: § 1). Discovery, by contrast, is the object of empirical—psychological, sociological—study. According to Reichenbach, the empirical study of discoveries shows that processes of discovery often correspond to the principle of induction, but this is simply a psychological fact (Reichenbach 1938: 403).

While the terms “context of discovery” and “context of justification” are widely used, there has been ample discussion about how the distinction should be drawn and what their philosophical significance is (c.f. Kordig 1978; Gutting 1980; Zahar 1983; Leplin 1987; Hoyningen-Huene 1987; Weber 2005: chapter 3; Schickore and Steinle 2006). Most commonly, the distinction is interpreted as a distinction between the process of conceiving a theory and the assessment of that theory, specifically the assessment of the theory’s epistemic support. This version of the distinction is not necessarily interpreted as a temporal distinction. In other words, it is not usually assumed that a theory is first fully developed and then assessed. Rather, generation and assessment are two different epistemic approaches to theory: the endeavor to articulate, flesh out, and develop its potential and the endeavor to assess its epistemic worth. Within the framework of the context distinction, there are two main ways of conceptualizing the process of conceiving a theory. The first option is to characterize the generation of new knowledge as an irrational act, a mysterious creative intuition, a “eureka moment”. The second option is to conceptualize the generation of new knowledge as an extended process that includes a creative act as well as some process of articulating and developing the creative idea.

Both of these accounts of knowledge generation served as starting points for arguments against the possibility of a philosophy of discovery. In line with the first option, philosophers have argued that neither is it possible to prescribe a logical method that produces new ideas nor is it possible to reconstruct logically the process of discovery. Only the process of testing is amenable to logical investigation. This objection to philosophies of discovery has been called the “discovery machine objection” (Curd 1980: 207). It is usually associated with Karl Popper’s Logic of Scientific Discovery .

The initial state, the act of conceiving or inventing a theory, seems to me neither to call for logical analysis not to be susceptible of it. The question how it happens that a new idea occurs to a man—whether it is a musical theme, a dramatic conflict, or a scientific theory—may be of great interest to empirical psychology; but it is irrelevant to the logical analysis of scientific knowledge. This latter is concerned not with questions of fact (Kant’s quid facti ?) , but only with questions of justification or validity (Kant’s quid juris ?) . Its questions are of the following kind. Can a statement be justified? And if so, how? Is it testable? Is it logically dependent on certain other statements? Or does it perhaps contradict them? […]Accordingly I shall distinguish sharply between the process of conceiving a new idea, and the methods and results of examining it logically. As to the task of the logic of knowledge—in contradistinction to the psychology of knowledge—I shall proceed on the assumption that it consists solely in investigating the methods employed in those systematic tests to which every new idea must be subjected if it is to be seriously entertained. (Popper 2002 [1934/1959]: 7–8)

With respect to the second way of conceptualizing knowledge generation, many philosophers argue in a similar fashion that because the process of discovery involves an irrational, intuitive process, which cannot be examined logically, a logic of discovery cannot be construed. Other philosophers turn against the philosophy of discovery even though they explicitly acknowledge that discovery is an extended, reasoned process. They present a meta-philosophical objection argument, arguing that a theory of articulating and developing ideas is not a philosophical but a psychological or sociological theory. In this perspective, “discovery” is understood as a retrospective label, which is attributed as a sign of accomplishment to some scientific endeavors. Sociological theories acknowledge that discovery is a collective achievement and the outcome of a process of negotiation through which “discovery stories” are constructed and certain knowledge claims are granted discovery status (Brannigan 1981; Schaffer 1986, 1994).

The impact of the context distinction on 20 th -century studies of scientific discovery and on philosophy of science more generally can hardly be overestimated. The view that the process of discovery (however construed) is outside the scope of philosophy of science proper was widely shared amongst philosophers of science for most of the 20 th century. The last section shows that there were some attempts to develop logics of discovery in the 1920s and 1930s, especially in the pragmatist tradition. But for several decades, the context distinction dictated what philosophy of science should be about and how it should proceed. The dominant view was that theories of mental operations or heuristics had no place in philosophy of science and that, therefore, discovery was not a legitimate topic for philosophy of science. Until the last decades of the 20 th century, there were few attempts to challenge the disciplinary distinction tied to the context distinction. Only during the 1970s did the interest in philosophical approaches to discovery begin to increase again. But the context distinction remained a challenge for philosophies of discovery.

There are several lines of response to the disciplinary distinction tied to the context distinction. Each of these lines of response opens a philosophical perspective on discovery. Each proceeds on the assumption that philosophy of science may legitimately include some form of analysis of actual reasoning patterns as well as information from empirical sciences such as cognitive science, psychology, and sociology. All of these responses reject the idea that discovery is nothing but a mystical event. Discovery is conceived as an analyzable reasoning process, not just as a creative leap by which novel ideas spring into being fully formed. All of these responses agree that the procedures and methods for arriving at new hypotheses and ideas are no guarantee that the hypothesis or idea that is thus formed is necessarily the best or the correct one. Nonetheless, it is the task of philosophy of science to provide rules for making this process better. All of these responses can be described as theories of problem solving, whose ultimate goal is to make the generation of new ideas and theories more efficient.

But the different approaches to scientific discovery employ different terminologies. In particular, the term “logic” of discovery is sometimes used in a narrow sense and sometimes broadly understood. In the narrow sense, “logic” of discovery is understood to refer to a set of formal, generally applicable rules by which novel ideas can be mechanically derived from existing data. In the broad sense, “logic” of discovery refers to the schematic representation of reasoning procedures. “Logical” is just another term for “rational”. Moreover, while each of these responses combines philosophical analyses of scientific discovery with empirical research on actual human cognition, different sets of resources are mobilized, ranging from AI research and cognitive science to historical studies of problem-solving procedures. Also, the responses parse the process of scientific inquiry differently. Often, scientific inquiry is regarded as having two aspects, viz. generation and assessments of new ideas. At times, however, scientific inquiry is regarded as having three aspects, namely generation, pursuit or articulation, and assessment of knowledge. In the latter framework, the label “discovery” is sometimes used to refer just to generation and sometimes to refer to both generation and pursuit.

One response to the challenge of the context distinction draws on a broad understanding of the term “logic” to argue that we cannot but admit a general, domain-neutral logic if we do not want to assume that the success of science is a miracle (Jantzen 2016) and that a logic of scientific discovery can be developed ( section 6 ). Another response, drawing on a narrow understanding of the term “logic”, is to concede that there is no logic of discovery, i.e., no algorithm for generating new knowledge, but that the process of discovery follows an identifiable, analyzable pattern ( section 7 ).

Others argue that discovery is governed by a methodology . The methodology of discovery is a legitimate topic for philosophical analysis ( section 8 ). Yet another response assumes that discovery is or at least involves a creative act. Drawing on resources from cognitive science, neuroscience, computational research, and environmental and social psychology, philosophers have sought to demystify the cognitive processes involved in the generation of new ideas. Philosophers who take this approach argue that scientific creativity is amenable to philosophical analysis ( section 9.1 ).

All these responses assume that there is more to discovery than a eureka moment. Discovery comprises processes of articulating, developing, and assessing the creative thought, as well as the scientific community’s adjudication of what does, and does not, count as “discovery” (Arabatzis 1996). These are the processes that can be examined with the tools of philosophical analysis, augmented by input from other fields of science studies such as sociology, history, or cognitive science.

6. Logics of discovery after the context distinction

One way of responding to the demarcation criterion described above is to argue that discovery is a topic for philosophy of science because it is a logical process after all. Advocates of this approach to the logic of discovery usually accept the overall distinction between the two processes of conceiving and testing a hypothesis. They also agree that it is impossible to put together a manual that provides a formal, mechanical procedure through which innovative concepts or hypotheses can be derived: There is no discovery machine. But they reject the view that the process of conceiving a theory is a creative act, a mysterious guess, a hunch, a more or less instantaneous and random process. Instead, they insist that both conceiving and testing hypotheses are processes of reasoning and systematic inference, that both of these processes can be represented schematically, and that it is possible to distinguish better and worse paths to new knowledge.

This line of argument has much in common with the logics of discovery described in section 4 above but it is now explicitly pitched against the disciplinary distinction tied to the context distinction. There are two main ways of developing this argument. The first is to conceive of discovery in terms of abductive reasoning ( section 6.1 ). The second is to conceive of discovery in terms of problem-solving algorithms, whereby heuristic rules aid the processing of available data and enhance the success in finding solutions to problems ( section 6.2 ). Both lines of argument rely on a broad conception of logic, whereby the “logic” of discovery amounts to a schematic account of the reasoning processes involved in knowledge generation.

One argument, elaborated prominently by Norwood R. Hanson, is that the act of discovery—here, the act of suggesting a new hypothesis—follows a distinctive logical pattern, which is different from both inductive logic and the logic of hypothetico-deductive reasoning. The special logic of discovery is the logic of abductive or “retroductive” inferences (Hanson 1958). The argument that it is through an act of abductive inferences that plausible, promising scientific hypotheses are devised goes back to C.S. Peirce. This version of the logic of discovery characterizes reasoning processes that take place before a new hypothesis is ultimately justified. The abductive mode of reasoning that leads to plausible hypotheses is conceptualized as an inference beginning with data or, more specifically, with surprising or anomalous phenomena.

In this view, discovery is primarily a process of explaining anomalies or surprising, astonishing phenomena. The scientists’ reasoning proceeds abductively from an anomaly to an explanatory hypothesis in light of which the phenomena would no longer be surprising or anomalous. The outcome of this reasoning process is not one single specific hypothesis but the delineation of a type of hypotheses that is worthy of further attention (Hanson 1965: 64). According to Hanson, the abductive argument has the following schematic form (Hanson 1960: 104):

• Some surprising, astonishing phenomena p 1 , p 2 , p 3 … are encountered.
• But p 1 , p 2 , p 3 … would not be surprising were an hypothesis of H ’s type to obtain. They would follow as a matter of course from something like H and would be explained by it.
• Therefore there is good reason for elaborating an hypothesis of type H—for proposing it as a possible hypothesis from whose assumption p 1 , p 2 , p 3 … might be explained.

Drawing on the historical record, Hanson argues that several important discoveries were made relying on abductive reasoning, such as Kepler’s discovery of the elliptic orbit of Mars (Hanson 1958). It is now widely agreed, however, that Hanson’s reconstruction of the episode is not a historically adequate account of Kepler’s discovery (Lugg 1985). More importantly, while there is general agreement that abductive inferences are frequent in both everyday and scientific reasoning, these inferences are no longer considered as logical inferences. Even if one accepts Hanson’s schematic representation of the process of identifying plausible hypotheses, this process is a “logical” process only in the widest sense whereby the term “logical” is understood as synonymous with “rational”. Notably, some philosophers have even questioned the rationality of abductive inferences (Koehler 1991; Brem and Rips 2000).

Another argument against the above schema is that it is too permissive. There will be several hypotheses that are explanations for phenomena p 1 , p 2 , p 3 …, so the fact that a particular hypothesis explains the phenomena is not a decisive criterion for developing that hypothesis (Harman 1965; see also Blackwell 1969). Additional criteria are required to evaluate the hypothesis yielded by abductive inferences.

Finally, it is worth noting that the schema of abductive reasoning does not explain the very act of conceiving a hypothesis or hypothesis-type. The processes by which a new idea is first articulated remain unanalyzed in the above schema. The schema focuses on the reasoning processes by which an exploratory hypothesis is assessed in terms of its merits and promise (Laudan 1980; Schaffner 1993).

In more recent work on abduction and discovery, two notions of abduction are sometimes distinguished: the common notion of abduction as inference to the best explanation (selective abduction) and creative abduction (Magnani 2000, 2009). Selective abduction—the inference to the best explanation—involves selecting a hypothesis from a set of known hypotheses. Medical diagnosis exemplifies this kind of abduction. Creative abduction, by contrast, involves generating a new, plausible hypothesis. This happens, for instance, in medical research, when the notion of a new disease is articulated. However, it is still an open question whether this distinction can be drawn, or whether there is a more gradual transition from selecting an explanatory hypothesis from a familiar domain (selective abduction) to selecting a hypothesis that is slightly modified from the familiar set and to identifying a more drastically modified or altered assumption.

Another recent suggestion is to broaden Peirce’s original account of abduction and to include not only verbal information but also non-verbal mental representations, such as visual, auditory, or motor representations. In Thagard’s approach, representations are characterized as patterns of activity in mental populations (see also section 9.3 below). The advantage of the neural account of human reasoning is that it covers features such as the surprise that accompanies the generation of new insights or the visual and auditory representations that contribute to it. Surprise, for instance, could be characterized as resulting from rapid changes in activation of the node in a neural network representing the “surprising” element (Thagard and Stewart 2011). If all mental representations can be characterized as patterns of firing in neural populations, abduction can be analyzed as the combination or “convolution” (Thagard) of patterns of neural activity from disjoint or overlapping patterns of activity (Thagard 2010).

The concern with the logic of discovery has also motivated research on artificial intelligence at the intersection of philosophy of science and cognitive science. In this approach, scientific discovery is treated as a form of problem-solving activity (Simon 1973; see also Newell and Simon 1971), whereby the systematic aspects of problem solving are studied within an information-processing framework. The aim is to clarify with the help of computational tools the nature of the methods used to discover scientific hypotheses. These hypotheses are regarded as solutions to problems. Philosophers working in this tradition build computer programs employing methods of heuristic selective search (e.g., Langley et al. 1987). In computational heuristics, search programs can be described as searches for solutions in a so-called “problem space” in a certain domain. The problem space comprises all possible configurations in that domain (e.g., for chess problems, all possible arrangements of pieces on a board of chess). Each configuration is a “state” of the problem space. There are two special states, namely the goal state, i.e., the state to be reached, and the initial state, i.e., the configuration at the starting point from which the search begins. There are operators, which determine the moves that generate new states from the current state. There are path constraints, which limit the permitted moves. Problem solving is the process of searching for a solution of the problem of how to generate the goal state from an initial state. In principle, all states can be generated by applying the operators to the initial state, then to the resulting state, until the goal state is reached (Langley et al. 1987: chapter 9). A problem solution is a sequence of operations leading from the initial to the goal state.

The basic idea behind computational heuristics is that rules can be identified that serve as guidelines for finding a solution to a given problem quickly and efficiently by avoiding undesired states of the problem space. These rules are best described as rules of thumb. The aim of constructing a logic of discovery thus becomes the aim of constructing a heuristics for the efficient search for solutions to problems. The term “heuristic search” indicates that in contrast to algorithms, problem-solving procedures lead to results that are merely provisional and plausible. A solution is not guaranteed, but heuristic searches are advantageous because they are more efficient than exhaustive random trial and error searches. Insofar as it is possible to evaluate whether one set of heuristics is better—more efficacious—than another, the logic of discovery turns into a normative theory of discovery.

