is the scientific the only true method of validating a hypothesis?

Question

I am writing an essay on critical thinking and I am using this set of sentences.

When a scientist undergoes the process of validating a theory or hypothesis, they use the scientific method, which is really a systematic method of critical thinking, because a hypothesis that is not reinforced by this system of trial and error, is not, in modern times, a valid and true hypothesis. Ergo, a scientist that lacks this valuable trait cannot truly progress science. Without questioning or validating an existing fact, we will never progress, because, as stated above, the scientific is the only true method of validating a hypothesis, and the first step of this process is questioning.

The scientific method, in the most basic of terms, just trial and error.

Answer 1

The second half of your first paragraph is just a mashup of the first half. Rewrite it with new thoughts.



Also, minimize the obvious straining for creative writing credit, such as 'ergo,' 'in modern times,' and 'progress' as a verb.



The scientific method is simply this: "a method or procedure...consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." --The Oxford English Dictionary via Wikipedia. Trial and error, on the other hand, is an unstructured method of learning--it is not really an element of the scientific method. Critical thinking, however, is an essential element in the development, testing, and improvement of hypotheses.



You're off to a decent start, and you just need a bit more meat in your argument.

Answer 2

Well, from a broad look at the question, there are experimental studies and uncontrolled observational studies. Both of these are useful depending on what the situation is and what the scientist is able to do (due to ethics and other issues). In an observational study you are only able to find correlations while in a experimental study you may also find causation. It's important to know that correlation does not imply causation. Therefore, experimental studies may be considered more useful.



Scientist today mostly use the scientific method today because of the success this method has had in the past. However, why the scientific method has been so successful is a difficult question to answer. This may even be more of a philosophical question than a scientific question. Just google "philosophy of science." Unfortunately this starts to get pretty confusing and its one of those questions that seems to lead to even more questions. It may also be helpful to google "scientific realism", "logical positivism", "constructive empiricism", and "instrumentalism".



Finally, I know there is also a debate over what is a good hypothesis (which is part of the scientific method, but don't know if you want to include this in your essay). Fore example, as you mentioned it may be important that the hypothesis is testable. This is a big issue with string theory. There are also many other ideas like how a good hypothesis should be easily falsifiable. Sorry I couldn't give you a simpler answer. This is actually a pretty complicated question if you get into it. However, this should at least be enough information for you to pick through and decide what you want in your essay. Obviously you probably don't need to go into that much depth. It also may be beneficial to ask this question in the philosophy section. I can't guarantee you'll get a good answer but its worth a shot. Hope this helps.

Answer 3

The scientific method is not just trial and error...it is educated trial and error.



I sub in the schools, and I've seen this chart about the scientific method



so many times it makes me sick. Ever see the movie "Dead Poet's Society"



with Robin Williams? Trying to force poetry into a straight-jacket doesn't



work, and neither does it for the scientific method.



I don't know if I've ever followed those steps in that particular order!



The scientific method involves observing something in your field (chemistry,



biology, whatever) and realizing there's something there you can't explain. So



you devise an experiment to test ...usually prove or disprove...your working



hypothesis. Once the experiment is done, you evaluate the results and ask



yourself if you've really accomplished what you set out to do, or not. If you did,



you may try it from a different angle, just to be sure your result wasn't a fluke.



If it didn't, same thing...although you may have some idea what's really going



on in your system. The more you learn about it, the more definite the experiment.



Occasionally, some new piece of data may knock down the house of cards you've been



building, but that's just part of the process, You learn more from each experiment.