← Back to catalogue
Research draft

scientific method

vr.tr.scientific-method · INF.KNW

Let an agent explain the scientific method by steps, variants, evidence quality and limits, and help evaluate claims.

Thing Registry Information and virtual systems

Research draft, second pass

A second pass drafted this model: the structure a model of this thing needs, and what is known about it in the world. The line under this one says how the second half was obtained - researched against sources, or recalled without web access, in which case nothing here was read anywhere and every claim is a lead to verify. Unreviewed either way.

written by Claude from model knowledge without web access - no source was read, every claim is a lead to verify

Researched by: Claude

Purpose and description

Let an agent explain the scientific method by steps, variants, evidence quality and limits, and help evaluate claims.

A systematic approach to building knowledge through observation, forming hypotheses, making predictions, testing them by experiment or observation, and revising theories, with controls, replication and peer review.

What it is for: Producing reliable, testable knowledge.

It can be design a fair test; evaluate study quality; distinguish science from pseudoscience; teach scientific thinking.

Distinguishing features

Testable claims

Controls and replication

Open to revision

Not a single fixed recipe

What it looks like

Hypotheses, experiments, data, analyses and publications.

How it is recognised

Hypothesis, prediction, test, conclusion

Controls and blinding such as sham comparators

Methods vary by field

Related models

is a kind of - category

scholarly method

is used by - practice

science

produces - output

evidence

is related to - reasoning

inference

In practice

Families and kinds

hypothetico-deductive method

experimental method with controls

observational and field methods

computational and modelling methods

meta-analysis and systematic review

Standards and regulation

Research integrity codes

Reporting guidelines such as CONSORT and PRISMA

Research ethics review

Failure modes and hazards

Confirmation bias

p-hacking and selective reporting

Overclaiming from single studies

Also called

sham comparatorCelsius temperature scaleresearch toolhealth impact assessmentmicroscopic techniquehypothetico-deductive modelsequence analysismedical methodmaterials testingsocial science methodologyrandomized experimentdiatom analysistriangulationmethodological pluralismarcheological methoddactyloscopygeothermobarometryConfirmationlaboratory studyplot samplingisogenic human disease modelsphenomenologypsychology research methodradiometric datinglinguistic reconstructionBaconian methodassessment methodwell loggingsurveillance research methodOHERICAdS/QCD correspondenceaxiomatic methodchoice modelingExperience sampling methodexpert elicitationgenetic analysismethod of detecting extrasolar planetsonline research methodspecific absorption rate over 1g tissue as applicable to the headspecific absorption rate over 1g tissue as applicable to the body

+66

Where this came from

wikidata · CC0 1.0

Source repository Registry entry point

Drafted structure

Bundle to layer to finding to question, as the second pass will find it: 4 bundles · 8 layers · 8 findings · 16 questions.

Steps How it works.

Steps structure inquiry.

Hypothesis

Testable claim.

Hypothesis

Hypothesis.

  1. Is the hypothesis testable and falsifiable? boundary
  2. What prediction follows? definition

Test

Experiment or observation.

Test

Testing.

  1. How is the prediction tested, with which controls? definition
  2. How large is the sample? measurement
Quality Evidence strength.

Quality varies.

Design

Controls and blinding.

Design

Study design.

  1. Does the design control for bias, for example with randomisation or blinding? boundary
  2. Was it preregistered? provenance

Replication

Confirmation.

Replication

Replication.

  1. Has the result been replicated independently? provenance
  2. Is there a systematic review? provenance
Evaluation Claims.

Claims need checking.

Claims

Science or not.

Claims

Evaluating claims.

  1. Is a claim based on scientific method or on anecdote? boundary
  2. What evidence supports it? provenance

Uncertainty

Limits.

Uncertainty

Uncertainty.

  1. What are the limits and uncertainties? boundary
  2. Are they reported? provenance
Teaching Learning.

Scientific thinking can be taught.

Fair test

Activities.

Fair test

Fair tests.

  1. How can a fair test be designed at school? action
  2. Which variables are controlled? definition

Variants

Across fields.

Variants

Field variants.

  1. How does the method differ across fields? definition
  2. Is there one scientific method? boundary

What the second pass must settle

  • Should method variants be separate entries?
  • How should reporting guidelines be linked?
  • How should field differences be recorded?
Draft as JSON