Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge.
It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning, the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge.
Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these hypotheses for accuracy.
These steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results.
Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure.
This in turn may assist in the formation of new hypotheses, as well as in placing groups of hypotheses into a broader context of understanding.
DIUNDUH DARI: http://explorable.com/research-methodology

RELIABILITAS DATA
Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results.
Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so it is available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them.
This practice, called "full disclosure", also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.
Scientific Method:
Scientific arguments of logic basically take on four possible forms; 1) the pure method of deduction, where some conclusion is drawn from a set of propositions
(i.e. pure logic), 2) the method of induction, where one draws general conclusions from particular facts that appear to serve as evidence, 3) by probability, which passes from frequencies within a known domain to conclusions of stated likelihood, and 4) by statistical reasoning, which concludes that, on the average, a certain percentage of a set of entities will satisfy the stated conditions.
Diunduh dari: http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/lectures/science/index.html

There are multiple ways of outlining the basic method shared by all of the fields of scientific inquiry.
The following examples are typical classifications of the most important components of the method on which there is very wide agreement in the scientific community and among philosophers of science, each of which are subject only to marginal disagreements about a few very specific aspects.
The scientific method has four steps:
Observation/experimentation
Deduction
Hypothesis
Falsification
Diunduh dari: http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/lectures/science/index.html

Observation. A constant feature of scientific inquiry, observation includes both unconditioned observations (prior to any theory) as well as the observation of the experiment and its results.
Description. Information derived from experiments must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable), as well as valid
(relevant to the inquiry).
Prediction. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.
Diunduh dari: http://www.kahome.co.uk/scien.htm

Identification of the causes of a particular phenomenon to the best achievable extent. For cause-andeffect relationship to be established, the following must be established:
The identification of the cause or causes of a phenomenon, by establishing covariation of cause and effect, a time-order relationship with the cause preceding the effect, and the elimination of plausible alternative causes.
Time-order relationship. The hypothesized causes must precede the observed effects in time.
An approach to knowledge that emphasizes empirical rather than intuitive processes, testable hypotheses, systematic and controlled observation of operationally defined phenomena, data collection using accurate and precise instrumentation, valid and reliable measures, and objective reporting of results; scientists tend to be critical and, most importantly, skeptical.
Covariation of events. The hypothesized causes must correlate with observed effects.
However, correlations between events or variables are not necessarily indicative of causation.
A logically organized set of propositions which serves to define events, describe relationships among events, and explain the occurrence of these events; scientific theories guide research and organize empirical knowledge.
Diunduh dari: http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/psychology/shaugh/ch01_concepts.html

This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them.: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to
disproof.
Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative.
As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.
Goals of the Scientific Method
1.
The scientific method is intended to meet three goals: description, prediction, and understanding.
2.
Psychologists seek to describe events and relationships between variables; most often, researchers use the nomothetic approach and quantitative analysis.
3.
Correlational relationships allow psychologists to predict behavior or events, but do not allow psychologists to infer what causes these relationships.
4.
Psychologists understand the cause of a phenomenon when the three conditions for causal inferences are met: covariation, time-order relationship, and elimination of plausible alternative causes.
5.
The experimental method, in which researchers manipulate independent variables to determine their effect on dependent variables, establishes time-order and allows for a clearer determination of covariation.
6.
Plausible alternative causes for a relationship are eliminated if there are no confoundings in a study; a study free of confoundings has internal validity.
7.
External validity refers to the extent to which a study's findings may be used to describe different populations, settings, and conditions.
Diunduh dari: http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/psychology/shaugh/ch01_concepts.html

Scientific and Nonscientific Approaches to Knowledge
Another simplified model sometimes utilized to summarize scientific method is the "operational":
The essential elements of a scientific method are operations, observations, models, and a utility function for evaluating models.
Operation - Some action done to the system being investigated
Observation - What happens when the operation is done to the system
Model - A fact , hypothesis, theory , or the phenomenon itself at a certain moment
Utility Function - A measure of the usefulness of the model to explain, predict, and control, and of the cost of use of it
1.
The scientific method is empirical and requires systematic, controlled observation.
2.
To achieve control in a research situation, researchers manipulate independent variables or select levels of individual differences variables to determine their effect on behavior.
3.
Dependent variables are measures of behavior used to assess the effects of independent variables.
4.
Scientific reporting is unbiased and objective; clear communication of concepts occurs when operational definitions are used.
5.
Scientific instruments are accurate and precise; physical and psychological measurement should be valid and reliable.
6.
A hypothesis is a tentative explanation for a phenomenon; testable hypotheses have clearly defined concepts
(operational definitions), are not circular, and refer to concepts that can be observed.
7.
Scientists adopt a skeptical attitude and are cautious about accepting explanations until sufficient empirical evidence is obtained.
Diunduh dari: http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/psychology/shaugh/ch01_concepts.html

One of the elements of any scientific utility function is the refutability of the model.
Another is its simplicity, on the Principle of
Parsimony also known as Occam's Razor.
The following is a more thorough description of the method.
This set of methodological elements and organization of procedures will in general tend to be more characteristic of natural sciences and experimental psychology than of disciplines commonly categorized as social sciences.
Among the latter, methods of verification and testing of hypotheses may involve less stringent mathematical and statistical interpretations of these elements within the respective disciplines. Nonetheless the cycle of hypothesis, verification and formulation of new hypotheses will tend to resemble the basic cycle described below.
In science, a model is a representation of an idea, an object or even a process or a system that is used to describe and explain phenomena that cannot be experienced directly. Models are central to what scientists do, both in their research as well as when communicating their explanations.
are a mentally visual way of linking theory with experiment, and they guide research by being simplified representations of an imagined reality that enable predictions to be developed and tested by experiment.
Diunduh dari: http://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/Contexts/The-
Noisy-Reef/Science-Ideas-and-Concepts/Scientific-modelling