Arguably, because it is possible to reconstruct important scientific discovery processes with sets of computational heuristics, the scientific discovery process can be considered as a special case of the general mechanism of information processing. In this context, the term “logic” is not used in the narrow sense of a set of formal, generally applicable rules to draw inferences but again in a broad sense as a label for a set of procedural rules.

The computer programs that embody the principles of heuristic searches in scientific inquiry simulate the paths that scientists followed when they searched for new theoretical hypotheses. Computer programs such as BACON (Simon et al. 1981) and KEKADA (Kulkarni and Simon 1988) utilize sets of problem-solving heuristics to detect regularities in given data sets. The program would note, for instance, that the values of a dependent term are constant or that a set of values for a term x and a set of values for a term y are linearly related. It would thus “infer” that the dependent term always has that value or that a linear relation exists between x and y . These programs can “make discoveries” in the sense that they can simulate successful discoveries such as Kepler’s third law (BACON) or the Krebs cycle (KEKADA).

Computational theories of scientific discoveries have helped identify and clarify a number of problem-solving strategies. An example of such a strategy is heuristic means-ends analysis, which involves identifying specific differences between the present and the goal situation and searches for operators (processes that will change the situation) that are associated with the differences that were detected. Another important heuristic is to divide the problem into sub-problems and to begin solving the one with the smallest number of unknowns to be determined (Simon 1977). Computational approaches have also highlighted the extent to which the generation of new knowledge draws on existing knowledge that constrains the development of new hypotheses.

As accounts of scientific discoveries, the early computational heuristics have some limitations. Compared to the problem spaces given in computational heuristics, the complex problem spaces for scientific problems are often ill defined, and the relevant search space and goal state must be delineated before heuristic assumptions could be formulated (Bechtel and Richardson 1993: chapter 1). Because a computer program requires the data from actual experiments, the simulations cover only certain aspects of scientific discoveries; in particular, it cannot determine by itself which data is relevant, which data to relate and what form of law it should look for (Gillies 1996). However, as a consequence of the rise of so-called “deep learning” methods in data-intensive science, there is renewed philosophical interest in the question of whether machines can make discoveries ( section 10 ).

Many philosophers maintain that discovery is a legitimate topic for philosophy of science while abandoning the notion that there is a logic of discovery. One very influential approach is Thomas Kuhn’s analysis of the emergence of novel facts and theories (Kuhn 1970 [1962]: chapter 6). Kuhn identifies a general pattern of discovery as part of his account of scientific change. A discovery is not a simple act, but an extended, complex process, which culminates in paradigm changes. Paradigms are the symbolic generalizations, metaphysical commitments, values, and exemplars that are shared by a community of scientists and that guide the research of that community. Paradigm-based, normal science does not aim at novelty but instead at the development, extension, and articulation of accepted paradigms. A discovery begins with an anomaly, that is, with the recognition that the expectations induced by an established paradigm are being violated. The process of discovery involves several aspects: observations of an anomalous phenomenon, attempts to conceptualize it, and changes in the paradigm so that the anomaly can be accommodated.

It is the mark of success of normal science that it does not make transformative discoveries, and yet such discoveries come about as a consequence of normal, paradigm-guided science. The more detailed and the better developed a paradigm, the more precise are its predictions. The more precisely the researchers know what to expect, the better they are able to recognize anomalous results and violations of expectations:

novelty ordinarily emerges only for the man who, knowing with precision what he should expect, is able to recognize that something has gone wrong. Anomaly appears only against the background provided by the paradigm. (Kuhn 1970 [1962]: 65)

Drawing on several historical examples, Kuhn argues that it is usually impossible to identify the very moment when something was discovered or even the individual who made the discovery. Kuhn illustrates these points with the discovery of oxygen (see Kuhn 1970 [1962]: 53–56). Oxygen had not been discovered before 1774 and had been discovered by 1777. Even before 1774, Lavoisier had noticed that something was wrong with phlogiston theory, but he was unable to move forward. Two other investigators, C. W. Scheele and Joseph Priestley, independently identified a gas obtained from heating solid substances. But Scheele’s work remained unpublished until after 1777, and Priestley did not identify his substance as a new sort of gas. In 1777, Lavoisier presented the oxygen theory of combustion, which gave rise to fundamental reconceptualization of chemistry. But according to this theory as Lavoisier first presented it, oxygen was not a chemical element. It was an atomic “principle of acidity” and oxygen gas was a combination of that principle with caloric. According to Kuhn, all of these developments are part of the discovery of oxygen, but none of them can be singled out as “the” act of discovery.

In pre-paradigmatic periods or in times of paradigm crisis, theory-induced discoveries may happen. In these periods, scientists speculate and develop tentative theories, which may lead to novel expectations and experiments and observations to test whether these expectations can be confirmed. Even though no precise predictions can be made, phenomena that are thus uncovered are often not quite what had been expected. In these situations, the simultaneous exploration of the new phenomena and articulation of the tentative hypotheses together bring about discovery.

In cases like the discovery of oxygen, by contrast, which took place while a paradigm was already in place, the unexpected becomes apparent only slowly, with difficulty, and against some resistance. Only gradually do the anomalies become visible as such. It takes time for the investigators to recognize “both that something is and what it is” (Kuhn 1970 [1962]: 55). Eventually, a new paradigm becomes established and the anomalous phenomena become the expected phenomena.

Recent studies in cognitive neuroscience of brain activity during periods of conceptual change support Kuhn’s view that conceptual change is hard to achieve. These studies examine the neural processes that are involved in the recognition of anomalies and compare them with the brain activity involved in the processing of information that is consistent with preferred theories. The studies suggest that the two types of data are processed differently (Dunbar et al. 2007).

8. Methodologies of discovery

Advocates of the view that there are methodologies of discovery use the term “logic” in the narrow sense of an algorithmic procedure to generate new ideas. But like the AI-based theories of scientific discovery described in section 6 , methodologies of scientific discovery interpret the concept “discovery” as a label for an extended process of generating and articulating new ideas and often describe the process in terms of problem solving. In these approaches, the distinction between the contexts of discovery and the context of justification is challenged because the methodology of discovery is understood to play a justificatory role. Advocates of a methodology of discovery usually rely on a distinction between different justification procedures, justification involved in the process of generating new knowledge and justification involved in testing it. Consequential or “strong” justifications are methods of testing. The justification involved in discovery, by contrast, is conceived as generative (as opposed to consequential) justification ( section 8.1 ) or as weak (as opposed to strong) justification ( section 8.2 ). Again, some terminological ambiguity exists because according to some philosophers, there are three contexts, not two: Only the initial conception of a new idea (the creative act is the context of discovery proper, and between it and justification there exists a separate context of pursuit (Laudan 1980). But many advocates of methodologies of discovery regard the context of pursuit as an integral part of the process of justification. They retain the notion of two contexts and re-draw the boundaries between the contexts of discovery and justification as they were drawn in the early 20 th century.

The methodology of discovery has sometimes been characterized as a form of justification that is complementary to the methodology of testing (Nickles 1984, 1985, 1989). According to the methodology of testing, empirical support for a theory results from successfully testing the predictive consequences derived from that theory (and appropriate auxiliary assumptions). In light of this methodology, justification for a theory is “consequential justification,” the notion that a hypothesis is established if successful novel predictions are derived from the theory or claim. Generative justification complements consequential justification. Advocates of generative justification hold that there exists an important form of justification in science that involves reasoning to a claim from data or previously established results more generally.

One classic example for a generative methodology is the set of Newton’s rules for the study of natural philosophy. According to these rules, general propositions are established by deducing them from the phenomena. The notion of generative justification seeks to preserve the intuition behind classic conceptions of justification by deduction. Generative justification amounts to the rational reconstruction of the discovery path in order to establish its discoverability had the researchers known what is known now, regardless of how it was first thought of (Nickles 1985, 1989). The reconstruction demonstrates in hindsight that the claim could have been discovered in this manner had the necessary information and techniques been available. In other words, generative justification—justification as “discoverability” or “potential discovery”—justifies a knowledge claim by deriving it from results that are already established. While generative justification does not retrace exactly those steps of the actual discovery path that were actually taken, it is a better representation of scientists’ actual practices than consequential justification because scientists tend to construe new claims from available knowledge. Generative justification is a weaker version of the traditional ideal of justification by deduction from the phenomena. Justification by deduction from the phenomena is complete if a theory or claim is completely determined from what we already know. The demonstration of discoverability results from the successful derivation of a claim or theory from the most basic and most solidly established empirical information.

Discoverability as described in the previous paragraphs is a mode of justification. Like the testing of novel predictions derived from a hypothesis, generative justification begins when the phase of finding and articulating a hypothesis worthy of assessing is drawing to a close. Other approaches to the methodology of discovery are directly concerned with the procedures involved in devising new hypotheses. The argument in favor of this kind of methodology is that the procedures of devising new hypotheses already include elements of appraisal. These preliminary assessments have been termed “weak” evaluation procedures (Schaffner 1993). Weak evaluations are relevant during the process of devising a new hypothesis. They provide reasons for accepting a hypothesis as promising and worthy of further attention. Strong evaluations, by contrast, provide reasons for accepting a hypothesis as (approximately) true or confirmed. Both “generative” and “consequential” testing as discussed in the previous section are strong evaluation procedures. Strong evaluation procedures are rigorous and systematically organized according to the principles of hypothesis derivation or H-D testing. A methodology of preliminary appraisal, by contrast, articulates criteria for the evaluation of a hypothesis prior to rigorous derivation or testing. It aids the decision about whether to take that hypothesis seriously enough to develop it further and test it. For advocates of this version of the methodology of discovery, it is the task of philosophy of science to characterize sets of constraints and methodological rules guiding the complex process of prior-to-test evaluation of hypotheses.

In contrast to the computational approaches discussed above, strategies of preliminary appraisal are not regarded as subject-neutral but as specific to particular fields of study. Philosophers of biology, for instance, have developed a fine-grained framework to account for the generation and preliminary evaluation of biological mechanisms (Darden 2002; Craver 2002; Bechtel and Richardson 1993; Craver and Darden 2013). Some philosophers have suggested that the phase of preliminary appraisal be further divided into two phases, the phase of appraising and the phase of revising. According to Lindley Darden, the phases of generation, appraisal and revision of descriptions of mechanisms can be characterized as reasoning processes governed by reasoning strategies. Different reasoning strategies govern the different phases (Darden 1991, 2002; Craver 2002; Darden 2009). The generation of hypotheses about mechanisms, for instance, is governed by the strategy of “schema instantiation” (see Darden 2002). The discovery of the mechanism of protein synthesis involved the instantiation of an abstract schema for chemical reactions: reactant 1 + reactant 2 = product. The actual mechanism of protein synthesis was found through specification and modification of this schema.

Neither of these strategies is deemed necessary for discovery, and they are not prescriptions for biological research. Rather, these strategies are deemed sufficient for the discovery of mechanisms. The methodology of the discovery of mechanisms is an extrapolation from past episodes of research on mechanisms and the result of a synthesis of rational reconstructions of several of these historical episodes. The methodology of discovery is weakly normative in the sense that the strategies for the discovery of mechanisms that were successful in the past may prove useful in future biological research (Darden 2002).

As philosophers of science have again become more attuned to actual scientific practices, interest in heuristic strategies has also been revived. Many analysts now agree that discovery processes can be regarded as problem solving activities, whereby a discovery is a solution to a problem. Heuristics-based methodologies of discovery are neither purely subjective and intuitive nor algorithmic or formalizable; the point is that reasons can be given for pursuing one or the other problem-solving strategy. These rules are open and do not guarantee a solution to a problem when applied (Ippoliti 2018). On this view, scientific researchers are no longer seen as Kuhnian “puzzle solvers” but as problem solvers and decision makers in complex, variable, and changing environments (Wimsatt 2007).

Philosophers of discovery working in this tradition draw on a growing body of literature in cognitive psychology, management science, operations research, and economy on human reasoning and decision making in contexts with limited information, under time constraints, and with sub-optimal means (Gigerenzer & Sturm 2012). Heuristic strategies characterized in these studies, such as Gigerenzer’s “tools to theory heuristic” are then applied to understand scientific knowledge generation (Gigerenzer 1992, Nickles 2018). Other analysts specify heuristic strategies in a range of scientific fields, including climate science, neurobiology, and clinical medicine (Gramelsberger 2011, Schaffner 2008, Gillies 2018). Finally, in analytic epistemology, formal methods are developed to identify and assess distinct heuristic strategies currently in use, such as Bayesian reverse engineering in cognitive science (Zednik and Jäkel 2016).

As the literature on heuristics continues to grow, it has become clear that the term “heuristics” is itself used in a variety of different ways. (For a valuable taxonomy of meanings of “heuristic,” see Chow 2015, see also Ippoliti 2018.) Moreover, as in the context of earlier debates about computational heuristics, debates continue about the limitations of heuristics. The use of heuristics may come at a cost if heuristics introduce systematic biases (Wimsatt 2007). Some philosophers thus call for general principles for the evaluation of heuristic strategies (Hey 2016).

9. Cognitive perspectives on discovery

The approaches to scientific discovery presented in the previous sections focus on the adoption, articulation, and preliminary evaluation of ideas or hypotheses prior to rigorous testing, not on how a novel hypothesis or idea is first thought up. For a long time, the predominant view among philosophers of discovery was that the initial step of discovery is a mysterious intuitive leap of the human mind that cannot be analyzed further. More recent accounts of discovery informed by evolutionary biology also do not explicate how new ideas are formed. The generation of new ideas is akin to random, blind variations of thought processes, which have to be inspected by the critical mind and assessed as neutral, productive, or useless (Campbell 1960; see also Hull 1988), but the key processes by which new ideas are generated are left unanalyzed.

With the recent rapprochement among philosophy of mind, cognitive science and psychology and the increased integration of empirical research into philosophy of science, these processes have been submitted to closer analysis, and philosophical studies of creativity have seen a surge of interest (e.g. Paul & Kaufman 2014a). The distinctive feature of these studies is that they integrate philosophical analyses with empirical work from cognitive science, psychology, evolutionary biology, and computational neuroscience (Thagard 2012). Analysts have distinguished different kinds and different features of creative thinking and have examined certain features in depth, and from new angles. Recent philosophical research on creativity comprises conceptual analyses and integrated approaches based on the assumption that creativity can be analyzed and that empirical research can contribute to the analysis (Paul & Kaufman 2014b). Two key elements of the cognitive processes involved in creative thinking that have been in the focus of philosophical analysis are analogies ( section 9.2 ) and mental models ( section 9.3 ).

