# The scientific method

How the scientific method is used to test a hypothesis.

## Introduction

A biology investigation usually starts with an observation—that is, something that catches the biologist’s attention. For instance, a cancer biologist might notice that a certain kind of cancer can't be treated with chemotherapy and wonder why this is the case. A marine ecologist, seeing that the coral reefs of her field sites are bleaching—turning white—might set out to understand why.
How do biologists follow up on these observations? How can you follow up on your own observations of the natural world? In this article, we’ll walk through the scientific method, a logical problem-solving approach used by biologists and many other scientists.

## The scientific method

At the core of biology and other sciences lies a problem-solving approach called the scientific method. The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:
1. Make an observation.
3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
5. Test the prediction.
6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.
The scientific method is used in all sciences—including chemistry, physics, geology, and psychology. The scientists in these fields ask different questions and perform different tests. However, they use the same core approach to find answers that are logical and supported by evidence.

## Scientific method example: Failure to toast

Let's build some intuition for the scientific method by applying its steps to a practical problem from everyday life.

### 1. Make an observation.

Let's suppose that you get two slices of bread, put them into the toaster, and press the button. However, your bread does not toast.
1. Observation: the toaster won't toast.

Why didn't my bread get toasted?
1. Question: Why won't my toaster toast?

### 3. Propose a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is a potential answer to the question, one that can somehow be tested. For example, our hypothesis in this case could be that the toast didn't toast because the electrical outlet is broken.
1. Hypothesis: Maybe the outlet is broken.
This hypothesis is not necessarily the right explanation. Instead, it's a possible explanation that we can test to see if it is likely correct, or if we need to make a new hypothesis.
A hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable in order to be valid. For example, “Botticelli’s Birth of Venus is beautiful" is not a good hypothesis, because there is no experiment that could test this statement and show it to be false.
However, "People find Boticelli's Birth of Venus to be beautiful" is falsifiable, because you could conduct an experiment in which you asked many people from different walks of life whether they thought the painting was beautiful. Notice that how we phrase a hypothesis can have a big impact on whether it is valid or not.
This question comes up a lot, particularly in reference to things like Darwin's theory of evolution. A theory is different from a hypothesis, though they're certainly related. A hypothesis is a potential answer to a relatively small, specific question. A theory, on the other hand, addresses a broader question and is supported by a large amount of data from multiple sources$^{1,2}$start superscript, 1, comma, 2, end superscript.
For example, "The toaster won't toast because the electrical outlet is broken" is a hypothesis, whereas "Electrical appliances need a source of electricity in order to run" is closer to a theory.

### 4. Make predictions.

A prediction is an outcome we'd expect to see if the hypothesis is correct. In this case, we might predict that if the electrical outlet is broken, then plugging the toaster into a different outlet should fix the problem.
1. Prediction: If I plug the toaster into a different outlet, then it will toast the bread.

### 5. Test the predictions.

To test the hypothesis, we need to make an observation or perform an experiment associated with the prediction. For instance, in this case, we would plug the toaster into a different outlet and see if it toasts.
1. Test of prediction: Plug the toaster into a different outlet and try again.
• If the toaster does toast, then the hypothesis is supported—likely correct.
• If the toaster doesn't toast, then the hypothesis is not supported—likely wrong.
The results of a test may either support or contradict—oppose—a hypothesis. Results that support a hypothesis can't conclusively prove that it's correct, but they do mean it's likely to be correct. On the other hand, if results contradict a hypothesis, that hypothesis is probably not correct. Unless there was a flaw in the test—a possibility we should always consider—a contradictory result means that we can discard the hypothesis and look for a new one.
Why is it that we can't conclusively prove a hypothesis? And can we actually disprove a hypothesis?
One key distinction here is between what's logically possible and what's practically possible. Logically speaking, it's impossible to prove a hypothesis, but possible to disprove one. Practically speaking, it's challenging to either prove or disprove a hypothesis beyond the slightest doubt.

### Logical possibility

As an example, suppose we have the hypothesis that all apples are red, and we test this hypothesis by examining a group of ten apples and seeing what color they are. If all ten apples are red, our hypothesis is supported, but it's not proven: if we looked at more apples, some of them might turn out to be green. On the other hand, if one of our ten apples is green, we have—in a world of perfect information and no error—disproven our hypothesis.