The essential elements of a scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleavings, and orderings of the following:
1.
Characterizations
(Quantifications, observations, and measurements)
2.
Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements)
3.
Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from hypothesis and theory)
4.
Experiments (tests of all of the above)
Diunduh dari: http://www.ukdrn.org/lrn/nec/public.aspx

Imre Lakatos and Thomas Kuhn had done extensive work on the "theory laden" character of observation.
Kuhn (1961) maintained that the scientist generally has a theory in mind before designing and undertaking
experiments so as to make empirical observations, and that the "route from theory to measurement can almost never be traveled backward".
This perspective implies that the way in which theory is tested is dictated by the nature of the theory itself, which led Kuhn (1961) to argue that
"once it has been adopted by a profession ... no theory is recognized to be testable by any quantitative tests that it has not already passed".
Empirical : Relying on or derived from observation or experiment.
The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2005 by
Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company .
1.
Derived from or relating to experiment and observation rather than theory
2.
(Medicine) (of medical treatment) based on practical experience rather than scientific proof
3.
(Philosophy) Philosophy: a. (of knowledge) derived from experience rather than by logic from first principles Compare a priori, a posteriori b. (of a proposition) subject, at least theoretically, to verification Compare analytic – synthetic
4. (Medicine) of or relating to medical quackery
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged ©
HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

Each element of the scientific method is subject to peer review for possible mistakes.
These activities do not describe all that scientists do but apply mostly to experimental sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry).
The elements above are often taught in the educational system.
Peer review is the evaluation of creative work or performance by other people in the same field in order to maintain or enhance the quality of the work or performance in that field 1 .
It is based on the concept that a larger and more diverse group of people will usually find more weaknesses and errors in a work or performance and will be able to make a more impartial evaluation of it than will just the person or group responsible for creating the work or performance.
Peer review utilizes the independence, and in some cases the anonymity, of the reviewers in order to discourage cronyism (i.e., favoritism shown to relatives and friends) and obtain an unbiased evaluation. Typically, the reviewers are not selected from among the close colleagues, relatives or friends of the creator or performer of the work, and potential reviewers are required to disclose of any conflicts of interest.
Peer review helps maintain and enhance quality both directly by detecting weaknesses and errors in specific works and performance and indirectly by providing a basis for making decisions about rewards and punishment that can provide a powerful incentive to achieve excellence. These rewards and punishments are related to prestige, publication, research grants, employment, compensation, promotion, tenure and disciplinary action.
Peer review is used extensively in a variety of professional fields, including academic and scientific research, medicine, law, accounting and computer software development.
Diunduh dari: http://www.linfo.org/peer_review.html

Flow diagram describing the scientific method.
Further, it is an ongoing cycle, constantly developing more useful, accurate and comprehensive models and methods.
For example, when Einstein developed the
Special and General Theories of Relativity, he did not in any way refute or discount
Newton's Principia.
On the contrary, if one reduces out the astronomically large, the vanishingly small, and the extremely fast from Einstein's theories — all phenomena that Newton could not have observed — one is left with
Newton's equations.
Einstein's theories are expansions and refinements of Newton's theories, and the observations that increase our confidence in them also increase our confidence in
Newton's approximations to them.
Diunduh dari: http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html

A linearized, pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes offered as a guideline for proceeding:
1.
Define the question
2.
Gather information and resources
3.
Form hypothesis
4.
Perform experiment and collect data
5.
Analyze data
6.
Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses
7.
Publish results
The iterative cycle inherent in this stepby-step methodology goes from point 3 to 6 back to 3 again.
The scientific method is a method for conducting an objective investigation.
The scientific method involves making observations and conducting an experiment to test a hypothesis.
The number of steps of the scientific method isn't standard. Some texts and instructors break up the scientific method into more or fewer steps.
Some people start listing steps with the hypothesis, but since a hypothesis is based on observations
(even if they aren't formal), the hypothesis usually is considered to be the second step.
Here are the usual steps of the scientific method.
Diunduh dari: http://chemistry.about.com/od/sciencefairprojects/a/Scientific-Method-
Steps.htm

METODE ILMIAH depends upon increasingly more sophisticated characterizations of subjects of the investigation. (The subjects can also be called unsolved problems or the unknowns, MASALAH
PENELITIAN).
For example, Benjamin Franklin correctly characterized St. Elmo's fire as electrical in nature, but it has taken a long series of experiments and theory to establish this.
While seeking the pertinent properties of the subjects, this careful thought may also entail some definitions and observations; the observations often demand careful measurements and/or counting.
Scientific Method Steps
As more proof that there is no one way to "do" science, different sources describe the steps of the scientific method in different ways. Some list three steps, some four and some five.
Fundamentally, however, they incorporate the same concepts and principles.
Diunduh dari: http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientificexperiments/scientific-method6.htm