General definitions of creativity highlight novelty or originality and significance or value as distinctive features of a creative act or product (Sternberg & Lubart 1999, Kieran 2014, Paul & Kaufman 2014b, although see Hills & Bird 2019). Different kinds of creativity can be distinguished depending on whether the act or product is novel for a particular individual or entirely novel. Psychologist Margaret Boden distinguishes between psychological creativity (P-creativity) and historical creativity (H-creativity). P-creativity is a development that is new, surprising and important to the particular person who comes up with it. H-creativity, by contrast, is radically novel, surprising, and important—it is generated for the first time (Boden 2004). Further distinctions have been proposed, such as anthropological creativity (construed as a human condition) and metaphysical creativity, a radically new thought or action in the sense that it is unaccounted for by antecedents and available knowledge, and thus constitutes a radical break with the past (Kronfeldner 2009, drawing on Hausman 1984).

Psychological studies analyze the personality traits and creative individuals’ behavioral dispositions that are conducive to creative thinking. They suggest that creative scientists share certain distinct personality traits, including confidence, openness, dominance, independence, introversion, as well as arrogance and hostility. (For overviews of recent studies on personality traits of creative scientists, see Feist 1999, 2006: chapter 5).

Recent work on creativity in philosophy of mind and cognitive science offers substantive analyses of the cognitive and neural mechanisms involved in creative thinking (Abrams 2018, Minai et al 2022) and critical scrutiny of the romantic idea of genius creativity as something deeply mysterious (Blackburn 2014). Some of this research aims to characterize features that are common to all creative processes, such as Thagard and Stewart’s account according to which creativity results from combinations of representations (Thagard & Stewart 2011, but see Pasquale and Poirier 2016). Other research aims to identify the features that are distinctive of scientific creativity as opposed to other forms of creativity, such as artistic creativity or creative technological invention (Simonton 2014).

Many philosophers of science highlight the role of analogy in the development of new knowledge, whereby analogy is understood as a process of bringing ideas that are well understood in one domain to bear on a new domain (Thagard 1984; Holyoak and Thagard 1996). An important source for philosophical thought about analogy is Mary Hesse’s conception of models and analogies in theory construction and development. In this approach, analogies are similarities between different domains. Hesse introduces the distinction between positive, negative, and neutral analogies (Hesse 1966: 8). If we consider the relation between gas molecules and a model for gas, namely a collection of billiard balls in random motion, we will find properties that are common to both domains (positive analogy) as well as properties that can only be ascribed to the model but not to the target domain (negative analogy). There is a positive analogy between gas molecules and a collection of billiard balls because both the balls and the molecules move randomly. There is a negative analogy between the domains because billiard balls are colored, hard, and shiny but gas molecules do not have these properties. The most interesting properties are those properties of the model about which we do not know whether they are positive or negative analogies. This set of properties is the neutral analogy. These properties are the significant properties because they might lead to new insights about the less familiar domain. From our knowledge about the familiar billiard balls, we may be able to derive new predictions about the behavior of gas molecules, which we could then test.

Hesse offers a more detailed analysis of the structure of analogical reasoning through the distinction between horizontal and vertical analogies between domains. Horizontal analogies between two domains concern the sameness or similarity between properties of both domains. If we consider sound and light waves, there are similarities between them: sound echoes, light reflects; sound is loud, light is bright, both sound and light are detectable by our senses. There are also relations among the properties within one domain, such as the causal relation between sound and the loud tone we hear and, analogously, between physical light and the bright light we see. These analogies are vertical analogies. For Hesse, vertical analogies hold the key for the construction of new theories.

Analogies play several roles in science. Not only do they contribute to discovery but they also play a role in the development and evaluation of scientific theories. Current discussions about analogy and discovery have expanded and refined Hesse’s approach in various ways. Some philosophers have developed criteria for evaluating analogy arguments (Bartha 2010). Other work has identified highly significant analogies that were particularly fruitful for the advancement of science (Holyoak and Thagard 1996: 186–188; Thagard 1999: chapter 9). The majority of analysts explore the features of the cognitive mechanisms through which aspects of a familiar domain or source are applied to an unknown target domain in order to understand what is unknown. According to the influential multi-constraint theory of analogical reasoning developed by Holyoak and Thagard, the transfer processes involved in analogical reasoning (scientific and otherwise) are guided or constrained in three main ways: 1) by the direct similarity between the elements involved; 2) by the structural parallels between source and target domain; as well as 3) by the purposes of the investigators, i.e., the reasons why the analogy is considered. Discovery, the formulation of a new hypothesis, is one such purpose.

“In vivo” investigations of scientists reasoning in their laboratories have not only shown that analogical reasoning is a key component of scientific practice, but also that the distance between source and target depends on the purpose for which analogies are sought. Scientists trying to fix experimental problems draw analogies between targets and sources from highly similar domains. In contrast, scientists attempting to formulate new models or concepts draw analogies between less similar domains. Analogies between radically different domains, however, are rare (Dunbar 1997, 2001).

In current cognitive science, human cognition is often explored in terms of model-based reasoning. The starting point of this approach is the notion that much of human reasoning, including probabilistic and causal reasoning as well as problem solving takes place through mental modeling rather than through the application of logic or methodological criteria to a set of propositions (Johnson-Laird 1983; Magnani et al. 1999; Magnani and Nersessian 2002). In model-based reasoning, the mind constructs a structural representation of a real-world or imaginary situation and manipulates this structure. In this perspective, conceptual structures are viewed as models and conceptual innovation as constructing new models through various modeling operations. Analogical reasoning—analogical modeling—is regarded as one of three main forms of model-based reasoning that appear to be relevant for conceptual innovation in science. Besides analogical modeling, visual modeling and simulative modeling or thought experiments also play key roles (Nersessian 1992, 1999, 2009). These modeling practices are constructive in that they aid the development of novel mental models. The key elements of model-based reasoning are the call on knowledge of generative principles and constraints for physical models in a source domain and the use of various forms of abstraction. Conceptual innovation results from the creation of new concepts through processes that abstract and integrate source and target domains into new models (Nersessian 2009).

Some critics have argued that despite the large amount of work on the topic, the notion of mental model is not sufficiently clear. Thagard seeks to clarify the concept by characterizing mental models in terms of neural processes (Thagard 2010). In his approach, mental models are produced through complex patterns of neural firing, whereby the neurons and the interconnections between them are dynamic and changing. A pattern of firing neurons is a representation when there is a stable causal correlation between the pattern or activation and the thing that is represented. In this research, questions about the nature of model-based reasoning are transformed into questions about the brain mechanisms that produce mental representations.

The above sections again show that the study of scientific discovery integrates different approaches, combining conceptual analysis of processes of knowledge generation with empirical work on creativity, drawing heavily and explicitly on current research in psychology and cognitive science, and on in vivo laboratory observations, as well as brain imaging techniques (Kounios & Beeman 2009, Thagard & Stewart 2011).

Earlier critics of AI-based theories of scientific discoveries argued that a computer cannot devise new concepts but is confined to the concepts included in the given computer language (Hempel 1985: 119–120). It cannot design new experiments, instruments, or methods. Subsequent computational research on scientific discovery was driven by the motivation to contribute computational tools to aid scientists in their research (Addis et al. 2016). It appears that computational methods can be used to generate new results leading to refereed scientific publications in astrophysics, cancer research, ecology, and other fields (Langley 2000). However, the philosophical discussion has continued about the question of whether these methods really generate new knowledge or whether they merely speed up data processing. It is also still an open question whether data-intensive science is fundamentally different from traditional research, for instance regarding the status of hypothesis or theory in data-intensive research (Pietsch 2015).

In the wake of recent developments in machine learning, some older discussions about automated discovery have been revived. The availability of vastly improved computational tools and software for data analysis has stimulated new discussions about computer-generated discovery (see Leonelli 2020). It is largely uncontroversial that machine learning tools can aid discovery, for instance in research on antibiotics (Stokes et al, 2020). The notion of “robot scientist” is mostly used metaphorically, and the vision that human scientists may one day be replaced by computers – by successors of the laboratory automation systems “Adam” and “Eve”, allegedly the first “robot scientists” – is evoked in writings for broader audiences (see King et al. 2009, Williams et al. 2015, for popularized descriptions of these systems), although some interesting ethical challenges do arise from “superhuman AI” (see Russell 2021). It also appears that, on the notion that products of creative acts are both novel and valuable, AI systems should be called “creative,” an implication which not all analysts will find plausible (Boden 2014)

Philosophical analyses focus on various questions arising from the processes involving human-machine complexes. One issue relevant to the problem of scientific discovery arises from the opacity of machine learning. If machine learning indeed escapes human understanding, how can we be warranted to say that knowledge or understanding is generated by deep learning tools? Might we have reason to say that humans and machines are “co-developers” of knowledge (Tamaddoni-Nezhad et al. 2021)?

New perspectives on scientific discovery have also opened up in the context of social epistemology (see Goldman & O’Connor 2021). Social epistemology investigates knowledge production as a group process, specifically the epistemic effects of group composition in terms of cognitive diversity and unity and social interactions within groups or institutions such as testimony and trust, peer disagreement and critique, and group justification, among others. On this view, discovery is a collective achievement, and the task is to explore how assorted social-epistemic activities or practices have an impact on the knowledge generated by groups in question. There are obvious implications for debates about scientific discovery of recent research in the different branches of social epistemology. Social epistemologists have examined individual cognitive agents in their roles as group members (as providers of information or as critics) and the interactions among these members (Longino 2001), groups as aggregates of diverse agents, or the entire group as epistemic agent (e.g., Koons 2021, Dragos 2019).

Standpoint theory, for instance, explores the role of outsiders in knowledge generation, considering how the sociocultural structures and practices in which individuals are embedded aid or obstruct the generation of creative ideas. According to standpoint theorists, people with standpoint are politically aware and politically engaged people outside the mainstream. Because people with standpoint have different experiences and access to different domains of expertise than most members of a culture, they can draw on rich conceptual resources for creative thinking (Solomon 2007).

Social epistemologists examining groups as aggregates of agents consider to what extent diversity among group members is conducive to knowledge production and whether and to what extent beliefs and attitudes must be shared among group members to make collective knowledge possible (Bird 2014). This is still an open question. Some formal approaches to model the influence of diversity on knowledge generation suggest that cognitive diversity is beneficial to collective knowledge generation (Weisberg and Muldoon 2009), but others have criticized the model (Alexander et al (2015), see also Thoma (2015) and Poyhönen (2017) for further discussion).

This essay has illustrated that philosophy of discovery has come full circle. Philosophy of discovery has once again become a thriving field of philosophical study, now intersecting with, and drawing on philosophical and empirical studies of creative thinking, problem solving under uncertainty, collective knowledge production, and machine learning. Recent approaches to discovery are typically explicitly interdisciplinary and integrative, cutting across previous distinctions among hypothesis generation and theory building, data collection, assessment, and selection; as well as descriptive-analytic, historical, and normative perspectives (Danks & Ippoliti 2018, Michel 2021). The goal no longer is to provide one overarching account of scientific discovery but to produce multifaceted analyses of past and present activities of knowledge generation in all their complexity and heterogeneity that are illuminating to the non-scientist and the scientific researcher alike.

