How science works

[Scarface]

Can anyone explain, in their own words (no links), and as simply as possible, how the scientific process (method) works, including peer review. And if you can, explain the history of the scientific method.

[Shinylight]

Observe, theorise, test, conclusion. If it's wrong, start again.

Peer review is scientists reviewing things put forward by scientific peers.

As for the history, I really don't know.

[Scarface]

Theorise on what basis?

[chasm]

Theorise on what basis?

Your observations, duh. Didn't you ever take a science class?

[Scarface]

I wouldn't be asking if I had. Duh. So much for your observation skills, Einstein.

[chasm]

[Shinylight]

[Scarface]

[theVOID]

Scarface - The scientific method is just that, a methodology for investigating various phenomenon in the universe.

It is the accumulation of observed, measured and most importantly tested and independently verified data with a moderated application of reason and logic. The process (often) starts with a scientist formulating a hypothesis (an idea of how something may work). Through the structure of this hypothesis you can make certain predictions about what you would specifically expect to see in reality if the premise of the hypothesis is true - once this is established you can either run experiments and take measurements of relevant phenomenon to see if they comply, or see if some of the things that should not happen given the truth of the premise actually do happen (this is known as Falsifiability) - If you hypothesis is both confirmed by empirical evidence (observation, measurement etc) AND is not falsified (doesn't rule out things that actually happen), then it is submitted to a scientific journal in a relevant field so that the claims in the hypothesis can be tested. The hypothesis submitted contains every piece of data necessary for the peers to run your experiment as defined and see if the methodology is sound, and also a clear description of the reasoning behind the conclusion, which is also assessed for validity.

The scientific journal is a publication with a rigorous screening process, in order for the hypothesis to make it into the pages the paper is scrutinized throughly. Once it is found to be at least a reasonably well presented idea and has no flaws obvious to the journal editor, it is published upon which point the peers in the field at large are able to assess the paper - If no flaw is found the scientists will consider it a credible source, adding to the weight of the argument if this was related to a previously established idea, or initializing a new idea as something logical, supported and seemingly accurate. After the accumulation of sources for an idea become greater and greater, the chances of the underline proposition being true increase greatly and thus come to be commonly accepted - there are certain theories, such as Evolutionary Theory, that are so well supported that they virtually become considered fact (even though minute subcontained details are still up for question).

This is a very basic outlook, do some research if you want a better idea.

http://www.experiment-resources.com is a fucking good website for laying out the actual methodological practices in a way that isn't too hard to grasp.

[Tiberius]

Here you go: http://people.eku.edu/falkenbergs/scimethod.htm