The "Scientific Method":
The concept of the scientific method as told to most students is rather far from
the way in which real science is done by real people. There is no formulaic
method that scientists follow to magically produce scientific results as if there
was some cookbook approach to science – follow the recipe and bake a
scientific cake. At its core the scientific method is a process that a) objectively
investigates a phenomenon and b) attempts to produce a consistent explanation
for the observations. The two key word in the above description are
objectively and consistent.
Science begins with an objective observation which is generally more difficult
to achieve than is appreciated because of prior experiences and/or biases. For
instance, when an adult looks at door, they see a door because their prior
experienced has identified that object as a door. When a 2 year old looks at a
door, they observe to be a rectangular object with a shiny thing on it. In other
words, the adult has not observed the door; they have instead, interpreted the
object as a door based on prior experience. The 2 year old, however, has made
a genuine observation (even though they can not readily communicate that
observation). So one needs to be aware of the important difference between
observation and interpretation as they relate to scientific inquiry.
The second point about consistency is even more important. Science/ the
scientific method is not a pathway to the TRUTH. Rather it is a methodology,
which usually maps our more that is unknown about a subject, than ever
becomes known about that subject. The best that science can ever do is to
provide consistency between observations and experiments and some theory
that describes the subject. Scientific knowledge is therefore imprecise, it can
never provide a complete explanation of our observations (and we should
never expect it to!).
One advantage of astronomy is that it represents a field or vehicle in which the
scientific method can be more properly communicated to students because,
unlike other physical sciences, there are no real experiments that can be done.
We are fixed here, on the Earth, and can therefore only observe what the
Universe sends us as its information (e.g. light) and from those observations
we have to develop consistent theories.
The basic components of the method can be summarized as follows:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.




2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, which is consistent
with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions. This is a key part of the
process because it allows one to more forward.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and
modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory
and experiment and/or observation.
To better visualize these steps refer to this:=
http://homework.uoregon.edu/pub/class/astr122/1a.pps Powerpoint
visualization of the above process.
Now, rather than memorizing those steps, without really having any
understanding of what they entail, students in this class, as a matter of course,
well actually be engaged in all these steps. The great advantage of the
scientific method is that it, in principle, it is unbiased and theory goes where the
data leads.
A theory is accepted not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the
proponent, but on the results obtained through observations and/or experiments
which are verifiable and reproducible - the results obtained using the scientific
method are repeatable. In fact, most experiments and observations are repeated
many times. An acceptable theory is one that provides a consistent explanation,
without anomalies. But it is also clear that when more precise observations,
enabled by new technology, are applied to the theory, inconsistencies usually
arise because now the observations are able to probe and test the theory at
deeper levels. The best example of this is the demonstration that Newton’s
theory of gravity was imprecise and new observations showed. These new
observations (like the precession of the orbit of Mercury) remained mysterious
until a more complete theory of gravity was developed by Einstein. The recent
observations that suggest the presence of another long range force in the
Universe (the accelerating Universe) then provide us another example where
Einstein’s theory is incomplete. This is how science progresses.
When studying the cosmos we cannot perform experiments; all information is
obtained from observations and measurements. Theories are then devised by
extracting some regularity in the observations and coding this into physical
laws. Through simulations, we will engage in this methodology, as a basic part
of the course. One of the goals of this course is to help you attain science
literacy and to understand and appreciate science as a discovery process. No
one is right initially and all theories are subject to modification pending more
accurate and precise observations. Unfortunately, as illustrated, human ego can
get in the way of the objective scientific process. But there are other, most
subtle factors at work here as well:
 Even though one might identify the kind of problem that needs
investigation (e.g. how to stars shine; does the earth go around the sun?)
it is often unclear what kinds of observations and/or data need to be
collected to best address the problem.
 A more serious limitation (which occurs frequently in astronomy) is that
the instrumental precision required to make a definitive observation
doesn’t exist and therefore your measurements or observations are not
précised enough to really test anything. In addition all
instruments/detectors have noise associated with them and therefore one
must understand how their instrument works in order to more properly
determine the reliability of the data. This point will become clearer in
the good cop/bad cop assignment which is upcoming.
 Finally, one must be sure that one is measuring a representative sample
of the phenomena. Since we can’t go in the Universe to find our sample,
this could be a problem. For instance, 100 years ago when detectors
were far more imprecise than now, only the very nearest stars could be
measured. What if those nearby stars were not representative of stars in
general (fortunately they are)? This would mean that we have measured
a biased sample and therefore have obtained results applicable only to
that sample and not to the general phenomena. As an example, consider
a race of aliens that want to measure the average height of humans
(possibly for invasion intel …_) – suppose they choose to land in the
Portland Trailblazer locker room and made their measurements! That
sample would be biased, their results would then be biased, and they
would not have an accurate measure of the average height of humans.
Sampling problems like this in astronomy can be quite severe and we
will touch more upon this when we get to stellar parallax.