• Abraham, A. 2019, The Neuroscience of Creativity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Addis, M., Sozou, P.D., Gobet, F. and Lane, P. R., 2016, “Computational scientific discovery and cognitive science theories”, in Mueller, V. C. (ed.) Computing and Philosophy , Springer, 83–87.
• Alexander, J., Himmelreich, J., and Thompson, C. 2015, Epistemic Landscapes, Optimal Search, and the Division of Cognitive Labor, Philosophy of Science 82: 424–453.
• Arabatzis, T. 1996, “Rethinking the ‘Discovery’ of the Electron,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B Studies In History and Philosophy of Modern Physics , 27: 405–435.
• Bartha, P., 2010, By Parallel Reasoning: The Construction and Evaluation of Analogical Arguments , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Bechtel, W. and R. Richardson, 1993, Discovering Complexity , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Benjamin, A.C., 1934, “The Mystery of Scientific Discovery ” Philosophy of Science , 1: 224–36.
• Bird, A. 2014, “When is There a Group that Knows? Distributed Cognition, Scientific Knowledge, and the Social Epistemic Subject”, in J. Lackey (ed.), Essays in Collective Epistemology , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 42–63.
• Blackburn, S. 2014, “Creativity and Not-So-Dumb Luck”, in Paul, E. S. and Kaufman, S. B. (eds.), The Philosophy of Creativity: New Essays , New York: Oxford Academic online edn. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199836963.003.0008.
• Blackwell, R.J., 1969, Discovery in the Physical Sciences , Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
• Boden, M.A., 2004, The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms , London: Routledge.
• –––, 2014, “Creativity and Artificial Intelligence: A Contradiction in Terms?”, in Paul, E. S. and Kaufman, S. B. (eds.), The Philosophy of Creativity: New Essays (New York: Oxford Academic online edn., https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199836963.003.0012 .
• Brannigan, A., 1981, The Social Basis of Scientific Discoveries , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Brem, S. and L.J. Rips, 2000, “Explanation and Evidence in Informal Argument”, Cognitive Science , 24: 573–604.
• Campbell, D., 1960, “Blind Variation and Selective Retention in Creative Thought as in Other Knowledge Processes”, Psychological Review , 67: 380–400.
• Carmichael, R.D., 1922, “The Logic of Discovery”, The Monist , 32: 569–608.
• –––, 1930, The Logic of Discovery , Chicago: Open Court.
• Chow, S. 2015, “Many Meanings of ‘Heuristic’”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 66: 977–1016
• Craver, C.F., 2002, “Interlevel Experiments, Multilevel Mechanisms in the Neuroscience of Memory”, Philosophy of Science Supplement , 69: 83–97.
• Craver, C.F. and L. Darden, 2013, In Search of Mechanisms: Discoveries across the Life Sciences , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Curd, M., 1980, “The Logic of Discovery: An Analysis of Three Approaches”, in T. Nickles (ed.) Scientific Discovery, Logic, and Rationality , Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 201–19.
• Danks, D. & Ippoliti, E. (eds.) 2018, Building Theories: Heuristics and Hypotheses in Sciences , Cham: Springer.
• Darden, L., 1991, Theory Change in Science: Strategies from Mendelian Genetics , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2002, “Strategies for Discovering Mechanisms: Schema Instantiation, Modular Subassembly, Forward/Backward Chaining”, Philosophy of Science , 69: S354-S65.
• –––, 2009, “Discovering Mechanisms in Molecular Biology: Finding and Fixing Incompleteness and Incorrectness”, in J. Meheus and T. Nickles (eds.), Models of Discovery and Creativity , Dordrecht: Springer, 43–55.
• Dewey, J. 1910, How We Think . Boston: D.C. Heath
• Dragos, C., 2019, “Groups Can Know How” American Philosophical Quarterly 56: 265–276
• Ducasse, C.J., 1951, “Whewell’s Philosophy of Scientific Discovery II”, The Philosophical Review , 60(2): 213–34.
• Dunbar, K., 1997, “How scientists think: On-line creativity and conceptual change in science”, in T.B. Ward, S.M. Smith, and J. Vaid (eds.), Conceptual Structures and Processes: Emergence, Discovery, and Change , Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press, 461–493.
• –––, 2001, “The Analogical Paradox: Why Analogy is so Easy in Naturalistic Settings Yet so Difficult in Psychological Laboratories”, in D. Gentner, K.J. Holyoak, and B.N. Kokinov (eds.), The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Dunbar, K, J. Fugelsang, and C Stein, 2007, “Do Naïve Theories Ever Go Away? Using Brain and Behavior to Understand Changes in Concepts”, in M. Lovett and P. Shah (eds.), Thinking with Data: 33rd Carnegie Symposium on Cognition , Mahwah: Erlbaum, 193–205.
• Feist, G.J., 1999, “The Influence of Personality on Artistic and Scientific Creativity”, in R.J. Sternberg (ed.), Handbook of Creativity , New York: Cambridge University Press, 273–96.
• –––, 2006, The psychology of science and the origins of the scientific mind , New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Gillies D., 1996, Artificial intelligence and scientific method . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2018 “Discovering Cures in Medicine” in Danks, D. & Ippoliti, E. (eds.), Building Theories: Heuristics and Hypotheses in Sciences , Cham: Springer, 83–100.
• Goldman, Alvin & O’Connor, C., 2021, “Social Epistemology”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/epistemology-social/>.
• Gramelsberger, G. 2011, “What Do Numerical (Climate) Models Really Represent?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42: 296–302.
• Gutting, G., 1980, “Science as Discovery”, Revue internationale de philosophie , 131: 26–48.
• Hanson, N.R., 1958, Patterns of Discovery , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 1960, “Is there a Logic of Scientific Discovery?”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 38: 91–106.
• –––, 1965, “Notes Toward a Logic of Discovery”, in R.J. Bernstein (ed.), Perspectives on Peirce. Critical Essays on Charles Sanders Peirce , New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 42–65.
• Harman, G.H., 1965, “The Inference to the Best Explanation”, Philosophical Review , 74.
• Hausman, C. R. 1984, A Discourse on Novelty and Creation , New York: SUNY Press.
• Hempel, C.G., 1985, “Thoughts in the Limitations of Discovery by Computer”, in K. Schaffner (ed.), Logic of Discovery and Diagnosis in Medicine , Berkeley: University of California Press, 115–22.
• Hesse, M., 1966, Models and Analogies in Science , Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
• Hey, S. 2016 “Heuristics and Meta-heuristics in Scientific Judgement”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 67: 471–495
• Hills, A., Bird, A. 2019, “Against Creativity”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 99: 694–713.
• Holyoak, K.J. and P. Thagard, 1996, Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Howard, D., 2006, “Lost Wanderers in the Forest of Knowledge: Some Thoughts on the Discovery-Justification Distinction”, in J. Schickore and F. Steinle (eds.), Revisiting Discovery and Justification. Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on the Context Distinction , Dordrecht: Springer, 3–22.
• Hoyningen-Huene, P., 1987, “Context of Discovery and Context of Justification”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science , 18: 501–15.
• Hull, D.L., 1988, Science as Practice: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Ippoliti, E. 2018, “Heuristic Logic. A Kernel” in Danks, D. & Ippoliti, E. (eds.) Building Theories: Heuristics and Hypotheses in Sciences , Cham: Springer, 191–212
• Jantzen, B.C., 2016, “Discovery without a ‘Logic’ would be a Miracle”, Synthese , 193: 3209–3238.
• Johnson-Laird, P., 1983, Mental Models , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Kieran, M., 2014, “Creativity as a Virtue of Character,” in E. Paul and S. B. Kaufman (eds.), The Philosophy of Creativity: New Essays . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 125–44
• King, R. D. et al. 2009, “The Automation of Science”, Science 324: 85–89.
• Koehler, D.J., 1991, “Explanation, Imagination, and Confidence in Judgment”, Psychological Bulletin , 110: 499–519.
• Koertge, N. 1980, “Analysis as a Method of Discovery during the Scientific Revolution” in Nickles, T. (ed.) Scientific Discovery, Logic, and Rationality vol. I, Dordrecht: Reidel, 139–157
• Koons, J.R. 2021, “Knowledge as a Collective Status”, Analytic Philosophy , https://doi.org/10.1111/phib.12224
• Kounios, J. and Beeman, M. 2009, “The Aha! Moment : The Cognitive Neuroscience of Insight”, Current Directions in Psychological Science , 18: 210–16.
• Kordig, C., 1978, “Discovery and Justification”, Philosophy of Science , 45: 110–17.
• Kronfeldner, M. 2009, “Creativity Naturalized”, The Philosophical Quarterly 59: 577–592.
• Kuhn, T.S., 1970 [1962], The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , 2 nd edition, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; first edition, 1962.
• Kulkarni, D. and H.A. Simon, 1988, “The processes of scientific discovery: The strategy of experimentation”, Cognitive Science , 12: 139–76.
• Langley, P., 2000, “The Computational Support of Scientific Discovery”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies , 53: 393–410.
• Langley, P., H.A. Simon, G.L. Bradshaw, and J.M. Zytkow, 1987, Scientific Discovery: Computational Explorations of the Creative Processes , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Laudan, L., 1980, “Why Was the Logic of Discovery Abandoned?” in T. Nickles (ed.), Scientific Discovery (Volume I), Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 173–83.
• Leonelli, S. 2020, “Scientific Research and Big Data”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/science-big-data/>
• Leplin, J., 1987, “The Bearing of Discovery on Justification”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 17: 805–14.
• Longino, H. 2001, The Fate of Knowledge , Princeton: Princeton University Press
• Lugg, A., 1985, “The Process of Discovery”, Philosophy of Science , 52: 207–20.
• Magnani, L., 2000, Abduction, Reason, and Science: Processes of Discovery and Explanation , Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• –––, 2009, “Creative Abduction and Hypothesis Withdrawal”, in J. Meheus and T. Nickles (eds.), Models of Discovery and Creativity , Dordrecht: Springer.
• Magnani, L. and N.J. Nersessian, 2002, Model-Based Reasoning: Science, Technology, and Values , Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• Magnani, L., N.J. Nersessian, and P. Thagard, 1999, Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery , Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• Michel, J. (ed.) 2021, Making Scientific Discoveries. Interdisciplinary Reflections , Brill | mentis.
• Minai, A., Doboli, S., Iyer, L. 2022 “Models of Creativity and Ideation: An Overview” in Ali A. Minai, Jared B. Kenworthy, Paul B. Paulus, Simona Doboli (eds.), Creativity and Innovation. Cognitive, Social, and Computational Approaches , Springer, 21–46.
• Nersessian, N.J., 1992, “How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science”, in R. Giere (ed.), Cognitive Models of Science , Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 3–45.
• –––, 1999, “Model-based reasoning in conceptual change”, in L. Magnani, N.J. Nersessian and P. Thagard (eds.), Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery , New York: Kluwer, 5–22.
• –––, 2009, “Conceptual Change: Creativity, Cognition, and Culture ” in J. Meheus and T. Nickles (eds.), Models of Discovery and Creativity , Dordrecht: Springer, 127–66.
• Newell, A. and H. A Simon, 1971, “Human Problem Solving: The State of the Theory in 1970”, American Psychologist , 26: 145–59.
• Newton, I. 1718, Opticks; or, A Treatise of the Reflections, Inflections and Colours of Light , London: Printed for W. and J. Innys, Printers to the Royal Society.
• Nickles, T., 1984, “Positive Science and Discoverability”, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , 1984: 13–27.
• –––, 1985, “Beyond Divorce: Current Status of the Discovery Debate”, Philosophy of Science , 52: 177–206.
• –––, 1989, “Truth or Consequences? Generative versus Consequential Justification in Science”, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , 1988, 393–405.
• –––, 2018, “TTT: A Fast Heuristic to New Theories?” in Danks, D. & Ippoliti, E. (eds.) Building Theories: Heuristics and Hypotheses in Sciences , Cham: Springer, 213–244.
• Pasquale, J.-F. de and Poirier, P. 2016, “Convolution and Modal Representations in Thagard and Stewart’s Neural Theory of Creativity: A Critical Analysis ”, Synthese , 193: 1535–1560
• Paul, E. S. and Kaufman, S. B. (eds.), 2014a, The Philosophy of Creativity: New Essays , New York: Oxford Academic online edn., https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199836963.001.0001.
• –––, 2014b, “Introducing: The Philosophy of Creativity”, in Paul, E. S. and Kaufman, S. B. (eds.), The Philosophy of Creativity: New Essays (New York: Oxford Academic online edn., https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199836963.003.0001.
• Pietsch, W. 2015, “Aspects of Theory-Ladenness in Data-Intensive Science”, Philosophy of Science 82: 905–916.
• Popper, K., 2002 [1934/1959], The Logic of Scientific Discovery , London and New York: Routledge; original published in German in 1934; first English translation in 1959.
• Pöyhönen, S. 2017, “Value of Cognitive Diversity in Science”, Synthese , 194(11): 4519–4540. doi:10.1007/s11229–016-1147-4
• Pulte, H. 2019, “‘‘Tis Much Better to Do a Little with Certainty’: On the Reception of Newton’s Methodology”, in The Reception of Isaac Newton in Europe , Pulte, H, and Mandelbrote, S. (eds.), Continuum Publishing Corporation, 355–84.
• Reichenbach, H., 1938, Experience and Prediction. An Analysis of the Foundations and the Structure of Knowledge , Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Richardson, A., 2006, “Freedom in a Scientific Society: Reading the Context of Reichenbach’s Contexts”, in J. Schickore and F. Steinle (eds.), Revisiting Discovery and Justification. Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on the Context Distinction , Dordrecht: Springer, 41–54.
• Russell, S. 2021, “Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence”, in Human Like Machine Intelligence , Muggleton, S. and Charter, N. (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 4–23
• Schaffer, S., 1986, “Scientific Discoveries and the End of Natural Philosophy”, Social Studies of Science , 16: 387–420.
• –––, 1994, “Making Up Discovery”, in M.A. Boden (ed.), Dimensions of Creativity , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 13–51.
• Schaffner, K., 1993, Discovery and Explanation in Biology and Medicine , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• –––, 2008 “Theories, Models, and Equations in Biology: The Heuristic Search for Emergent Simplifications in Neurobiology”, Philosophy of Science , 75: 1008–21.
• Schickore, J. and F. Steinle, 2006, Revisiting Discovery and Justification. Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on the Context Distinction , Dordrecht: Springer.
• Schiller, F.C.S., 1917, “Scientific Discovery and Logical Proof”, in C.J. Singer (ed.), Studies in the History and Method of Science (Volume 1), Oxford: Clarendon, 235–89.
• Simon, H.A., 1973, “Does Scientific Discovery Have a Logic?”, Philosophy of Science , 40: 471–80.
• –––, 1977, Models of Discovery and Other Topics in the Methods of Science , Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
• Simon, H.A., P.W. Langley, and G.L. Bradshaw, 1981, “Scientific Discovery as Problem Solving”, Synthese , 47: 1–28.
• Smith, G.E., 2002, “The Methodology of the Principia ”, in G.E. Smith and I.B. Cohen (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Newton , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 138–73.
• Simonton, D. K., “Hierarchies of Creative Domains: Disciplinary Constraints on Blind Variation and Selective Retention”, in Paul, E. S. and Kaufman, S. B. (eds), The Philosophy of Creativity: New Essays , New York: Oxford Academic online edn. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199836963.003.0013
• Snyder, L.J., 1997, “Discoverers’ Induction”, Philosophy of Science , 64: 580–604.
• Solomon, M., 2009, “Standpoint and Creativity”, Hypatia : 226–37.
• Sternberg, R J. and T. I. Lubart, 1999, “The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms,” in R. J. Sternberg (ed.) Handbook of Creativity , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3–15.
• Stokes, D., 2011, “Minimally Creative Thought”, Metaphilosophy , 42: 658–81.
• Tamaddoni-Nezhad, A., Bohan, D., Afroozi Milani, G., Raybould, A., Muggleton, S., 2021, “Human–Machine Scientific Discovery”, in Human Like Machine Intelligence , Muggleton, S. and Charter, N., (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 297–315
• Thagard, P., 1984, “Conceptual Combination and Scientific Discovery”, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , 1984(1): 3–12.
• –––, 1999, How Scientists Explain Disease , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 2010, “How Brains Make Mental Models”, in L. Magnani, N.J. Nersessian and P. Thagard (eds.), Model-Based Reasoning in Science & Technology , Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer, 447–61.
• –––, 2012, The Cognitive Science of Science , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Thagard, P. and Stewart, T. C., 2011, “The AHA! Experience: Creativity Through Emergent Binding in Neural Networks”, Cognitive Science , 35: 1–33.
• Thoma, Johanna, 2015, “The Epistemic Division of Labor Revisited”, Philosophy of Science , 82: 454–472. doi:10.1086/681768
• Weber, M., 2005, Philosophy of Experimental Biology , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Whewell, W., 1996 [1840], The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences (Volume II), London: Routledge/Thoemmes.
• Weisberg, M. and Muldoon, R., 2009, “Epistemic Landscapes and the Division of Cognitive Labor”, Philosophy of Science , 76: 225–252. doi:10.1086/644786
• Williams, K. et al. 2015, “Cheaper Faster Drug Development Validated by the Repositioning of Drugs against Neglected Tropical Diseases”, Journal of the Royal Society Interface 12: 20141289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2014.1289.
• Zahar, E., 1983, “Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Invention?”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 34: 243–61.
• Zednik, C. and Jäkel, F. 2016 “Bayesian Reverse-Engineering Considered as a Research Strategy for Cognitive Science”, Synthese , 193, 3951–3985.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

abduction | analogy and analogical reasoning | cognitive science | epistemology: social | knowledge: analysis of | Kuhn, Thomas | models in science | Newton, Isaac: Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica | Popper, Karl | rationality: historicist theories of | scientific method | scientific research and big data | Whewell, William

Copyright © 2022 by Jutta Schickore < jschicko @ indiana . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Scientific Method Steps in Psychology Research

Steps, Uses, and Key Terms

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Emily is a board-certified science editor who has worked with top digital publishing brands like Voices for Biodiversity, Study.com, GoodTherapy, Vox, and Verywell.

Verywell / Theresa Chiechi

How do researchers investigate psychological phenomena? They utilize a process known as the scientific method to study different aspects of how people think and behave.

