The scientific method is a process by which a scientific and testable statement is formed into a hypothesis. A contrasting null hypothesis is constructed and tested for. If the null hypothesis is supported, then there is evidence against the proposed scientific hypothesis. In testing for the null hypothesis, the scientific method seeks disconfirming evidence of the hypothesis (Brown & Dant, 2008). The results of an experiment under the scientific method can, to varying degrees, support or disconfirm a hypothesis. Additionally, given the sample size, or number of cases or participants taking part in the experiment, and the generality of the claim made by researchers, as well as the results, confidence levels are produced from the results at varying confidence intervals. The most popular confidence intervals are 95% and 99%, which each mark a different level of confidence that the hypothesis is supported, or the null hypothesis is disconfirmed. A notable feature of most experiments is that researchers heavily control the experimental environment, minimizing alternative explanations and factors for the results. This way, the null hypothesis being disconfirmed means that the hypothesis is strongly supported.
While the scientific method is heavily relied upon for scientific research, it can also be used in one’s everyday life. In fact, many individuals could benefit by applying the scientific method more often in everyday decisions. Too often individuals seek only evidence that fails to disconfirm their statements and beliefs. Better would be for individuals to seek to rule out all other explanations that are contrary to one’s statements and beliefs, while seeking confirming evidence. Even when it comes to making simply decisions, the scientific method can highly benefit individuals. For example, observing that there is standing water on the kitchen floor two morning in a row likely suggests that there is a problem. By seeking to disconfirm that the water is coming from a nearby sink or from the ceiling, one is very likely to quickly find out where the water is not coming from. Similarly, under the scientific method, individuals must develop at least one hypothesis and a corresponding null hypothesis. Framing the problem in this very direct and succinct way may also help one more quickly identify the source of the leak.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Scientific Method in Research".
Having a fairly large apartment with a few roommates and the strong urge to keep this apartment clean, I must decide which products will do the best job cleaning and which of these solutions are most affordable. A relatively recent technological advancement in the cleaning industry is the automatic vacuuming and mopping robot. These robots purportedly can clean all floors in a house daily, effectively removing dirt and pet hair. However, there are mixed reviews of these cleaning robots online. Fortunately, there is a thirty day money back guarantee on a very affordable cleaning robot model that has earned relatively good reviews. If I try it out for thirty day and do not like it or think it does a good job, I can return it no questions asked. Thirty days is not a lot of time to effectively test out this automatic cleaning robot, especially given my business schedule over the next few months. But by relying on the scientific method and constructing relevant and well-formed hypotheses, I can objectively determine whether the self-vacuuming robot is worth its price tag.
The primary hypothesis for this determination concerns the vacuuming robot’s ability to pick up dog hair. The hypothesis is the following: the vacuuming robot will pick up 95% of the dog hair in a given area on one run through. This hypothesis addressing the primary concern of the problem, which is the presence of dog hair in the carpet, while likely being related to similar problems, such as the presence of dust and dirt in the carpet. Additionally, this hypothesis remains objective, in that it does not require subjective interpretation to test. This is much preferred to subjective measures and has been hypothesized in similar forms by other researchers (Rhim, Ryu, Park, & Lee, 2007). To test this hypothesis, three one square foot squares of carpet will be marked for investigation in three different parts of the apartment. Before the robot makes its first run, a lint roller will be run through each one square foot section individual, with the lint roller strips being replaced before the next run. After each run, the number of dog hairs on each lint sheet will be observed and recorded. After all three lent roller runs, the vacuuming robot will make a run through the entire apartment. Next, three different one square foot squares of carpet, which will be adjacent to the original three squares, will get rolled by the lent roller. The number of dog hairs on the lent roller sheets after each run will be recorded. Analyzing the results of this investigation will yield confirming or disconfirming evidence about the vacuuming robot’s ability to vacuum up pet hair.
This program would be a success if it yielded a conclusion, one way or the other, with high confidence. For example, if the number pet hairs collected on the lent roller sheets did not differ much, there would be strong evidence against the effectiveness of the vacuum to pick up 95% of the dog hair in carpet in one run. The hypothesis may need revision, such as that the vacuum only picks up 90% of dog hair on one run, depending on the results of the test.
- Brown, J. R., & Dant, R. P. (2008). Scientific method and retailing research: a retrospective. Journal of Retailing, 84(1), 1-13.
- Rhim, S., Ryu, J. C., Park, K. H., & Lee, S. G. (2007, June). Performance evaluation criteria for autonomous cleaning robots. In Computational Intelligence in Robotics and Automation, 2007. CIRA 2007. International Symposium on (pp. 167-172).