The systematic, careful collection of measurements or counts of relevant quantities is often the critical difference between pseudo-sciences, such as alchemy, and a science, such as chemistry or biology.
Scientific measurements taken are usually tabulated, graphed, or mapped, and statistical manipulations, such as correlation and regression , performed on them.
Measurement is the assignment of numbers to objects or events.
All measurements consist of three parts: magnitude, dimensions (units) and uncertainty.
They are used to make definitive comparisons between observations and reduce confusion. Even in cases of clear qualitative similarity or difference, increased precision through quantitative measurement is often preferred in order to aid in replication. For example, different colours may be reported based on wavelengths of light, instead of vague
(qualitative) terms such as "green" and "blue" which are often interpreted differently by different people. The science of measurement is called metrology.
The measurements might be made in a controlled setting, such as a laboratory, or made on more or less inaccessible or unmanipulatable objects such as stars or human populations.
The measurements often require specialized scientific instruments such as thermometers, spectroscopes, or voltmeters, and the progress of a scientific field is usually intimately tied to their invention and development.
Measurements are most commonly made in the SI system, which contains seven fundamental units: kilogram , metre , candela, second, ampere, kelvin, and mole. Six of these units are artifact-free (defined without reference to a particular physical object which serves as a standard); the definition of one remaining unit, the kilogram is still embodied in an artifact which rests at the BIPM outside Paris.
Eventually, it is hoped that new SI definitions will be uniformly artifact-free.
Diunduh dari: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement

Measurements in scientific work are also usually accompanied by estimates of their uncertainty.
The uncertainty is often estimated by making repeated measurements of the desired quantity.
Uncertainties may also be calculated by consideration of the uncertainties of the individual underlying quantities that are used.
Counts of things, such as the number of people in a nation at a particular time, may also have an uncertainty due to limitations of the method used.
Counts may only represent a sample of desired quantities, with an uncertainty that depends upon the sampling method used and the number of samples taken.
Uncertainty is a term used in subtly different ways in a number of fields, including physics, philosophy, statistics, economics, finance, insurance, psychology, sociology, engineering, and information science. It applies to predictions of future events, to physical measurements already made, or to the unknown.
1.
Uncertainty: The lack of certainty, A state of having limited knowledge where it is impossible to exactly describe the existing state, a future outcome, or more than one possible outcome.
2.
Measurement of Uncertainty: A set of possible states or outcomes where probabilities are assigned to each possible state or outcome – this also includes the application of a probability density function to continuous variables
3.
Risk: A state of uncertainty where some possible outcomes have an undesired effect or significant loss.
4.
Measurement of Risk: A set of measured uncertainties where some possible outcomes are losses, and the magnitudes of those losses – this also includes loss functions over continuous variables.
Diunduh dari: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty

Measurements demand the use of operational definitions of relevant quantities; DEFINISI
OPERASIONAL.
That is, a scientific quantity is described or defined by how it is measured, as opposed to some more vague, inexact or
"idealized" definition.
For example, electrical current, measured in amperes, may be operationally defined in terms of the mass of silver deposited in a certain time on an electrode in an electrochemical device that is described in some detail.
A definition is a statement that explains the meaning of a term (a word, phrase, or other set of symbols).
The term to be defined is the definiendum. The term may have many different senses and multiple meanings. For each meaning, a definiens is a cluster of words that defines that term (and clarifies the speaker's intention).
As an example: To successfully define the word "Vegan", the definiendum (the word "Vegan" itself) must be given a definiens (actually vegan has at least two definiens: One is
"someone who avoids using animal products", and another definiens is "someone from a place called Vega, Norway").
A definition will vary in aspects like precision or popularity (e.g. globally, the word "Vegan" rarely refers to the definiens "someone from Vega, Norway").
There are also different types of definitions with different purposes and focuses (e.g. intensional, extensional, descriptive, stipulative, and so on).
Diunduh dari: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition

The scientific definition of a term sometimes differs substantially from their natural language usage.
For example, mass and weight overlap in meaning in common discourse, but have distinct meanings in mechanics.
Scientific quantities are often characterized by their units of measure which can later be described in terms of conventional physical units when communicating the work.
AN OPERATIONAL DEFINITION , also called functional definition, defines something (e.g. a variable , term , or object) in terms of the specific process or set of validation tests used to determine its presence and quantity.
That is, one defines something in terms of the operations that
count as measuring it.
The term was coined in philosophy of science book The Logic
of Modern Physics (1927), by Percy Williams Bridgman, and is a part of the process of operationalization. One might use definitions that rely on operations in order to avoid the troubles associated with attempting to define things in terms of some intrinsic essence.
An example of an operational definition might be defining the weight of an object in terms of the numbers that appear when that object is placed on a weighing scale . The weight then, is whatever results from following the (weight) measurement
procedure, which should be repeatable by anyone. This is in contrast to operationalization that uses theoretical definitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_definition

A hypothesis is a suggested explanation of a phenomenon, or alternately a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between or among a set of phenomena.
Normally hypotheses have the form of a mathematical model.
Sometimes, but not always, they can also be formulated as existential statements, stating that some particular instance of the phenomenon being studied has some characteristic and causal explanations, which have the general form of universal statements, stating that every instance of the phenomenon has a particular characteristic.
Scientific Theory Construction and Testing
1. Theories, proposed explanations for the causes of behavior, vary in their scope and their level of explanation.
2. A scientific theory is a logically organized set of propositions that defines events, describes relationships among events, and explains the occurrence of events.
3. Successful scientific theories organize empirical knowledge, guide research by offering testable hypotheses, and survive rigorous testing.
4. Theories frequently posit intervening variables to explain observed behavior.
5. Researchers evaluate theories by judging the theory's internal consistency, observing whether hypothesized outcomes occur when the theory is tested, and noting whether the theory makes precise predictions based on parsimonious explanations.
Diunduh dari: http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/psychology/shaugh/ch01_concepts.html