When conducting research, the scientific method steps to follow are:

• Observe what you want to investigate
• Ask a research question and make predictions
• Test the hypothesis and collect data
• Examine the results and draw conclusions
• Report and share the results 

This process not only allows scientists to investigate and understand different psychological phenomena but also provides researchers and others a way to share and discuss the results of their studies.

Generally, there are five main steps in the scientific method, although some may break down this process into six or seven steps. An additional step in the process can also include developing new research questions based on your findings.

What Is the Scientific Method?

What is the scientific method and how is it used in psychology?

The scientific method consists of five steps. It is essentially a step-by-step process that researchers can follow to determine if there is some type of relationship between two or more variables.

By knowing the steps of the scientific method, you can better understand the process researchers go through to arrive at conclusions about human behavior.

Scientific Method Steps

While research studies can vary, these are the basic steps that psychologists and scientists use when investigating human behavior.

The following are the scientific method steps:

Step 1. Make an Observation

Before a researcher can begin, they must choose a topic to study. Once an area of interest has been chosen, the researchers must then conduct a thorough review of the existing literature on the subject. This review will provide valuable information about what has already been learned about the topic and what questions remain to be answered.

A literature review might involve looking at a considerable amount of written material from both books and academic journals dating back decades.

The relevant information collected by the researcher will be presented in the introduction section of the final published study results. This background material will also help the researcher with the first major step in conducting a psychology study: formulating a hypothesis.

Step 2. Ask a Question

Once a researcher has observed something and gained some background information on the topic, the next step is to ask a question. The researcher will form a hypothesis, which is an educated guess about the relationship between two or more variables

For example, a researcher might ask a question about the relationship between sleep and academic performance: Do students who get more sleep perform better on tests at school?

In order to formulate a good hypothesis, it is important to think about different questions you might have about a particular topic.

You should also consider how you could investigate the causes. Falsifiability is an important part of any valid hypothesis. In other words, if a hypothesis was false, there needs to be a way for scientists to demonstrate that it is false.

Step 3. Test Your Hypothesis and Collect Data

Once you have a solid hypothesis, the next step of the scientific method is to put this hunch to the test by collecting data. The exact methods used to investigate a hypothesis depend on exactly what is being studied. There are two basic forms of research that a psychologist might utilize: descriptive research or experimental research.

Descriptive research is typically used when it would be difficult or even impossible to manipulate the variables in question. Examples of descriptive research include case studies, naturalistic observation , and correlation studies. Phone surveys that are often used by marketers are one example of descriptive research.

Correlational studies are quite common in psychology research. While they do not allow researchers to determine cause-and-effect, they do make it possible to spot relationships between different variables and to measure the strength of those relationships. 

Experimental research is used to explore cause-and-effect relationships between two or more variables. This type of research involves systematically manipulating an independent variable and then measuring the effect that it has on a defined dependent variable .

One of the major advantages of this method is that it allows researchers to actually determine if changes in one variable actually cause changes in another.

While psychology experiments are often quite complex, a simple experiment is fairly basic but does allow researchers to determine cause-and-effect relationships between variables. Most simple experiments use a control group (those who do not receive the treatment) and an experimental group (those who do receive the treatment).

Step 4. Examine the Results and Draw Conclusions

Once a researcher has designed the study and collected the data, it is time to examine this information and draw conclusions about what has been found.  Using statistics , researchers can summarize the data, analyze the results, and draw conclusions based on this evidence.

So how does a researcher decide what the results of a study mean? Not only can statistical analysis support (or refute) the researcher’s hypothesis; it can also be used to determine if the findings are statistically significant.

When results are said to be statistically significant, it means that it is unlikely that these results are due to chance.

Based on these observations, researchers must then determine what the results mean. In some cases, an experiment will support a hypothesis, but in other cases, it will fail to support the hypothesis.

So what happens if the results of a psychology experiment do not support the researcher's hypothesis? Does this mean that the study was worthless?

Just because the findings fail to support the hypothesis does not mean that the research is not useful or informative. In fact, such research plays an important role in helping scientists develop new questions and hypotheses to explore in the future.

After conclusions have been drawn, the next step is to share the results with the rest of the scientific community. This is an important part of the process because it contributes to the overall knowledge base and can help other scientists find new research avenues to explore.

Step 5. Report the Results

The final step in a psychology study is to report the findings. This is often done by writing up a description of the study and publishing the article in an academic or professional journal. The results of psychological studies can be seen in peer-reviewed journals such as  Psychological Bulletin , the  Journal of Social Psychology ,  Developmental Psychology , and many others.

The structure of a journal article follows a specified format that has been outlined by the  American Psychological Association (APA) . In these articles, researchers:

• Provide a brief history and background on previous research
• Present their hypothesis
• Identify who participated in the study and how they were selected
• Provide operational definitions for each variable
• Describe the measures and procedures that were used to collect data
• Explain how the information collected was analyzed
• Discuss what the results mean

Why is such a detailed record of a psychological study so important? By clearly explaining the steps and procedures used throughout the study, other researchers can then replicate the results. The editorial process employed by academic and professional journals ensures that each article that is submitted undergoes a thorough peer review, which helps ensure that the study is scientifically sound.

Once published, the study becomes another piece of the existing puzzle of our knowledge base on that topic.

Before you begin exploring the scientific method steps, here's a review of some key terms and definitions that you should be familiar with:

• Falsifiable : The variables can be measured so that if a hypothesis is false, it can be proven false
• Hypothesis : An educated guess about the possible relationship between two or more variables
• Variable : A factor or element that can change in observable and measurable ways
• Operational definition : A full description of exactly how variables are defined, how they will be manipulated, and how they will be measured

Uses for the Scientific Method

The  goals of psychological studies  are to describe, explain, predict and perhaps influence mental processes or behaviors. In order to do this, psychologists utilize the scientific method to conduct psychological research. The scientific method is a set of principles and procedures that are used by researchers to develop questions, collect data, and reach conclusions.

Goals of Scientific Research in Psychology

Researchers seek not only to describe behaviors and explain why these behaviors occur; they also strive to create research that can be used to predict and even change human behavior.

Psychologists and other social scientists regularly propose explanations for human behavior. On a more informal level, people make judgments about the intentions, motivations , and actions of others on a daily basis.

While the everyday judgments we make about human behavior are subjective and anecdotal, researchers use the scientific method to study psychology in an objective and systematic way. The results of these studies are often reported in popular media, which leads many to wonder just how or why researchers arrived at the conclusions they did.

Examples of the Scientific Method

Now that you're familiar with the scientific method steps, it's useful to see how each step could work with a real-life example.

Say, for instance, that researchers set out to discover what the relationship is between psychotherapy and anxiety .

• Step 1. Make an observation : The researchers choose to focus their study on adults ages 25 to 40 with generalized anxiety disorder.
• Step 2. Ask a question : The question they want to answer in their study is: Do weekly psychotherapy sessions reduce symptoms in adults ages 25 to 40 with generalized anxiety disorder?
• Step 3. Test your hypothesis : Researchers collect data on participants' anxiety symptoms . They work with therapists to create a consistent program that all participants undergo. Group 1 may attend therapy once per week, whereas group 2 does not attend therapy.
• Step 4. Examine the results : Participants record their symptoms and any changes over a period of three months. After this period, people in group 1 report significant improvements in their anxiety symptoms, whereas those in group 2 report no significant changes.
• Step 5. Report the results : Researchers write a report that includes their hypothesis, information on participants, variables, procedure, and conclusions drawn from the study. In this case, they say that "Weekly therapy sessions are shown to reduce anxiety symptoms in adults ages 25 to 40."

Of course, there are many details that go into planning and executing a study such as this. But this general outline gives you an idea of how an idea is formulated and tested, and how researchers arrive at results using the scientific method.

Erol A. How to conduct scientific research ? Noro Psikiyatr Ars . 2017;54(2):97-98. doi:10.5152/npa.2017.0120102

University of Minnesota. Psychologists use the scientific method to guide their research .

Shaughnessy, JJ, Zechmeister, EB, & Zechmeister, JS. Research Methods In Psychology . New York: McGraw Hill Education; 2015.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

The scientific method and climate change: How scientists know

By Holly Shaftel, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory

The scientific method is the gold standard for exploring our natural world. You might have learned about it in grade school, but here’s a quick reminder: It’s the process that scientists use to understand everything from animal behavior to the forces that shape our planet—including climate change.

“The way science works is that I go out and study something, and maybe I collect data or write equations, or I run a big computer program,” said Josh Willis, principal investigator of NASA’s Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) mission and oceanographer at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. “And I use it to learn something about how the world works.”

Using the scientific method, scientists have shown that humans are extremely likely the dominant cause of today’s climate change. The story goes back to the late 1800s, but in 1958, for example, Charles Keeling of the Mauna Loa Observatory in Waimea, Hawaii, started taking meticulous measurements of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) in the atmosphere, showing the first significant evidence of rapidly rising CO 2 levels and producing the Keeling Curve climate scientists know today.

“The way science works is that I go out and study something, and maybe I collect data or write equations, or I run a big computer program, and I use it to learn something about how the world works.”- Josh Willis, NASA oceanographer and Oceans Melting Greenland principal investigator

Since then, thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers have come to the same conclusion about climate change, telling us that human activities emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, raising Earth’s average temperature and bringing a range of consequences to our ecosystems.

“The weight of all of this information taken together points to the single consistent fact that humans and our activity are warming the planet,” Willis said.

The scientific method’s steps

The exact steps of the scientific method can vary by discipline, but since we have only one Earth (and no “test” Earth), climate scientists follow a few general guidelines to better understand carbon dioxide levels, sea level rise, global temperature and more.

• Form a hypothesis (a statement that an experiment can test)
• Make observations (conduct experiments and gather data)
• Analyze and interpret the data
• Draw conclusions
• Publish results that can be validated with further experiments (rinse and repeat)

As you can see, the scientific method is iterative (repetitive), meaning that climate scientists are constantly making new discoveries about the world based on the building blocks of scientific knowledge.

“The weight of all of this information taken together points to the single consistent fact that humans and our activity are warming the planet." - Josh Willis, NASA oceanographer and Oceans Melting Greenland principal investigator

The scientific method at work.

How does the scientific method work in the real world of climate science? Let’s take NASA’s Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) campaign, a multi-year survey of Greenland’s ice melt that’s paving the way for improved sea level rise estimates, as an example.

• Form a hypothesis OMG hypothesizes that the oceans are playing a major role in Greenland ice loss.
• Make observations Over a five-year period, OMG will survey Greenland by air and ship to collect ocean temperature and salinity (saltiness) data and take ice thinning measurements to help climate scientists better understand how the ice and warming ocean interact with each other. OMG will also collect data on the sea floor’s shape and depth, which determines how much warm water can reach any given glacier.
• Analyze and interpret data As the OMG crew and scientists collect data around 27,000 miles (over 43,000 kilometers) of Greenland coastline over that five-year period, each year scientists will analyze the data to see how much the oceans warmed or cooled and how the ice changed in response.
• Draw conclusions In one OMG study , scientists discovered that many Greenland glaciers extend deeper (some around 1,000 feet, or about 300 meters) beneath the ocean’s surface than once thought, making them quite vulnerable to the warming ocean. They also discovered that Greenland’s west coast is generally more vulnerable than its east coast.
• Publish results Scientists like Willis write up the results, send in the paper for peer review (a process in which other experts in the field anonymously critique the submission), and then those peers determine whether the information is correct and valuable enough to be published in an academic journal, such as Nature or Earth and Planetary Science Letters . Then it becomes another contribution to the well-substantiated body of climate change knowledge, which evolves and grows stronger as scientists gather and confirm more evidence. Other scientists can take that information further by conducting their own studies to better understand sea level rise.

All in all, the scientific method is “a way of going from observations to answers,” NASA terrestrial ecosystem scientist Erika Podest, based at JPL, said. It adds clarity to our way of thinking and shows that scientific knowledge is always evolving.

Related Terms

• Climate Change
• Climate Science
• Earth Science

Explore More

Scientists Pursue the Total Solar Eclipse with NASA Jet Planes

How NASA Spotted El Niño Changing the Saltiness of Coastal Waters

New findings have revealed a coastal realm highly sensitive to changes in runoff and rainfall on land. After helping stoke record heat in 2023 and drenching major swaths of the United States this winter, the current El Niño is losing steam this spring. Scientists have observed another way that the climate phenomenon can leave its […]

Veronica T. Pinnick Put NASA’s PACE Mission through Its Paces

To achieve the impossible, Veronica T. Pinnick, who put NASA’s PACE mission through its prelaunch paces, says you need to get comfortable with being uncomfortable. Name: Dr. Veronica T. Pinnick Title: Plankton Aerosol, Cloud and ocean Ecosystem (PACE) Integration and Test (I&T) manager Formal Job Classification: Chemist Organization: Integration and Test Branch, Electrical Engineering Division […]

Discover More Topics From NASA

Explore Earth Science

Earth Science in Action

Earth Science Data

Facts About Earth

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

1.1: The Scientific Method

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 123904

• Teresa Friedrich Finnern
• Norco College

Learning Objectives

• Identify the shared characteristics of the natural sciences.
• Summarize the steps of the scientific method.
• Compare inductive reasoning with deductive reasoning.
• Describe the goals of basic science and applied science.

The Process of Science

Science includes such diverse fields as astronomy, biology, computer sciences, geology, logic, physics, chemistry, and mathematics (Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\)). However, those fields of science related to the physical world and its phenomena and processes are considered natural sciences . Natural sciences could be categorized as astronomy, biology, chemistry, earth science, and physics. One can divide natural sciences further into life sciences, which study living things and include biology, and physical sciences, which study nonliving matter and include astronomy, geology, physics, and chemistry. Some disciplines such as biophysics and biochemistry build on both life and physical sciences and are interdisciplinary. Natural sciences are sometimes referred to as “hard science” because they rely on the use of quantitative data; social sciences that study society and human behavior are more likely to use qualitative assessments to drive investigations and findings.

Not surprisingly, the natural science of biology has many branches or subdisciplines. Cell biologists study cell structure and function, while biologists who study anatomy investigate the structure of an entire organism. Those biologists studying physiology, however, focus on the internal functioning of an organism. Some areas of biology focus on only particular types of living things. For example, botanists explore plants, while zoologists specialize in animals.

Scientific Reasoning

One thing is common to all forms of science: an ultimate goal “to know.” Curiosity and inquiry are the driving forces for the development of science. Scientists seek to understand the world and the way it operates. To do this, they use two methods of logical thinking: inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning is a form of logical thinking that uses related observations to arrive at a general conclusion. This type of reasoning is common in descriptive science. A life scientist such as a biologist makes observations and records them. These data can be qualitative (descriptive) or quantitative (numeric), and the raw data can be supplemented with drawings, pictures, photos, or videos. From many observations, the scientist can infer conclusions (inductions) based on evidence. Inductive reasoning involves formulating generalizations inferred from careful observation and the analysis of a large amount of data.

