Geology Reference
In-Depth Information
ing. Often a scientist will find that the patterns in their data bring up new questions for
exploration.
If an experiment is designed well, the outcome (and collected data) should
clearly prove or disprove the initial hypothesis. It is much easier and more com-
mon for a scientist to prove a hypothesis wrong than to prove it right. Finding that
the hypothesis is incorrect is a very important step toward eventually finding an
answer to larger questions that are being asked — and toward determining which
hypothesis to test next.
The challenge at this stage is applying previous knowledge (perhaps from previous ex-
periments) to understand what the patterns in the data — or the relationships between
variables — mean. Rather than finding answers to all the questions, scientists often find
themselves asking new questions and circling back to the hypothesis stage, preparing to
test another hypothesis.
Sharing the findings
When a scientist has completed experiments, analyzed data, and interpreted the results,
he must share his findings and ideas with other scientists. Commonly this step is done
through scientific journals that are
peer-reviewed,
meaning that other qualified and re-
spected scientists have examined the experimental design and procedure, perhaps
tested it themselves, and determined that the results and interpretation are reasonable.
The peer-review step is very important. The process of having other knowledgeable sci-
entists — other specialists in a particular topic — double-check the work helps find any
errors. Errors may lead to false results or incorrect interpretations. Having more than
one eye look for errors reduces the potential for moving forward on such false assump-
tions.
The End-All, Be-All: A Scientific Theory
The goal of scientific study is to better understand the world. Step by step, information
is collected until a broader or deeper understanding is gained. Eventually, this under-
standing may be expressed as a
scientific theory.