Scientists are free to use whatever resources they have — their own creativity, ideas from other fields, induction, Bayesian inference, and so on — to imagine possible explanations for a phenomenon under study.
Charles Sanders Peirce, borrowing a page from Aristotle ( Prior Analytics , 2.25) described the incipient stages of inquiry , instigated by the "irritation of doubt" to venture a plausible guess, as abductive reasoning .
The history of science is filled with stories of scientists claiming a "flash of inspiration", or a hunch, which then motivated them to look for evidence to support or refute their idea.
Michael Polanyi made such creativity the centrepiece of his discussion of methodology.
Models have a variety of uses – from providing a way of explaining complex data to presenting as a hypothesis.
There may be more than one model proposed by scientists to explain or predict what might happen in particular circumstances. Often scientists will argue about the ‘rightness’ of their model, and in the process, the model will evolve or be rejected.
Consequently, models are central to the process of knowledge-building in science and demonstrate how science knowledge is tentative.
Diunduh dari: http://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/Contexts/The-
Noisy-Reef/Science-Ideas-and-Concepts/Scientific-modelling

William Glen observes that the success of a hypothesis, or its service to science, lies not simply in its perceived "truth", or power to displace, subsume or reduce a predecessor idea, but perhaps more in its ability to stimulate the research that will illuminate … bald suppositions and areas of vagueness.
In general scientists tend to look for theories that are "elegant" or
"beautiful".
In contrast to the usual English use of these terms, they here refer to a theory in accordance with the known facts, which is nevertheless relatively simple and easy to handle.
Occam's Razor serves as a rule of thumb for making these determinations.
WHAT'S A THEORY? WHAT'S A HYPOTHESIS?
The terms theory and hypothesis are often used interchangeably in everyday use. However, the difference between them in scholarly research is important, particularly when using an experimental design. A theory is a well-established principle that has been developed to explain some aspect of the natural world. Theories arise from repeated observation and testing and incorporates facts, laws, predictions, and tested hypotheses that are widely accepted
[e.g., rational choice theory; grounded theory].
A hypothesis is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in your study. For example, an experiment designed to look at the relationship between study habits and test anxiety might have a hypothesis that states, "We predict that students with better study habits will suffer less test anxiety." Unless your study is exploratory in nature, your hypothesis should always explain what you expect to happen during the course of your research.
The key distinctions are:
A theory predicts events in a broad, general context; a hypothesis makes a specific prediction about a specified set of circumstances.
A theory has been extensively tested and is generally accepted among scholars; a hypothesis is a speculative guess that has yet to be tested.
Diunduh dari: http://libguides.usc.edu/content.php?pid=83009&sid=618409

Scientists start with a small amount of data and build up a better and better representation of the phenomena they are explaining or using for prediction as time goes on. These days, many models are likely to be mathematical and are run on computers, rather than being a visual representation, but the principle is the same.
Diunduh dari: http://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/Contexts/The-Noisy-
Reef/Science-Ideas-and-Concepts/Scientific-modelling

It is essential that the outcome be currently unknown.
Only in this case does the eventuation increase the probability that the hypothesis be true.
If the outcome is already known, it's called a consequence and should have already been considered while formulating the hypothesis.
If the predictions are not accessible by observation or experience, the hypothesis is not yet useful for the method, and must wait for others who might come afterward, and perhaps rekindle its line of reasoning.
For example, a new technology or theory might make the necessary experiments feasible.
A SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS is the initial building block in the scientific method. Many describe it as an “educated guess,” based on prior knowledge and observation, as to the cause of a particular phenomenon. It is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that does not fit into current accepted scientific theory. A hypothesis is the inkling of an idea that can become a theory, which is the next step in the scientific method.
The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no pre-determined outcome.
For a hypothesis to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be something that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation.
A key function in this step in the scientific method is deriving predictions from the hypotheses about the results of future experiments, then performing those experiments to see whether they support the predictions.
The primary trait of a hypothesis is that something can be tested and that those tests can be replicated. A hypothesis, which is often in the form of an if/then statement, is often examined by multiple scientists to ensure the integrity and veracity of the experiment. This process can take years, and in many cases hypotheses do not become theories as it is difficult to gather sufficient supporting evidence.
Upon analysis of the results, a hypothesis can be rejected or modified, but it can never be proven to be correct 100 percent of the time. For example, relativity has been tested many times so it is generally accepted as true, but there could be an instance, which has not been encountered, where it is not true.
Most formal hypotheses consist of concepts that can be connected and their relationships tested. A group of hypotheses comes together to form a conceptual framework. As sufficient data and evidence are gathered to support a hypothesis, it becomes a working hypothesis, which is a milestone on the way to becoming a theory.
Diunduh dari: http://www.livescience.com/21490-what-is-a-scientific-hypothesisdefinition-of-hypothesis.html

Einstein's prediction (1907):
Light bends in a gravitational field
Einstein's theory of General
Relativity makes several specific predictions about the observable structure of space-time, such as a prediction that light bends in a gravitational field and that the amount of bending depends in a precise way on the strength of that gravitational field.
Arthur Eddington's observations made during a 1919 solar eclipse supported General Relativity rather than Newtonian gravitation.
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.
When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.
Diunduh dari: http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientifictheory-definition-of-theory.html

Once predictions are made, they can be tested by experiments.
If test results contradict predictions, then the hypotheses are called into question and explanations may be sought.
Sometimes experiments are conducted incorrectly and are at fault. If the results confirm the predictions, then the hypotheses are considered likely to be correct but might still be wrong and are subject to further testing.
Depending on the predictions, the experiments can have different shapes. It could be a classical experiment in a laboratory setting, a double-blind study or an archaeological excavation.
Even taking a plane from New York to
Paris is an experiment which tests the aerodynamical hypotheses used for constructing the plane.
What is an experiment? How is it different from other methods?
Purpose: to demonstrate causation, that A ---> B
– What are the requirements to demonstrate causality?
– Correlation
– Order. A must precede B.
– Control over other variables
– Extraneous variables and alternative explanations
– Definitions
– Examples
Diunduh dari: www.ssc.wisc.edu/.../expt.whi... - Amerika Serikat

Scientists assume an attitude of openness and accountability on the part of those conducting an experiment.
Detailed record keeping is essential, to aid in recording and reporting on the experimental results, and providing evidence of the effectiveness and integrity of the procedure.
They will also assist in reproducing the experimental results.
This tradition can be seen in the work of Hipparchus (190 BCE - 120
BCE), when determining a value for the precession of the Earth over
2100 years ago, and 1000 years before Al-Batani.