Deductive reasoning ,   or deduction, is the type of logic used in hypothesis-based science. In deductive reason, the pattern of thinking moves in the opposite direction as compared to inductive reasoning; that is, specific results are predicted from a general premise. Deductive reasoning is a form of logical thinking that uses a general principle or law to forecast specific results. From those general principles, a scientist can extrapolate and predict the specific results that would be valid as long as the general principles are valid. Studies in climate change can illustrate this type of reasoning. For example, scientists may predict that if the climate becomes warmer in a particular region, then the distribution of plants and animals should change. These predictions have been made and tested, and many such changes have been found, such as the modification of arable areas for agriculture, with change based on temperature averages. 

Inductive and deductive reasoning are often used in tandem to advance scientific knowledge (Example \(\PageIndex{1}\)) . Both types of logical thinking are related to the two main pathways of scientific study: descriptive science and hypothesis-based science. Descriptive (or discovery) science , which is usually inductive, aims to observe, explore, and discover, while hypothesis-based science , which is usually deductive, begins with a specific question or problem and a potential answer or solution that one can test. The boundary between these two forms of study is often blurred, and most scientific endeavors combine both approaches.

Example \(\PageIndex{1}\)

Here is an example of how the two types of reasoning might be used in similar situations.

In inductive reasoning, where a conclusion is drawn from a number of observations, one might observe that members of a species are not all the same, individuals compete for resources, and species are generally adapted to their environment. This observation could then lead to the conclusion that individuals most adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and pass their traits to the next generation.

In deductive reasoning, which uses a general premise to predict a specific result, one might start with that conclusion as a general premise, then predict the results. For example, from that premise, one might predict that if the average temperature in an ecosystem increases due to climate change, individuals better adapted to warmer temperatures will outcompete those that are not. A scientist could then design a study to test this prediction.

The Scientific Method

Biologists study the living world by posing questions about it and seeking science-based responses. The scientific method is a method of research with defined steps that include experiments and careful observation. The scientific method was used even in ancient times, but it was first documented by England’s Sir Francis Bacon (1561–1626; Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\)), who set up inductive methods for scientific inquiry. The scientific method is not exclusively used by biologists but can be applied to almost all fields of study as a logical, rational problem-solving method.

It is important to note that even though there are specific steps to the scientific method, the process of science is often more fluid, with scientists going back and forth between steps until they reach their conclusions.

Observation and Question

Scientists are good observers. In the field of biology, naturalists will often will make an observation that leads to a question. A naturalist is a person who studies nature. Naturalists often describe structures, processes, and behavior, either with their eyes or with the use of a tool such as a microscope. A naturalist may not conduct experiments, but they may ask many good questions that can lead to experimentation. Scientists are also very curious. They will research for known answers to their questions or run experiments to learn the answer to their questions.

Let’s think about a simple problem that starts with an observation and apply the scientific method to solve the problem. One Monday morning, a student arrives at class and quickly discovers that the classroom is too warm. That is an observation that also describes a problem: the classroom is too warm. The student then asks a question: “Why is the classroom so warm?”

Proposing a Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an educated guess or a suggested explanation for an event, which can be tested. Sometimes, more than one hypothesis may be proposed. Once a hypothesis has been selected, the student can make a prediction. A prediction is similar to a hypothesis but it typically has the format “If . . . then . . . .”.

For example, one hypothesis might be, “The classroom is warm because no one turned on the air conditioning.” However, there could be other responses to the question, and therefore one may propose other hypotheses. A second hypothesis might be, “The classroom is warm because there is a power failure, and so the air conditioning doesn’t work.” In this case, you would have to test both hypotheses to see if either one could be supported with data.

A hypothesis may become a verified theory . This can happen if it has been repeatedly tested and confirmed, is general, and has inspired many other hypotheses, facts, and experimentations. Not all hypotheses will become theories.

Testing a Hypothesis

A valid hypothesis must be testable. It should also be falsifiable , meaning that it can be disproven by experimental results. Importantly, science does not claim to “prove” anything because scientific understandings are always subject to modification with further information. This step—openness to disproving ideas—is what distinguishes sciences from non-sciences. The presence of the supernatural, for instance, is neither testable nor falsifiable. To test a hypothesis, a researcher will conduct one or more experiments designed to eliminate one or more of the hypotheses. Each experiment will have one or more variables and one or more controls. A variable is any part of the experiment that can vary or change during the experiment. The control group contains every feature of the experimental group except that it was not manipulated. Therefore, if the results of the experimental group differ from the control group, the difference must be due to the hypothesized manipulation, rather than some outside factor. Look for the variables and controls in the examples that follow. To test the first hypothesis, the student would find out if the air conditioning is on. If the air conditioning is turned on but does not work, there should be another reason, and this hypothesis should be rejected. To test the second hypothesis, the student could check if the lights in the classroom are functional. If so, there is no power failure, and this hypothesis should be rejected. Each hypothesis should be tested by carrying out appropriate experiments. Be aware that rejecting one hypothesis does not determine whether or not the other hypotheses can be accepted; it simply eliminates one hypothesis that is not valid (Figure \(\PageIndex{3}\)). Using the scientific method, the hypotheses that are inconsistent with experimental data are rejected.

While this “warm classroom” example is based on observational results, other hypotheses and experiments might have clearer controls. For instance, a student might attend class on Monday and realize she had difficulty concentrating on the lecture. One observation to explain this occurrence might be, “When I eat breakfast before class, I am better able to pay attention.” The student could then design an experiment with a control to test this hypothesis.

Visual Connection

The scientific method may seem too rigid and structured. It is important to keep in mind that, although scientists often follow this sequence, there is flexibility. Sometimes an experiment leads to conclusions that favor a change in approach; often, an experiment brings entirely new scientific questions to the puzzle. Many times, science does not operate in a linear fashion; instead, scientists continually draw inferences and make generalizations, finding patterns as their research proceeds. Scientific reasoning is more complex than the scientific method alone suggests. Notice, too, that the scientific method can be applied to solving problems that aren’t necessarily scientific in nature (Example \(\PageIndex{2}\)).

Example \(\PageIndex{2}\)

In the example below, the scientific method is used to solve an everyday problem. Match the scientific method steps (numbered items) with the process of solving the everyday problem (lettered items). Based on the results of the experiment, is the hypothesis correct? If it is incorrect, propose some alternative hypotheses.

Steps of the Scientific Method

• Observation
• Hypothesis (answer)

Process of Solving an Everyday Problem

• There is something wrong with the electrical outlet.
• If something is wrong with the outlet, my coffee maker also won’t work when plugged into it.
• My toaster doesn’t toast my bread.
• I plug my coffee maker into the outlet.
• My coffee maker works.
• Why doesn’t my toaster work?

Two Types of Science: Basic Science and Applied Science

The scientific community has been debating for the last few decades about the value of different types of science. Is it valuable to pursue science for the sake of simply gaining knowledge, or does scientific knowledge only have worth if we can apply it to solving a specific problem or to bettering our lives? This question focuses on the differences between two types of science: basic science and applied science.

Basic science or “pure” science seeks to expand knowledge regardless of the short-term application of that knowledge. It is not focused on developing a product or a service of immediate public or commercial value. The immediate goal of basic science is knowledge for knowledge’s sake, though this does not mean that, in the end, it may not result in a practical application.

In contrast, applied science or “technology,” aims to use science to solve real-world problems, making it possible, for example, to improve a crop yield or find a cure for a particular disease. In applied science, the problem is usually defined for the researcher.

Some individuals may perceive applied science as “useful” and basic science as “useless.” A question these people might pose to a scientist advocating knowledge acquisition would be, “What for?” A careful look at the history of science, however, reveals that basic knowledge has resulted in many remarkable applications of great value. Many scientists think that a basic understanding of science is necessary before an application is developed; therefore, applied science relies on the results generated through basic science. Other scientists think that it is time to move on from basic science and instead to find solutions to actual problems. Both approaches are valid. It is true that there are problems that demand immediate attention; however, few solutions would be found without the help of the wide knowledge foundation generated through basic science.

One example of how basic and applied science can work together to solve practical problems occurred after the discovery of DNA structure led to an understanding of the molecular mechanisms governing DNA replication. Strands of DNA, unique in every human, are found in our cells, where they provide the instructions necessary for life. During DNA replication, DNA makes new copies of itself, shortly before a cell divides. Understanding the mechanisms of DNA replication enabled scientists to develop laboratory techniques that are now used to identify genetic diseases, pinpoint individuals who were at a crime scene, and determine paternity. Without basic science, it is unlikely that applied science would exist.

Another example of the link between basic and applied research is the Human Genome Project, a study in which each human chromosome was analyzed and mapped to determine the precise sequence of DNA subunits and the exact location of each gene. (The gene is the basic unit of heredity; an individual’s complete collection of genes is their genome.) Other less complex organisms have also been studied as part of this project in order to gain a better understanding of human chromosomes. The Human Genome Project (Figure \(\PageIndex{4}\)) relied on basic research carried out with simple organisms and, later, with the human genome. An important end goal eventually became using the data for applied research, seeking cures and early diagnoses for genetically related diseases.

While research efforts in both basic science and applied science are usually carefully planned, it is important to note that some discoveries are made by serendipity , that is, by means of a fortunate accident or a lucky surprise. Penicillin was discovered when biologist Alexander Fleming accidentally left a petri dish of Staphylococcus bacteria open. An unwanted mold grew on the dish, killing the bacteria. The mold turned out to be Penicillium , and a new antibiotic was discovered. Even in the highly organized world of science, luck—when combined with an observant, curious mind—can lead to unexpected breakthroughs.

Reporting Scientific Work

Whether scientific research is basic science or applied science, scientists must share their findings in order for other researchers to expand and build upon their discoveries. Collaboration with other scientists—when planning, conducting, and analyzing results—are all important for scientific research. For this reason, important aspects of a scientist’s work are communicating with peers and disseminating results to peers. Scientists can share results by presenting them at a scientific meeting or conference (Figure \(\PageIndex{5}\)), but this approach can reach only the select few who are present. Instead, most scientists present their results in peer-reviewed manuscripts that are published in scientific journals. Peer-reviewed manuscripts are scientific papers that are reviewed by a scientist’s colleagues, or peers. These colleagues are qualified individuals, often experts in the same research area, who judge whether or not the scientist’s work is suitable for publication. The process of peer review helps to ensure that the research described in a scientific paper or grant proposal is original, significant, logical, and thorough. Grant proposals, which are requests for research funding, are also subject to peer review. Scientists publish their work so other scientists can reproduce their experiments under similar or different conditions to expand on the findings. The experimental results must be consistent with the findings of other scientists.

A scientific paper is very different from creative writing. Although creativity is required to design experiments, there are fixed guidelines when it comes to presenting scientific results. First, scientific writing must be brief, concise, and accurate. A scientific paper needs to be succinct but detailed enough to allow peers to reproduce the experiments.

The scientific paper consists of several specific sections—introduction, materials and methods, results, and discussion. This structure is sometimes called the “IMRaD” format, an acronym for Introduction, Method, Results, and Discussion. There are usually acknowledgment and reference sections as well as an abstract (a concise summary) at the beginning of the paper. There might be additional sections depending on the type of paper and the journal where it will be published; for example, some review papers require an outline.

The introduction starts with brief, but broad, background information about what is known in the field. A good introduction also gives the rationale of the work; it justifies the work carried out and also briefly mentions the end of the paper, where the hypothesis or research question driving the research will be presented. The introduction refers to the published scientific work of others and therefore requires citations following the style of the journal. Using the work or ideas of others without proper citation is considered plagiarism .

The materials and methods section includes a complete and accurate description of the substances used, and the method and techniques used by the researchers to gather data. The description should be thorough enough to allow another researcher to repeat the experiment and obtain similar results, but it does not have to be verbose. This section will also include information on how measurements were made and what types of calculations and statistical analyses were used to examine raw data. Although the materials and methods section gives an accurate description of the experiments, it does not discuss them.

Some journals require a results section followed by a discussion section, but it is more common to combine both. If the journal does not allow the combination of both sections, the results section simply narrates the findings without any further interpretation. The results are presented by means of tables or graphs, but no duplicate information should be presented. In the discussion section, the researcher will interpret the results, describe how variables may be related, and attempt to explain the observations. It is indispensable to conduct an extensive literature search to put the results in the context of previously published scientific research. Therefore, proper citations are included in this section as well.

Finally, the conclusion section summarizes the importance of the experimental findings. While the scientific paper almost certainly answered one or more scientific questions that were stated, any good research should lead to more questions. Therefore, a well-done scientific paper leaves doors open for the researcher and others to continue and expand on the findings.

Review articles do not follow the IMRaD format because they do not present original scientific findings (they are not primary literature); instead, they summarize and comment on findings that were published as primary literature and typically include extensive reference sections.

Attributions

Curated and authored by Kammy Algiers using  1.2 (The Process of Science)  from Biology 2e  by OpenStax (licensed CC-BY ).

Scientific Methods

What is scientific method.

The Scientific method is a process with the help of which scientists try to investigate, verify, or construct an accurate and reliable version of any natural phenomena. They are done by creating an objective framework for the purpose of scientific inquiry and analysing the results scientifically to come to a conclusion that either supports or contradicts the observation made at the beginning.

Scientific Method Steps

The aim of all scientific methods is the same, that is, to analyse the observation made at the beginning. Still, various steps are adopted per the requirement of any given observation. However, there is a generally accepted sequence of steps in scientific methods.

• Observation and formulation of a question:  This is the first step of a scientific method. To start one, an observation has to be made into any observable aspect or phenomena of the universe, and a question needs to be asked about that aspect. For example, you can ask, “Why is the sky black at night? or “Why is air invisible?”
• Data Collection and Hypothesis:  The next step involved in the scientific method is to collect all related data and formulate a hypothesis based on the observation. The hypothesis could be the cause of the phenomena, its effect, or its relation to any other phenomena.
• Testing the hypothesis:  After the hypothesis is made, it needs to be tested scientifically. Scientists do this by conducting experiments. The aim of these experiments is to determine whether the hypothesis agrees with or contradicts the observations made in the real world. The confidence in the hypothesis increases or decreases based on the result of the experiments.
• Analysis and Conclusion:  This step involves the use of proper mathematical and other scientific procedures to determine the results of the experiment. Based on the analysis, the future course of action can be determined. If the data found in the analysis is consistent with the hypothesis, it is accepted. If not, then it is rejected or modified and analysed again.

It must be remembered that a hypothesis cannot be proved or disproved by doing one experiment. It needs to be done repeatedly until there are no discrepancies in the data and the result. When there are no discrepancies and the hypothesis is proved, it is accepted as a ‘theory’.

