<VV> Check out Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Wildman, Kenneth]

It's a reasonably good description, except for this paragraph:

"Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena,
and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps
must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results.
Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many
independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive
structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of
hypotheses into context."

Theories are explanations of phenomena (observed, measured data).
Essentially a theory is a mathematical statement relating a series of
observations. Hypotheses are derived from the theory and are tested to
see if the theory accurately predicted the results.

Automotive example.  Based on various observation you decide that speed
at the end of a quarter-mile drag is directly related to horsepower. You
make some basic measurements.  Let's assume you can dial-in horsepower
on a vehicle.  You set the hp at 100 and determine your speed at the end
of the 1/4mile.  Then you set the hp at 200 and repeat the test.  If you
draw a graph with one axis as speed at the end of the 1/4 mile and the
other axis as horsepower.

Your graph will have two data points - one for 100hp and one for 200hp.
If you draw a straight line between those two points you have
essentially constructed a theory (Y=aX +b the formula for a straight
line).

There are any number of hypotheses you could derive.  For instance, the
theory predicts a certain speed for 150 - where 150 intersects the
"theory" line.  You can test this by actually setting the engine
(assuming that you can really set hp) at 150hp and actually observing
the speed at the end of the 1/4.  If the observed speed falls on the
line of your theory then you have supported the theory.  You can never
"prove" a theory since you can never test under every possible value for
hp.

In this simple example you would probably find that beyond some value
for hp you would see no improvement in speed.  That would disprove the
theory as written, and you would have to revise the theory so that it
would account for the "failure" of the theory.  I'd probably look at the
traction of the tires (coefficient of friction).

And so it goes ... the more we know the more we have to refine our
theories.  But keep in mind that in most cases theories get better as a
result of discrepant data.

Ken (you can take the professor out of the classroom, but you can't take
the classroom out of the professor) Wildman  :)

-----Original Message-----
From: virtualvairs-bounces at corvair.org
[mailto:virtualvairs-bounces at corvair.org] On Behalf Of
ScottyGrover at aol.com
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 4:54 PM
To: virtualvairs at corvair.org; fastvair at yahoogroups.com
Subject: <VV> Check out Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia

_Scientific method  - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)  
 
John Roberts--is this article a valid description of scientific  method?

Inquiring minds want to know (or at least this one.)
 
Scotty from Hollyweird
 _______________________________________________
This message was sent by the VirtualVairs mailing list, all copyrights
are the property
of the writer, please attribute properly. For help,
mailto:vv-help at corvair.org
This list sponsored by the Corvair Society of America,
http://www.corvair.org/
Post messages to: VirtualVairs at corvair.org
Change your options:
http://www.vv.corvair.org/mailman/options/virtualvairs 
 _______________________________________________