PENGUJIAN & PERBAIKAN
The scientific process is iterative.
At any stage it is possible that some consideration will lead the scientist to repeat an earlier part of the process.
Failure to develop an interesting hypothesis may lead a scientist to redefine the subject they are considering.
Failure of a hypothesis to produce interesting and testable predictions may lead to reconsideration of the hypothesis or of the definition of the subject.
Failure of the experiment to produce interesting results may lead the scientist to reconsidering the experimental method, the hypothesis or the definition of the subject.
In some situations, models are developed by scientists to try and predict things. The best example is climate change. Humans don’t know what effect they are having on the planet, but we do know a lot about carbon cycles, water cycles and weather. Using this information and an understanding of how these cycles interact, scientists are trying to figure out what might happen.
For example, they can use data to predict what the climate might be like in 20 years if we keep producing carbon dioxide at current rates – what might happen if we produce more carbon dioxide and what would happen if we produce less. The results are used to inform politicians about what could happen to the climate and what can be changed.
Diunduh dari: http://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/Contexts/The-
Noisy-Reef/Science-Ideas-and-Concepts/Scientific-modelling

Other scientists may start their own research and enter the process at any stage.
They might adopt the characterization and formulate their own hypothesis, or they might adopt the hypothesis and deduce their own predictions.
Often the experiment is not done by the person who made the prediction and the characterization is based on experiments done by someone else.
Published results of experiments can also serve as a hypothesis predicting their own reproducibility.
The scientific method
The essence of all good science lies in a process called "the scientific method." The scientific method uses objective experimentation to predict, verify, or refute, an assertion made by a theory. Based on the results of the experiment(s), the theory is modified. The processes involved with prediction, observation, verification (or refuting) are repeated, continually testing and modifying the theory until the theory fits all possible experimental observations. Then the theory is considered a scientific law.
Diunduh dari: http://www.tomatosphere.org/teacher-resources/teachers-guide/principalinvestigation/scientific-method.cfm

Science is a social enterprise, and scientific work tends to be accepted by the community when it has been confirmed.
Crucially, experimental and theoretical results must be reproduced by others within the science community.
Researchers have given their lives for this vision; Georg Wilhelm Richmann was killed by lightning (1753) when attempting to replicate the 1752 kite-flying experiment of Benjamin
Franklin.
A theory must include statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like
Newton’s theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently.
A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses . Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.
Theories are foundations for furthering scientific knowledge and for putting the information gathered to practical use. Scientists use theories to develop inventions or find a cure for a disease.
To protect against bad science and fraudulent data, government research granting agencies like NSF and science journals like Nature and
Science have a policy that researchers must archive their data and methods so other researchers can access it, test the data and methods and build on the research that has gone before.
A few theories do become laws, but theories and laws have separate and distinct roles in the scientific method. A theory is an explanation of an observed phenomenon, while a law is a description of an observed phenomenon .
Diunduh dari: http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theorydefinition-of-theory.html

Classical model
The classical model of scientific inquiry derives from Aristotle , who distinguished the forms of approximate and exact reasoning, set out the threefold scheme of abductive, deductive, and inductive inference, and also treated the compound forms such as reasoning by analogy.

Charles Peirce considered scientific inquiry to be a species of the genus
inquiry, which he defined as any means of fixing belief, that is, any means of arriving at a settled opinion on a matter in question.
He observed that inquiry in general begins with a state of uncertainty and moves toward a state of certainty, sufficient at least to terminate the inquiry for the time being.
He graded the prevalent forms of inquiry according to their evident success in achieving their common objective, scoring scientific inquiry at the high end of this scale.
refers to those accounts, definitions, and theories of the concept
truth that distinguish the philosophies of pragmatism and pragmaticism.
The conception of truth in question varies along lines that reflect the influence of several thinkers, initially and notably, Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey, but a number of common features can be identified.
The most characteristic features are (1) a reliance on the pragmatic maxim as a means of clarifying the meanings of difficult concepts, truth in particular, and
(2) an emphasis on the fact that the product variously branded as belief, certainty, knowledge, or truth is the result of a process, namely, inquiry.
Diunduh dari: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_theory_of_truth

At the low end he placed what he called the method of
tenacity, a die-hard attempt to deny uncertainty and fixate on a favored belief.
Next in line he placed the
method of authority, a determined attempt to conform to a chosen source of ready-made beliefs.
After that he placed what might be called the method of
congruity, also called the a
priori, the dilettante, or the what is agreeable to reason method.
Theories are formulated to explain, predict, and understand phenomena and, in many cases, to challenge and extend existing knowledge, within the limits of the critical bounding assumptions.
The theoretical framework is the structure that can hold or support a theory of a research study. The theoretical framework introduces and describes the theory which explains why the research problem under study exists.
A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK consists of concepts, together with their definitions, and existing theory/theories that are used for your particular study. The theoretical framework must demonstrate an understanding of theories and concepts that are relevant to the topic of your research paper and that will relate it to the broader fields of knowledge in the class you are taking.
The theoretical framework is not something that is found readily available in the literature. You must review course readings and pertinent research literature for theories and analytic models that are relevant to the research problem you are investigating. The selection of a theory should depend on its appropriateness, ease of application, and explanatory power.
Diunduh dari: http://libguides.usc.edu/content.php?pid=83009&sid=618409