Scientific Method Examples

Following is an example of the scientific method:

Growing bean plants:

• What is the purpose: The main purpose of this experiment is to know where the bean plant should be kept inside or outside to check the growth rate and also set the time frame as four weeks.
• Construction of hypothesis: The hypothesis used is that the bean plant can grow anywhere if the scientific methods are used.
• Executing the hypothesis and collecting the data: Four bean plants are planted in identical pots using the same soil. Two are placed inside, and the other two are placed outside. Parameters like the amount of exposure to sunlight, and amount of water all are the same. After the completion of four weeks, all four plant sizes are measured.
• Analyse the data:  While analysing the data, the average height of plants should be taken into account from both places to determine which environment is more suitable for growing the bean plants.
• Conclusion:  The conclusion is drawn after analyzing the data.
• Results:  Results can be reported in the form of a tabular form.

Frequently Asked Questions – FAQs

What is scientific method, what is hypothesis, give an example of a simple hypothesis., define complex hypothesis., what are the steps of the scientific method, what is the aim of scientific methods, state true or false: observation and formulation of a question is the third step of scientific method, explain the step: analysis and conclusion., leave a comment cancel reply.

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

• Share Share

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

1.2 The Scientific Methods

Section learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to do the following:

• Explain how the methods of science are used to make scientific discoveries
• Define a scientific model and describe examples of physical and mathematical models used in physics
• Compare and contrast hypothesis, theory, and law

Teacher Support

The learning objectives in this section will help your students master the following standards:

• (A) know the definition of science and understand that it has limitations, as specified in subsection (b)(2) of this section;
• (B) know that scientific hypotheses are tentative and testable statements that must be capable of being supported or not supported by observational evidence. Hypotheses of durable explanatory power which have been tested over a wide variety of conditions are incorporated into theories;
• (C) know that scientific theories are based on natural and physical phenomena and are capable of being tested by multiple independent researchers. Unlike hypotheses, scientific theories are well-established and highly-reliable explanations, but may be subject to change as new areas of science and new technologies are developed;
• (D) distinguish between scientific hypotheses and scientific theories.

Section Key Terms

[OL] Pre-assessment for this section could involve students sharing or writing down an anecdote about when they used the methods of science. Then, students could label their thought processes in their anecdote with the appropriate scientific methods. The class could also discuss their definitions of theory and law, both outside and within the context of science.

[OL] It should be noted and possibly mentioned that a scientist , as mentioned in this section, does not necessarily mean a trained scientist. It could be anyone using methods of science.

Scientific Methods

Scientists often plan and carry out investigations to answer questions about the universe around us. These investigations may lead to natural laws. Such laws are intrinsic to the universe, meaning that humans did not create them and cannot change them. We can only discover and understand them. Their discovery is a very human endeavor, with all the elements of mystery, imagination, struggle, triumph, and disappointment inherent in any creative effort. The cornerstone of discovering natural laws is observation. Science must describe the universe as it is, not as we imagine or wish it to be.

We all are curious to some extent. We look around, make generalizations, and try to understand what we see. For example, we look up and wonder whether one type of cloud signals an oncoming storm. As we become serious about exploring nature, we become more organized and formal in collecting and analyzing data. We attempt greater precision, perform controlled experiments (if we can), and write down ideas about how data may be organized. We then formulate models, theories, and laws based on the data we have collected, and communicate those results with others. This, in a nutshell, describes the scientific method that scientists employ to decide scientific issues on the basis of evidence from observation and experiment.

An investigation often begins with a scientist making an observation . The scientist observes a pattern or trend within the natural world. Observation may generate questions that the scientist wishes to answer. Next, the scientist may perform some research about the topic and devise a hypothesis . A hypothesis is a testable statement that describes how something in the natural world works. In essence, a hypothesis is an educated guess that explains something about an observation.

[OL] An educated guess is used throughout this section in describing a hypothesis to combat the tendency to think of a theory as an educated guess.

Scientists may test the hypothesis by performing an experiment . During an experiment, the scientist collects data that will help them learn about the phenomenon they are studying. Then the scientists analyze the results of the experiment (that is, the data), often using statistical, mathematical, and/or graphical methods. From the data analysis, they draw conclusions. They may conclude that their experiment either supports or rejects their hypothesis. If the hypothesis is supported, the scientist usually goes on to test another hypothesis related to the first. If their hypothesis is rejected, they will often then test a new and different hypothesis in their effort to learn more about whatever they are studying.

Scientific processes can be applied to many situations. Let’s say that you try to turn on your car, but it will not start. You have just made an observation! You ask yourself, "Why won’t my car start?" You can now use scientific processes to answer this question. First, you generate a hypothesis such as, "The car won’t start because it has no gasoline in the gas tank." To test this hypothesis, you put gasoline in the car and try to start it again. If the car starts, then your hypothesis is supported by the experiment. If the car does not start, then your hypothesis is rejected. You will then need to think up a new hypothesis to test such as, "My car won’t start because the fuel pump is broken." Hopefully, your investigations lead you to discover why the car won’t start and enable you to fix it.

A model is a representation of something that is often too difficult (or impossible) to study directly. Models can take the form of physical models, equations, computer programs, or simulations—computer graphics/animations. Models are tools that are especially useful in modern physics because they let us visualize phenomena that we normally cannot observe with our senses, such as very small objects or objects that move at high speeds. For example, we can understand the structure of an atom using models, without seeing an atom with our own eyes. Although images of single atoms are now possible, these images are extremely difficult to achieve and are only possible due to the success of our models. The existence of these images is a consequence rather than a source of our understanding of atoms. Models are always approximate, so they are simpler to consider than the real situation; the more complete a model is, the more complicated it must be. Models put the intangible or the extremely complex into human terms that we can visualize, discuss, and hypothesize about.

Scientific models are constructed based on the results of previous experiments. Even still, models often only describe a phenomenon partially or in a few limited situations. Some phenomena are so complex that they may be impossible to model them in their entirety, even using computers. An example is the electron cloud model of the atom in which electrons are moving around the atom’s center in distinct clouds ( Figure 1.12 ), that represent the likelihood of finding an electron in different places. This model helps us to visualize the structure of an atom. However, it does not show us exactly where an electron will be within its cloud at any one particular time.

As mentioned previously, physicists use a variety of models including equations, physical models, computer simulations, etc. For example, three-dimensional models are often commonly used in chemistry and physics to model molecules. Properties other than appearance or location are usually modelled using mathematics, where functions are used to show how these properties relate to one another. Processes such as the formation of a star or the planets, can also be modelled using computer simulations. Once a simulation is correctly programmed based on actual experimental data, the simulation can allow us to view processes that happened in the past or happen too quickly or slowly for us to observe directly. In addition, scientists can also run virtual experiments using computer-based models. In a model of planet formation, for example, the scientist could alter the amount or type of rocks present in space and see how it affects planet formation.

Scientists use models and experimental results to construct explanations of observations or design solutions to problems. For example, one way to make a car more fuel efficient is to reduce the friction or drag caused by air flowing around the moving car. This can be done by designing the body shape of the car to be more aerodynamic, such as by using rounded corners instead of sharp ones. Engineers can then construct physical models of the car body, place them in a wind tunnel, and examine the flow of air around the model. This can also be done mathematically in a computer simulation. The air flow pattern can be analyzed for regions smooth air flow and for eddies that indicate drag. The model of the car body may have to be altered slightly to produce the smoothest pattern of air flow (i.e., the least drag). The pattern with the least drag may be the solution to increasing fuel efficiency of the car. This solution might then be incorporated into the car design.

Using Models and the Scientific Processes

Be sure to secure loose items before opening the window or door.

In this activity, you will learn about scientific models by making a model of how air flows through your classroom or a room in your house.

• One room with at least one window or door that can be opened
• Work with a group of four, as directed by your teacher. Close all of the windows and doors in the room you are working in. Your teacher may assign you a specific window or door to study.
• Before opening any windows or doors, draw a to-scale diagram of your room. First, measure the length and width of your room using the tape measure. Then, transform the measurement using a scale that could fit on your paper, such as 5 centimeters = 1 meter.
• Your teacher will assign you a specific window or door to study air flow. On your diagram, add arrows showing your hypothesis (before opening any windows or doors) of how air will flow through the room when your assigned window or door is opened. Use pencil so that you can easily make changes to your diagram.
• On your diagram, mark four locations where you would like to test air flow in your room. To test for airflow, hold a strip of single ply tissue paper between the thumb and index finger. Note the direction that the paper moves when exposed to the airflow. Then, for each location, predict which way the paper will move if your air flow diagram is correct.
• Now, each member of your group will stand in one of the four selected areas. Each member will test the airflow Agree upon an approximate height at which everyone will hold their papers.
• When you teacher tells you to, open your assigned window and/or door. Each person should note the direction that their paper points immediately after the window or door was opened. Record your results on your diagram.
• Did the airflow test data support or refute the hypothetical model of air flow shown in your diagram? Why or why not? Correct your model based on your experimental evidence.
• With your group, discuss how accurate your model is. What limitations did it have? Write down the limitations that your group agreed upon.
• Yes, you could use your model to predict air flow through a new window. The earlier experiment of air flow would help you model the system more accurately.
• Yes, you could use your model to predict air flow through a new window. The earlier experiment of air flow is not useful for modeling the new system.
• No, you cannot model a system to predict the air flow through a new window. The earlier experiment of air flow would help you model the system more accurately.
• No, you cannot model a system to predict the air flow through a new window. The earlier experiment of air flow is not useful for modeling the new system.

This Snap Lab! has students construct a model of how air flows in their classroom. Each group of four students will create a model of air flow in their classroom using a scale drawing of the room. Then, the groups will test the validity of their model by placing weathervanes that they have constructed around the room and opening a window or door. By observing the weather vanes, students will see how air actually flows through the room from a specific window or door. Students will then correct their model based on their experimental evidence. The following material list is given per group:

• One room with at least one window or door that can be opened (An optimal configuration would be one window or door per group.)
• Several pieces of construction paper (at least four per group)
• Strips of single ply tissue paper
• One tape measure (long enough to measure the dimensions of the room)
• Group size can vary depending on the number of windows/doors available and the number of students in the class.
• The room dimensions could be provided by the teacher. Also, students may need a brief introduction in how to make a drawing to scale.
• This is another opportunity to discuss controlled experiments in terms of why the students should hold the strips of tissue paper at the same height and in the same way. One student could also serve as a control and stand far away from the window/door or in another area that will not receive air flow from the window/door.
• You will probably need to coordinate this when multiple windows or doors are used. Only one window or door should be opened at a time for best results. Between openings, allow a short period (5 minutes) when all windows and doors are closed, if possible.

Answers to the Grasp Check will vary, but the air flow in the new window or door should be based on what the students observed in their experiment.

Scientific Laws and Theories

A scientific law is a description of a pattern in nature that is true in all circumstances that have been studied. That is, physical laws are meant to be universal , meaning that they apply throughout the known universe. Laws are often also concise, whereas theories are more complicated. A law can be expressed in the form of a single sentence or mathematical equation. For example, Newton’s second law of motion , which relates the motion of an object to the force applied ( F ), the mass of the object ( m ), and the object’s acceleration ( a ), is simply stated using the equation

Scientific ideas and explanations that are true in many, but not all situations in the universe are usually called principles . An example is Pascal’s principle , which explains properties of liquids, but not solids or gases. However, the distinction between laws and principles is sometimes not carefully made in science.

A theory is an explanation for patterns in nature that is supported by much scientific evidence and verified multiple times by multiple researchers. While many people confuse theories with educated guesses or hypotheses, theories have withstood more rigorous testing and verification than hypotheses.

[OL] Explain to students that in informal, everyday English the word theory can be used to describe an idea that is possibly true but that has not been proven to be true. This use of the word theory often leads people to think that scientific theories are nothing more than educated guesses. This is not just a misconception among students, but among the general public as well.

As a closing idea about scientific processes, we want to point out that scientific laws and theories, even those that have been supported by experiments for centuries, can still be changed by new discoveries. This is especially true when new technologies emerge that allow us to observe things that were formerly unobservable. Imagine how viewing previously invisible objects with a microscope or viewing Earth for the first time from space may have instantly changed our scientific theories and laws! What discoveries still await us in the future? The constant retesting and perfecting of our scientific laws and theories allows our knowledge of nature to progress. For this reason, many scientists are reluctant to say that their studies prove anything. By saying support instead of prove , it keeps the door open for future discoveries, even if they won’t occur for centuries or even millennia.

[OL] With regard to scientists avoiding using the word prove , the general public knows that science has proven certain things such as that the heart pumps blood and the Earth is round. However, scientists should shy away from using prove because it is impossible to test every single instance and every set of conditions in a system to absolutely prove anything. Using support or similar terminology leaves the door open for further discovery.

Check Your Understanding

• Models are simpler to analyze.
• Models give more accurate results.
• Models provide more reliable predictions.
• Models do not require any computer calculations.
• They are the same.
• A hypothesis has been thoroughly tested and found to be true.
• A hypothesis is a tentative assumption based on what is already known.
• A hypothesis is a broad explanation firmly supported by evidence.
• A scientific model is a representation of something that can be easily studied directly. It is useful for studying things that can be easily analyzed by humans.
• A scientific model is a representation of something that is often too difficult to study directly. It is useful for studying a complex system or systems that humans cannot observe directly.
• A scientific model is a representation of scientific equipment. It is useful for studying working principles of scientific equipment.
• A scientific model is a representation of a laboratory where experiments are performed. It is useful for studying requirements needed inside the laboratory.
• The hypothesis must be validated by scientific experiments.
• The hypothesis must not include any physical quantity.
• The hypothesis must be a short and concise statement.
• The hypothesis must apply to all the situations in the universe.
• A scientific theory is an explanation of natural phenomena that is supported by evidence.
• A scientific theory is an explanation of natural phenomena without the support of evidence.
• A scientific theory is an educated guess about the natural phenomena occurring in nature.
• A scientific theory is an uneducated guess about natural phenomena occurring in nature.
• A hypothesis is an explanation of the natural world with experimental support, while a scientific theory is an educated guess about a natural phenomenon.
• A hypothesis is an educated guess about natural phenomenon, while a scientific theory is an explanation of natural world with experimental support.
• A hypothesis is experimental evidence of a natural phenomenon, while a scientific theory is an explanation of the natural world with experimental support.
• A hypothesis is an explanation of the natural world with experimental support, while a scientific theory is experimental evidence of a natural phenomenon.