### Practical possibility

Practically speaking—"in real life"—it's still impossible to prove a hypothesis since it's not even logically possible to prove a hypothesis. However, in real life scenarios, it also becomes difficult to disprove a hypothesis beyond any imaginable doubt.
For example, suppose that we examine our apples in the scenario above and find that one of them is green. If the green apple is bona fide, the hypothesis cannot be correct. However, it's possible that the apple is not actually green, in the sense we care about, and that we classified it as a green apple due to an error or a wrong assumption. For example, perhaps the green apple is a decorative apple that someone painted. Or maybe it's a red apple covered with green mold, which makes it look green on first examination.

### Building a body of evidence

In a sense, we can never conclusively disprove the hypothesis that all apples are red in the real world because we can't exclude the tiny possibility of some kind of error, bad assumption, or bizarre coincidence.
However, suppose that we carefully investigate every alternative explanation we can think of—painted apples, moldy apples, etc.—and don't find support for any of them. In addition, let's say we repeat our experiment by looking at a much larger number of apples, and we find a consistent fraction of green ones. Additionally, people on neighboring farms report that they routinely see green apples as well.
In this case, although our hypothesis that all apples are red may not be disproven beyond all imaginable doubt, it is so strongly contradicted as to be effectively disproven. In other words, no one is likely to consider it correct, design experiments around it, or base assumptions on it.
Acknowledgements: The apple example of hypothesis testing comes from KA Guardian Andrew M., who used it in an explanation in the comments section of this article. Many thanks to Andrew M. and other readers for their thoughtful discussion of hypotheses, proof, and disproof, which led to the revision and expansion of this section.

### 6. Iterate.

The last step of the scientific method is to reflect on our results and use them to guide our next steps.
And the result is:
Left panel: My bread toasts! Hypothesis is supported. Right panel: My bread still won't toast. Hypothesis is not supported.
1. Iteration time!
Left panel (in case of hypothesis being supported): But what is actually wrong with the outlet? Right panel (in case of hypothesis not being supported): Hmm...maybe there is a broken wire in the toaster.
• If the hypothesis was supported, we might do additional tests to confirm it, or revise it to be more specific. For instance, we might investigate why the outlet is broken.
• If the hypothesis was not supported, we would come up with a new hypothesis. For instance, the next hypothesis might be that there's a broken wire in the toaster.
In most cases, the scientific method is an iterative process. In other words, it's a cycle rather than a straight line. The result of one go-round becomes feedback that improves the next round of question asking.

## How is the scientific method used by biologists?

This article uses a practical example to show how the scientific method works. However, you may be curious about how the scientific method is used in actual biology research. If so, check out the next article!
Controlled experiments: Learn how controlled experiments are used for hypothesis testing and what the alternatives are if an experiment isn't possible. See an example on coral bleaching!

## Works cited

1. "Definitions of fact, theory, and law in scientific work." National Center for Science Education. October 17, 2008. http://ncse.com/evolution/education/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work.
"Science at multiple levels." Understanding cience. Accessed October 23, 2016. http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_19.9.

"Definitions of fact, theory, and law in scientific work." National Center for Science Education. October 17, 2008. http://ncse.com/evolution/education/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work.
Purves, W. K., D. E. Sadava, G. H. Orians, and H. C. Heller. "Biology is a science." In Life: The science of biology, 10-13. 7th ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2003.
Raven, P. H., G.B. Johnson, K. A. Mason, J. B. Losos, and S. R. Singer. "Science practice 3: Questioning scientifically." In Biology, 9. 10th ed. AP ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2014.
Reece, J. B., L. A. Urry, M. L. Cain, S. A. Wasserman, P. V. Minorsky, and R. B. Jackson. "In studying nature, scientists make observations and form and test hypotheses." In Campbell biology, 16-21. 10th ed. San Francisco, CA: Pearson, 2011.
"Science at multiple levels." Understanding Science. Accessed October 23, 2016. http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_19.
"What are independent and dependent variables?" National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/nceskids/help/user_guide/graph/variables.asp.
Why can't a hypothesis be definitively dis-proven? I understand why you can never conclusively prove a hypothesis, but rather, just acquire more and more evidence for it. But it seems, citing the example above, if one's hypothesis for a car not starting is the vehicle is out of gas, and in fact the tank is full of gas, then that hypothesis has been definitively dis-proven.
Edit 1: Note above in the lesson under heading 5. "Testing the predictions" it offers an explanation to "Why can't a
Hypotheses are more disprovable than they are provable. If you get a piece of evidence that contradicts your hypothesis, you can reject the hypothesis, barring experimental error or incorrect assumptions about the system. The same wouldn't be true if you got a piece of evidence that supported your hypothesis, because it would remain possible that your hypothesis was not correct and you simply needed to test it more thoroughly or with a larger sample.