Many subspecialties of applied logic and computer science, to name a few, artificial intelligence, machine learning, computational learning theory, inferential statistics, and knowledge representation, are concerned with setting out computational, logical, and statistical frameworks for the various types of inference involved in scientific inquiry, in particular, hypothesis formation, logical deduction, and empirical testing.
Some of these applications draw on measures of complexity from algorithmic information theory to guide the making of predictions from prior distributions of experience, for example, see the complexity measure called the speed prior from which a computable strategy for optimal inductive reasoning can be derived.
An explicit statement of theoretical assumptions permits the reader to evaluate them critically.
The theoretical framework connects the researcher to existing knowledge. Guided by a relevant theory, you are given a basis for your hypotheses and choice of research methods.
Articulating the theoretical assumptions of a research study forces you to address questions of why and how. It permits you to move from simply describing a phenomenon observed to generalizing about various aspects of that phenomenon.
Having a theory helps you to identify the limits to those generalizations. A theoretical framework specifies which key variables influence a phenomenon of interest. It alerts you to examine how those key variables might differ and under what circumstances.
Diunduh dari: http://libguides.usc.edu/content.php?pid=83009&sid=618409

While the philosophy of science has limited direct impact on day-to-day scientific practice, it plays a vital role in justifying and defending the scientific approach. Philosophy of science looks at the underpinning logic of the scientific method, at what separates science from nonscience,and the ethic that is implicit in science.
We find ourselves in a world that is not directly understandable. We find that we sometimes disagree with others as to the facts of the things we see in the world around us, and we find that there are things in the world that are at odds with our present understanding.
Here are some strategies to develop of an effective theoretical framework:
1.
Examine your thesis title and research problem. The research problem anchors your entire study and forms the basis from which you construct your theoretical framework.
2.
Brainstorm on what you consider to be the key variables in your research. Answer the question, what factors contribute to the presumed effect?
3.
Review related literature to find answers to your research question.
4.
List the constructs and variables that might be relevant to your study. Group these variables into independent and dependent categories.
5.
Review the key social science theories that are introduced to you in your course readings and choose the theory or theories that can best explain the relationships between the key variables in your study [note the Writing Tip on this page].
6.
Discuss the assumptions or propositions of this theory and point out their relevance to your research.
A theoretical framework is used to limit the scope of the relevant data by focusing on specific variables and defining the specific viewpoint (framework) that the researcher will take in analyzing and interpreting the data to be gathered, understanding concepts and variables according to the given definitions, and building knowledge by validating or challenging theoretical assumptions.
Diunduh dari: http://libguides.usc.edu/content.php?pid=83009&sid=618409

The scientific method attempts to provide a way in which we can reach agreement and understanding.
A "perfect" scientific method might work in such a way that rational application of the method would always result in agreement and understanding; a perfect method would arguably be algorithmic, and so not leave any room for rational agents to disagree.
As with all philosophical topics, the search has been neither straightforward nor simple.
Logical Positivist, empiricist, falsificationist, and other theories have claimed to give a definitive account of the logic of science, but each has in turn been criticized.
Diunduh dari: http://gulnazahmad.hubpages.com/hub/types-of-research-studies

The sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) is the study of science as a social activity, especially dealing with "the social conditions and effects of
Criticisms such as his led to the strong programme, a radical approach to the sociology of science.
science, and with the social structures and processes of scientific activity.
“
The sociology of scientific ignorance (SSI) is complementary to the sociology of scientific
In his 1958 book, Personal Knowledge, chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi
(1891-1976) criticized the common view that the scientific method is purely objective and generates objective knowledge. Polanyi cast this view as a misunderstanding of the scientific method and of the nature of knowledge.
The sociology of knowledge, by contrast, focuses on the production of non-scientific ideas and social constructions.
Sociologists of scientific knowledge study the development of a scientific field and attempt to scientific inquiry, generally.
He argued that scientists do and must follow personal passions in appraising facts and in determining which scientific questions to investigate.
He concluded that a structure of liberty is essential for the advancement of science that the freedom to pursue science for its own sake is a prerequisite for the production of knowledge through peer review and the scientific method.
identify points of contingency or interpretative flexibility where ambiguities are present. Such variations may be linked to a variety of political, historical, cultural or economic factors. Crucially, the field does not set out to promote relativism or to attack the scientific project; the aim of the researcher is to explain why one interpretation rather than another succeeds due to external social and historical circumstances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_scientific_knowledge

The postmodernist critiques of science have themselves been the subject of intense controversy and heated dialogue.
This ongoing debate, known as the science wars, is the result of the conflicting values and assumptions held by the postmodernist and realist camps.
Whereas postmodernists assert that scientific knowledge is simply another discourse and not representative of any form of fundamental truth, realists in the scientific community maintain that scientific knowledge does reveal real and fundamental truths about reality.
Many books have been written by scientists which take on this problem and challenge the assertions of the postmodernists while defending science as a legitimate method of deriving truth
It frequently serves as an ambiguous overarching term for skeptical interpretations of culture , literature, art , philosophy, economics, architecture, fiction, and literary criticism. Because postmodernism is a reactionary stereotype, it is often used pejoratively to describe writers, artists, or critics who give the impression they believe in no absolute truth or objective reality.
For example, it may derogatorily refer to "any of various movements in reaction to modernism that are typically characterized by... ironic self-reference and absurdity (as in literature)" or to "a theory that involves a radical reappraisal of modern assumptions about culture, identity, history, or language".
It is also confused with deconstruction and poststructuralism because its usage as a term gained significant popularity at the same time as twentieth-century poststructural thinkers. It has been suggested that the term
"postmodernism" is a mere buzzword that means nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism

Communication, community, culture
Frequently the scientific method is not employed by a single person, but by several people cooperating directly or indirectly.
Such cooperation can be regarded as one of the defining elements of a scientific community.
Various techniques have been developed to ensure the integrity of the scientific method within such an environment.