Use the Check Your Understanding questions to assess students’ achievement of the section’s learning objectives. If students are struggling with a specific objective, the Check Your Understanding will help identify which objective and direct students to the relevant content.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute Texas Education Agency (TEA). The original material is available at: https://www.texasgateway.org/book/tea-physics . Changes were made to the original material, including updates to art, structure, and other content updates.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/physics/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Paul Peter Urone, Roger Hinrichs
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Physics
• Publication date: Mar 26, 2020
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/physics/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/physics/pages/1-2-the-scientific-methods

© Jan 19, 2024 Texas Education Agency (TEA). The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

“The Scientific Method” as Myth and Ideal

• Published: 27 May 2014
• Volume 23 , pages 2069–2093, ( 2014 )

Cite this article

• Brian A. Woodcock 1  

4368 Accesses

30 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

“The Scientific Method” as it has been portrayed in popular and introductory contexts has been declared a myth. The variation that one finds in introductory presentations of “The Scientific Method” is explained by the fact that there is no canonical account among historians and philosophers of science. What, in particular, is wrong with “The Scientific Method”? This essay provides a fairly comprehensive survey of shortcomings of “The Scientific Method”. Included are corrections to several misconceptions that often accompany such presentations. Rather than treating “The Scientific Method” as a useful approximation or an ideal, the myth should be discarded. Lessons can be learned for introductory pedagogical contexts from considering the shortcomings of the myth.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Scientific realism: what it is, the contemporary debate, and new directions

Darrell P. Rowbottom

The Legends of One Methodology of Science Used Throughout Its History and Its Independence from the Institutions in which Science Has Been Conducted

The Power of Scientific Knowledge and its Limits

Newton thought of his own empirical propositions as being the result of the gathering of phenomena by induction. There are well-known criticisms of this method as an accurate portrayal of Newton’s own activity, however. For example, Newton’s First Law of Motion—the law of inertia—can hardly be a mere general summary of observations since no one has ever observed bodies that are not acted upon by any forces and yet the First Law tells us what would happen to material bodies in such situations (Whewell 1847 , p. 49; Ladyman 2002 , p. 55).

The outside choices in the table were selected to provide extremes. The inner ones are more representative of what one finds usually. As an assignment in a course, I have students find examples of popular and introductory descriptions of “The Scientific Method”. After a few iterations of the course, I’ve collected a healthy stack of examples. A more systematic examination would be an interesting project and better support my claim about variation. (Blachowicz ( 2009 ) does something of this sort, looking at 70 textbooks.) For the moment, my support can rest with a challenge: If you doubt it, take an hour just to examine what you find being said about “The Scientific Method” online.

A very enthusiastic presentation of “The Scientific Method” is to be found at www.scientificmethod.com . The website is authored by Norman W. Edmund, the founder of Edmund Scientific—a company well known as a supplier of optical and other scientific gadgetry for educational and amateur uses. The website claims to offer “today’s most up-to-date, complete, clear, concise, and reliable information about the scientific method and scientific method activities that has ever been offered.” It presents “The Scientific Method” in eleven steps or stages along with three supporting ingredients.

Recognizing that “different sources describe the steps of the scientific method in different ways”, William Harris ( 2012 ) assures his readers that “Fundamentally, however, they incorporate the same concepts and principles”. The view that presentations of “The Scientific Method” say the same things essentially is rather typical. But it is accurate only if one neglects a number of details.

In their general order, these blended statements of method are not unlike John Stuart Mill’s description of the steps—(1) direct induction, (2) ratiocination, and (3) verification—of what he called “the Deductive Method” (Mill 1881 ), albeit less subtle. This does raise the issue of how to individuate methods. When a method requires induction for the development of a hypothesis while hypothetico-deductive reasoning is required for its evaluation, is this one method involving two kinds of reasoning or two methods utilized in a sequence?

Bauer did not capitalize the words ‘the scientific method’ nor did he put them in scare quotes, as is the convention in this essay. However, it is clear that his intended target in the book is the so-called scientific method; he used the latter phrase for the title of Chap. 2.

The subjectivity described here is not opposed to rationality. The judgments described are not ones that are characteristically whimsical or a matter of mere taste; they are subjective only in the sense that they depend upon individual expertise.

This is nicely recognized in (Purves et al. 1992 , p. 7).

Understanding the importance of social interaction for science also provided the basis for Bauer’s way of distinguishing pseudoscience from science. An inquiry is pseudoscientific not because of a failure to follow the scientific method but when it is pursued in isolation from “the competent, relevant scientific community” (Bauer 1992 , p. 60).

In his well known and insightful piece about methods of belief formation and the method of science, the nineteenth century philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce observed that inquiry begins with doubt: “The irritation of doubt causes a struggle to attain a state of belief. I shall term this struggle Inquiry” (Peirce 1877 ). Question-first accounts seem a better fit with Peirce’s view, although in Peirce’s view merely proposing a question is not sufficient to motivate inquiry. “There must be a real and living doubt.”

A very influential expression of the theory-ladeness of observations can be found in section X, “Revolutions as Changes of World View”, in Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions .

For a critical, technical analysis of the hypothetico-deductive model of inductive support see Lipton 2004 , pp. 15–16 and chs. 5 and 6. Lipton accuses the hypothetico-deductive model of being both too permissive and too restrictive. On one hand, according to him, some deductive consequences of a hypothesis are not evidentially relevant; and, on the other, sometimes relevant evidence is not related to a hypothesis by deductive reasoning. Lipton contrasts the hypothetico-deductive model with his theory of inference to the best explanation, arguing for the superiority of the latter with respect to the former.

The terms ‘confirmation’ and ‘disconfirmation’ are preferable to ‘verification’ and ‘falsification’, although sometimes one might encounter the latter pair. The latter terms suggest an absolute verdict on the truth or falsity of the hypothesis H whereas the former terms are more susceptible to interpretations of degree.

There is concern about old evidence especially when the hypothesis is tailored for the very purpose of explaining the data. As compared to the prediction of the results of a test heretofore unperformed, that should count less it would seem, if at all, toward confirming the hypothesis. However, the logic above makes no such distinction (Lipton 2004 , ch. 10). When the hypothesis is formulated without regard to, or in ignorance of the data, this concern would not be apt. Such would be the case when the hypothesis is formed without knowledge of the data obtained by someone else. The latter possibility undercuts a presupposition often present in introductory accounts of hypothesis testing—namely, that the same agent is involved in every step of the procedure. Where it is natural to assume that a single agent is involved, placing the testing step after hypothesis formation may represent a way of encoding the belief that a hypothesis ought not be evaluated by data already acquired.

Of course, background beliefs play a role in this example. Thanks go to Casey Swank for bringing to my attention a similar example to this one. The origin of the discussion about cases of a hypothesis that do not support the hypothesis is I. J. Good ( 1967 ).

The philosopher of science, Peter Kosso, claims that the main problem with the standard textbook model of scientific method is that it treats scientific theories and hypotheses in a piecemeal fashion, ignoring the large-scale structure of scientific method: “Scientific ideas and practices are essentially interconnected and networked. To understand science, one must consider not just the links between a theory and observations, but between a theory and other theories, and the influence of theories on observations” (Kosso 2009 , p. 36).

Blachowicz ( 2009 ) noted that a few of out of the 70 texts he surveyed recognized that “confirmation cannot be conclusive if alternative hypotheses are available” (p. 325). Windschitl et al. ( 2008 ) propose a view of investigative science they call “model-based inquiry” that recognizes the importance of entertaining competing hypotheses.

Blachowicz ( 2009 , p. 337) found that, in the 70 science texts he investigated, there was little awareness that non-empirical (theoretical) criteria could play a role in hypothesis evaluation.

Campbell et al. ( 2006 ) recognize that science uses more than one approach to inquiry and reasoning. Inquiry based on inductive reasoning they describe as "Discovery Science" and inquiry based on deductive reasoning they describe as "Hypothesis-Based Science" (p. 9).

This is not to deny that some overarching framework, like the Bayesian framework, might be able to subsume all these forms into one coherent theory of scientific reasoning.

It is not extremely common, but one occasionally finds the bold claim made that “Science can deal only with things that can be observed” (Kramer 1987 , p. 18; see also Keeton 1969 , p. 1). Since contemporary science abounds in appeals to unobservables—like subatomic particles, magnetic fields, and spacetime curvature—to explain observable processes, it should be obvious that a claim like this does not sit well with the view that hypotheses are explanatory.

Sometimes it is claimed that deductive reasoning is “if, then” reasoning. (See Blachowicz 2009 , p. 317, for discussion on this.) Examples in Sect. 6.4 show that deductive reasoning does not require the use of “if…then…” statements. What such authors seem to be trying to convey is the idea that from a hypothesis H, observable consequences O should be derived. The result of this process can be summarized using a conditional statement—“if H, then O”—for example, “if organisms are composed of cells, then microscopic examination of any part of an organism should reveal cells” (Mader 2010 , p. 11). In a single statement, the conditional relates H to the observational consequence O inferred from it (Saladin 2010 , p. 8).

Once a chain of reasoning has connected a hypothesis with an observation via some experimental manipulation, a more complex conditional can be formed that relates the hypothesis to the experimental manipulation and the observation in a single statement. For example, ‘if we live in a sea of air that exerts pressure, then if I turn the stopcock, then such and such will happen’. This has the form, ‘if H is true, then if I do A, then I will observe outcome O’. Windschitl et al. ( 2008 ) take this to be a preferable form of conditional because it includes the context of the hypothesis (or model). They, unfortunately, continue the confusing practice of calling the whole conditional a “hypothesis”.

Blachowicz ( 2009 ) investigated 70 fairly recent high school and college science textbooks and found that the “great majority…stress that genuinely scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable” (p. 313).

For schoolchildren producing a science fair project, however, it may be wise to require them to propose a hypothesis whose proximity to observable consequences is fairly close in order to ensure manageability.

For example, one finds this in more recent treatments—Campbell et al. ( 2006 ), Cline ( 2013 ), Harris ( 2012 )—as well as in some older texts—Keeton ( 1969 , p. 1), Pilar ( 1979 , pp. 4–5).

Anderson, C. (2008). The end of theory: The data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete. Wired Magazine , 16(7). http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/16-07/pb_theory .

Bailey, R. (2013). About.com: Biology: Scientific method. http://biology.about.com/od/biologysciencefair/p/sciencemethod.htm .

Bauer, H. H. (1992). Scientific literacy and the myth of the scientific method . Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Google Scholar  

Blachowicz, J. (2009). How science textbooks treat scientific method: A philosopher’s perspective. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 60 , 303–344.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bridgman, P. W. (1955). On scientific method. In Reflections of a Physicist (2nd Edn.), New York: Philosophical Library.

Campbell, N. A., Reece, J. B., Taylor, M. R., & Simon, E. J. (2006). Biology: Concepts and connections (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Caws, P. (1967). Scientific method. In P. Edwards (Ed.), The encyclopedia of philosophy (Vol. 7, pp. 339–343). New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.

Cline, A. (2013). About.com: Agnosticism/atheism: What is the scientific method? http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyofscience/a/ScientificMethod.htm .

Conant, J. B. (1951). Science and common sense . New Haven: Yale University Press.

Cowens, J. (2006). The scientific method. Teaching Pre K-8, 37 (1), 42–46.

Duhem, P. (1954 [1914]). The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Earman, J., & Salmon, W. C. (1992). The confirmation of scientific hypotheses. In M. H. Salmon, et al. (Eds.), Introduction to the philosophy of science . Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.

Edmund, N. W. (2011). The scientific method today. http://scientificmethod.com/index2.html .

Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge . London: Verso Editions.

Good, I. J. (1967). The white shoe is a red herring. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 17 (4), 322.

Harré, R. (1985). The philosophies of science (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Harris, W. (2012). Howstuffworks: How the scientific method works. http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/scientific-method.htm .

Hewitt, P. G. (2002). Conceptual physics (9th ed.). San Francisco: Addison Wesley.

Hicks, L., Shimmin, D., & Rickard, G. (1993). Science: Order and reality (2nd ed.). Pensacola: Pensacola Christian College.

Howson, C., & Urbach, P. (2005). Scientific reasoning: The Bayesian approach (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: Open Court.

Hurley, P. J. (1991). A concise introduction to logic (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Karplus, R. (1969). Introductory physics: A model approach . New York: W. A. Benjamin Inc.

Keeton, W. T. (1969). Elements of biological science . New York: Norton.

Kosso, P. (2009). The large-scale structure of scientific method. Science and Education, 18 , 33–42.

Kramer, S. P. (1987). How to think like a scientist: Answering questions by the scientific method . HarperCollins Publishers.

Kuhn, T. S. (1996 [1962]). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd Edn). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ladyman, J. (2002). Understanding philosophy of science . New York: Routledge.

Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In Lakatos, I., & Musgrave, A. (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge . Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965, Vol. 4 (pp. 91–195). Cambridge University Press.

Lipton, P. (2004). Inference to the best explanation (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Losee, J. (1993). A historical introduction to the philosophy of science (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mader, S. S. (2010). Biology (10th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Marshak, S. (2004). Essentials of geology . New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Medawar, P. B. (1969). Induction and intuition in scientific thought . Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.

Mill, J. S. (1881). A system of logic (8th Edn.). In E. Nagel (Ed.) John Stuart mill’s philosophy of scientific method . New York: Hafner Publishing Co. (1950).

Peirce, C. S. (1877). The fixation of belief. Popular Science Monthly, 12 , 1–15.

Pilar, F. L. (1979). Chemistry—The universal science . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Purves, W. K., Orians, G. H., & Heller, H. C. (1992). Life, the science of biology (3rd ed.). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates Inc.

Quine, W. V. (1951). Two dogmas of empiricism. The Philosophical Review, 60 (1), 20–43.

Rathus, S. A. (1999). Psychology in the new millennium . Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Saladin, K. S. (2010). Anatomy and physiology: The unity of form and function (5th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Science Buddies. (2013). Science buddies: Steps of the scientific method. http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_guide_index.shtml .

Storer, T. I. (1972). General zoology (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Whewell, W. (1847). The philosophy of the inductive sciences founded upon their history (Vol. 2). London: John W. Parker.

Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92 (5), 941–967.

Wivagg, D., & Allchin, D. (2002). The dogma of “the” scientific method. The American Biology Teacher, 64 (9), 645–646.

Wysession, M. (2007). Prentice Hall Science explorer: Earth’s changing surface . Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.

Download references

Acknowledgments

Special gratitude goes to the students in the various iterations of my course, Philosophy of Science, along with audience members at my talks at the 2012 and 2013 meetings of the Minnesota Philosophical Society, the 2013 meeting of the Wisconsin Philosophical Association, and the 2013 Biennial IHPST Conference. Support has been provided from the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire Academic Affairs Professional Development Program.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, Eau Claire, WI, 54702-4004, USA

Brian A. Woodcock

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian A. Woodcock .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Woodcock, B.A. “The Scientific Method” as Myth and Ideal. Sci & Educ 23 , 2069–2093 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-014-9704-z

Download citation

Published : 27 May 2014

Issue Date : October 2014

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-014-9704-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Scientific Method
• Scientific Activity
• Scientific Reasoning
• Deductive Reasoning
• Scientific Idea
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research