The potential for experimental error and
If we observe and get no solution, what would be the point of scientific method?
The Scientific Method gives us an orderly method to observe a phenomenon, formulate a question and a hypothesis to answer the question, and a methodology to test the hypothesis. After testing the hypothesis we discover if the hypothesis is true or not, and if not true, then a new hypothesis can be formed and tested with the ultimate goal of answering the original question. Most often, the first hypothesis is found to NOT be correct, but the experiment to test the hypothesis provides more data
1 Comment
Is there anything called scientific fact?For example,the shape of the earth is geo-spherical.Is there any scientist who would disagree to that?Not every single scientist in the world would agree with the theory of evolution.In the beginning,scientists thought big bang is just a theory,but now it's an established scientific fact.What exactly is the difference between a scientific fact and a scientific theory?
Of course there are facts, but it is a mistake to compare them to theory as though a fact is "better" than a theory. A fact is an observation that we make. A theory is a coherent explanation of the facts. The word theory in science does not have the meaning that it has when people use it in ordinary conversation to suggest something tentative. That the earth is round is a fact (an observation), not a theory (an explanation of the observed facts). Gravity is theory. Atoms are a theory.
a hypothesis is supported (likely correct), a theory has lots of evidence to support it. What then Makes a theory become a LAW. Such as the Law of Gravity? Only difference i see is a law has a mathematical proof. Is this a correct assumption? or what Constitutes a law?
Theories don't become laws. Here is a good resource for defining how these scientific concepts relate: http://ncse.com/evolution/education/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work
I just wanted to ask how can you use the scientific method to figure out the gravity and outer space?
This is a REALLY great question.
come up with a theory "it must have something to do with the earths orbit around the sun."
Design an experiment... There is a reason I am not going into astronomy... I don't know how you would test this... Except by finding out what the gravitational pull is from different planets in the solar system. Venus, which is almost the same size, and is close to the earth, still does not have the same, or near the same gravitational pull. So
Is there a way to both prove and disprove a hypothesis? Say....you had a hypothesis on....er.....the way the world spins or something. You had proof.....and you also didn't (in the terms that you read a book that supports your hypothesis, however, your colleagues or something see what you think proves your hypothesis actually doesn't, because they visualize or read a part in that book differently.). So..............am I just making stuff up here or could this be an actual situation/is proven\
You're making stuff up :-) A statement is either true or it is false. You can prove that a hypothesis is false by presenting counter evidence, but you cannot prove that a hypothesis is true simply because you have not heard of a counter example.
I thought a hypothesis was an "if, then" statement, and not a prediction?
1 Comment
Well, you could consider it to be both. If you say, "If I do X then Y will happen" you are predicting what will happen if you do something.
How is DNA created?
DNA is made of building blocks called nucleotides. These building blocks are made of three parts: a phosphate group, a sugar group and one of four types of nitrogen bases (adenine, thymine, guanine, & cytosine). To form a strand of DNA, nucleotides are linked into chains, with the phosphate and sugar groups alternating. When DNA replicates, it separates into 2 strands and then nitrogenous bases on the original strands code for the arrangement of nucleotides in the new strands based on the
This was an Intresting topic but how does the parasite enter the frog does it eat its way through the skin or inject itself or what?
They probably enter through the mouth/gills or some opening.
If you can't really disapprove a hypothesis the why do teachers always say you need more evidence? Is that not disapproving?
You can, and, if you become a scientist, you should disprove a hypothesis or even theory. Because they can be. You cannot however PROVE either of them. Every theory and hypothesis is simply "not disproven" There is no such thing as a proven anything in science. The scientific method is a process developed to provide explanation for observable facts. Over time facts have become more definable because of the method, i.e.: old question, "Why is the sky blue?", new question, "Why does the