Scientific journals use a process of
peer review, in which scientists' manuscripts are submitted by editors of scientific journals to
(usually one to three) fellow
(usually anonymous) scientists familiar with the field for evaluation.
The referees may or may not recommend publication, publication with suggested modifications, or, sometimes, publication in another journal.
This serves to keep the scientific literature free of unscientific or crackpot work, helps to cut down on obvious errors, and generally otherwise improve the quality of the scientific literature.
PEER REVIEW means that an action of an individual person may be looked at again ( reviewed ) by someone of similar competence in that activity - a peer .
More formally it is a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication.
Peer review can be categorized by the type of activity and by the field or profession in which the activity occurs. In general, those involved in a given profession or particular organization identify their particular process by the generic term "peer review". So, even when qualifiers are applied the elements of peer review may appear to be inconsistent.
For example, medical peer review can refer to clinical peer review, or the peer evaluation of clinical teaching skills for both physicians and nurses, or scientific peer review of journal articles, or to a secondary round of peer review for the clinical value of articles concurrently published in medical journals. Moreover, "medical peer review" has been used by the American Medical Association to refer not only to the process of improving quality and safety in health care organizations, but also to the process of rating clinical behavior or compliance with professional society membership standards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

Work announced in the popular press before going through this process is generally frowned upon.
Sometimes peer review inhibits the circulation of unorthodox work, and at other times may be too permissive.
The peer review process is not always successful, but has been very widely adopted by the scientific community.
Anonymous peer review, also called blind review, is a system of prepublication peer review of scientific articles or papers for journals or academic conferences by reviewers who are known to the journal editor or conference organizer but whose names are not given to the article's author.
The reviewers do not know the author's identity, as any identifying information is stripped from the document before review. The system is intended to reduce or eliminate bias, although this has been challenged – for example Eugene Koonin, a senior investigator at the
National Center for Biotechnology Information, asserts that the system has "well-known ills
“ and advocates
"open peer review". Others support blind reviewing because no research has suggested that the methodology may be harmful and the cost of facilitating such reviews is minimal. Some experts proposed blind review procedures for reviewing controversial research topics.

Sometimes experimenters may make systematic errors during their experiments, unconsciously veer from the scientific method (Pathological science) for various reasons, or
(in rare cases) deliberately falsify their results.
Consequently, it is a common practice for other scientists to attempt to repeat the experiments in order to duplicate the results, thus further validating the hypothesis.
Processes involved in understanding natural phenomena using scientific method. (Source: PhysicalGeography.net
) http://www.eoearth.org/article/Hypothetico-Deductive_Method

Note that it is not possible for a scientist to record everything that took place in an experiment.
He must select the facts he believes to be relevant to the experiment and report them.
This may lead, unavoidably, to problems later if some supposedly irrelevant feature is questioned.
For example, Heinrich Hertz did not report the size of the room used to test
Maxwell's equations, which later turned out to account for a small deviation in the results.
The problem is that parts of the theory itself need to be assumed in order to select and report the experimental conditions. The observations are hence sometimes described as being 'theoryladen'.
Definition of “limitation”
1. (often limitations) a limiting rule or circumstance; a restriction: severe limitations on water use a condition of limited ability; a defect or failing: she knew her limitations better than she knew her worth
[mass noun] the action of limiting something: the limitation of local authorities' powers
2. (also limitation period) Law a legally specified period beyond which an action may be defeated or a property right does not continue
Diunduh dari: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/limitation

The primary constraints on contemporary western science are:
1. Publication, i.e. Peer review
2. Resources (mostly funding)
It has not always been like this: in the old days of the "gentleman scientist" funding (and to a lesser extent publication) were far weaker constraints.
Both of these constraints indirectly bring in a scientific method — work that too obviously violates the constraints will be difficult to publish and difficult to get funded.
Diunduh dari: http://katatrepsis.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/scientificpublishing-what-a-con/

Importance of originality.
Journals do not require submitted papers to conform to anything more specific than "good scientific practice" and this is mostly enforced by peer review.
Originality, importance and interest are more important - for example the author guidelines for Nature.
Criticisms (Critical theory) of these restraints are that they are so nebulous in definition
(e.g. "good scientific practice") and open to ideological, or even political, manipulation apart from a rigorous practice of a scientific method, that they often serve to censor rather than promote scientific discovery.
Apparent censorship through refusal to publish ideas unpopular with mainstream scientists (unpopular because of ideological reasons and/or because they seem to contradict long held scientific theories) has soured the popular perception of scientists as being neutral or seekers of truth and often denigrated popular perception of science as a whole.
Originality is a "must" in PhD research. It is a highprofile requirement. You should develop the necessary skills to recognize "what is original?" and implement it into your work. It may need a considerable incubation period for the creative skills to function effectively in development of originality in your research. You need to appreciate the scope and potential of originality.
One or more of the following requirements must be fulfilled in your research in order to claim for originality.
Originality in tools, technics and procedures.
Your research methodology may include fairly standard tools, technics and procedures in the field of study. But if you use them in new untested ways, this would justify a claim of originality.
Or if you develop new procedures, tools and technics for a specific purpose, this too will also justify a claim for originality. For example, development of a new
"controlled release" system of an existing drug is original.
Diunduh dari: http://courses.emu.edu.tr/grad601/Lecture%20Notes/Originality%20in%20resear ch.htm

