Scientists
in many different fields have used the scientific method for hundreds of years
to guide experiments. It has been a method that has been able to determine
facts and theories about elements in our world today. The scientific method as
published by sciencebuddies.org is as follows:
2. Do background research
3. Construct a hypothesis
4. Test the hypothesis through an experiment
5. Analyze the data and draw a conclusion
6. Communicate your results
I
want to further understand the scientific method as it is used today in
scientific research. Therefore, I interviewed Dr. Patrick Holt of Bellarmine
University about the scientific method. I wanted to know the opinion of a
current practicing scientist’s view of the scientific method. I was able to get
catch up with Dr. Holt where I asked him some simple questions about his
research as a practicing scientist. I asked him how he performs experiments,
the steps he takes and if there are any differences to the scientific method I
have listed compared to his version of the scientific method.
Dr.
Holt works mostly with physical chemistry and the chemical systems,
specifically molecules and how they react when they are energized by light. In
developing an experiment he uses such steps as the following:
2. Design the experiment.
3. Perform the experiment.
4. Analyze the data collected and draw preliminary conclusions.
5. Design additional experiments to change the parameters of conditions of the molecules in order to collect more complete conclusions of the molecules behavior.
6. Develop a preliminary theory, after the experiments are done, of your observations.
In
Dr. Holt’s experiments of the effects of light energy on molecules and other
experiments he may perform, he does not follow the scientific method exactly to
how it is stated in sciencebuddies.org. He is able to create a simpler more
adapted version of the scientific method that fits to what he intends to get
out of an experiment. In consideration
to the scientific method I provided earlier, Dr. Holt informed me that he
simply skips over the hypothesis aspect of the scientific method. Why is that? The
work that is done within an experiment does not need to have an official
hypothesis. This is because, as Dr. Holt states, the outcome of an experiment
could simply be an idea that lies in the “back of your head.” The aspect of
developing a hypothesis would be the biggest difference from Dr. Holt’s method
compared to the scientific method I have posted above. The hypothesis has
almost become a lost cause among many scientists today, like Dr. Holt. In a way
scientists are more adept to asking questions and developing an experiment so
that they may create a theory about what they have observed from the
experiment’s conclusions. In some ways hypotheses are not necessarily needed.
Some of the great discoveries, such as nylon and mold, have been accidental
discoveries, which show how unexpected the conclusions can be in an experiment.