The development of the scientific method is inseparable from the history of science itself.
Ancient Egyptian documents, such as early papyri, describe methods of medical diagnosis. In ancient Greek culture, the method of empiricism was described.
The experimental scientific method was developed by Muslim scientists, who introduced the use of experiments to distinguish between competing scientific theories set within a generally empirical orientation, which emerged with Alhazen 's optical experiments in his Book of Optics .
A model of nested epistemologies. The circles represent groupings of epistemologies, not divisions of facts or layers of reality.
Diunduh dari: http://spectrummagazine.org/node/1722

The fundamental tenets of the modern scientific method crystallized no later than the rise of the modern physical sciences, in the 17th and 18th centuries.
In his work Novum Organum (1620) — a reference to Aristotle's Organon — Francis
Bacon outlined a new system of logic to improve upon the old philosophical process of syllogism.
Then, in 1637, René Descartes established the framework for a scientific method's guiding principles in his treatise, Discourse
on Method.
These writings are considered critical in the historical development of the scientific method.
The scientific process: http://stiebsd.blogspot.com/2011/01/scientific-method.html

In the late 19th century, Charles Sanders
Peirce proposed a schema that would turn out to have considerable influence in the development of current scientific method generally.
Peirce accelerated the progress on several fronts.
Firstly, speaking in broader context in "How to Make Our Ideas Clear" (1878) , Peirce outlined an objectively verifiable method to test the truth of putative knowledge on a way that goes beyond mere foundational alternatives, focusing upon both deduction and induction.
He thus placed induction and deduction in a complementary rather than competitive context (the latter of which had been the primary trend at least since David Hume, who wrote in the mid-to-late 18th century).
The scientific method, an alternating cycle of induction and deduction.
Diunduh dari: http://spectrummagazine.org/node/1722

Secondly, and of more direct importance to modern method,
Peirce put forth the basic schema for hypothesis/testing that continues to prevail today. Extracting the theory of inquiry from its raw materials in classical logic, he refined it in parallel with the early development of symbolic logic to address the thencurrent problems in scientific reasoning.
Peirce examined and articulated the three fundamental modes of reasoning that, as discussed above in this article, play a role in inquiry today, the processes that are currently known as abductive, deductive, and inductive inference.

Thirdly, he played a major role in the progress of symbolic logic itself
— indeed this was his primary specialty.
Karl Popper (1902–1994), beginning in the 1930s and with increased vigor after World War II, argued that a hypothesis must be falsifiable and, following Peirce and others, that science would best progress using deductive reasoning as its primary emphasis, known as critical rationalism.
His astute formulations of logical procedure helped to rein in excessive use of inductive speculation upon inductive speculation, and also strengthened the conceptual foundation for today's peer review procedures.
Review rencana penelitian tesis program magister

Isaac Newton (1687, 1713, 1726). "[4] Rules for the study of natural philosophy ", Philosophiae Naturalis
Principia Mathematica , Third edition. The General Scholium containing the 4 rules follows Book 3,
The System of the World. Reprinted on pages 794-796 of I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman's 1999 translation, University of California Press ISBN 0-520-08817-4 , 974 pages. scientific method , Merriam-Webster Dictionary .
In the inquiry-based education paradigm, the stage of "characterization, observation, definition, …" is more briefly summed up under the rubric of a Question.
"To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science." p.92, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld (1938), The
Evolution of Physics: from early concepts to relativity and quanta ISBN0-671-20156-5
Gauch, Hugh G., Jr., Scientific Method in Practice (2003), esp. chapters 5-8
Crick, Francis (1994), The Astonishing Hypothesis ISBN 0-684-19431-7 p.20
Glen,William (ed.), The Mass-Extinction Debates: How Science Works in a Crisis, Stanford University Press,
Stanford, CA, 1994. ISBN 0-8047-2285-4 . pp. 37-38.
"The instant I saw the picture my mouth fell open and my pulse began to race." -- James D. Watson (1968), The
Double Helix, page 167. New York: Atheneum, Library of Congress card number 68-16217. Page 168 shows the X-shaped pattern of the B-form of DNA , clearly indicating crucial details of its helical structure to Watson and Crick.

Aristotle , " Prior Analytics ", Hugh Tredennick (trans.), pp. 181-531 in Aristotle, Volume 1, Loeb
Classical Library , William Heinemann, London, UK, 1938.
Peirce, C.S.
, "Lectures on Pragmatism", Cambridge, MA, March 26 – May 17, 1903. Reprinted in part, Collected Papers, CP 5.14–212. Reprinted with Introduction and Commentary, Patricia
Ann Turisi (ed.), Pragmatism as a Principle and a Method of Right Thinking: The 1903
Harvard "Lectures on Pragmatism", State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, 1997.
Reprinted, pp. 133–241, Peirce Edition Project (eds.), The Essential Peirce, Selected
Philosophical Writings, Volume 2 (1893–1913), Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN,
1998.
Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science, The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1997
Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science, Picador; 1st Picador USA Pbk.
Ed edition, 1999
The Sokal Hoax: The Sham That Shook the Academy, University of Nebraska Press, 2000 ISBN
0803279957
A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths About Science, Oxford University Press,
2000
Intellectual Impostures, Economist Books, 2003
Rosanna Gorini (2003), "Al-Haytham the Man of Experience, First Steps in the Science of Vision",
International Society for the History of Islamic Medicine, Institute of Neurosciences,
Laboratory of Psychobiology and Psychopharmacology, Rome, Italy: