Looking at Scientific Studies

In the previous article we reviewed the scientific method. This time we’ll look at how knowledge of this four-part process—observation, formulation of an hypothesis, prediction, and experimentation—can help us understand the many medical and scientific studies we hear about in the news. Let’s look at some questions you might ask about medical studies:

1. Why did they even bother to do that study? Isn’t the answer obvious?

   Actually, no, the answer isn’t obvious. In fact, it runs counter to the scientific method for a researcher to assume that he knows the results before conducting the experiment.

   The scientist “finds that he often makes mistakes himself and he must learn how to guard against them. He cannot permit himself any preconception as to what sort of results he will get, nor must he allow himself to be influenced by wishful thinking or any personal bias. All these things together give that ‘objectivity’ to science which is often thought to be the essence of the scientific method,” wrote physicist Percy W. Bridgman in “On Scientific Method” (30 Dec. 2000 http://idt.net/~nelsonb/bridgman.html).

2. Why did they do that study? It’s already been done.

   The answer to this question is one of the most important points about the scientific method: results must be repeatable . An hypothesis gains credibility when other researchers working in different laboratories get the same results. “In fact, most experiments and observations are repeated many times (certain experiments are not repeated independently but are repeated as parts of other experiments). If the original claims are not verified the origin of such discrepancies is hunted down and exhaustively studied” (Jose Wudka. "What is the ‘scientific method’?" 30 Dec. 2000 http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/No...).

   The process of science itself is bigger than any one scientist because researchers are constantly checking and rechecking each other’s work: “the hypothesis must withstand the scrutiny of other scientists as well. They may repeat the experiment to retest the validity of the hypothesis, along with the validity of the methods used to test the hypothesis” ("The Scientific Method—Elegant Experiments." 30 Dec. 2000 http://www.accessexcellence.org/AB/BC/El...).

   The requirement of repeatability leads to what Wudka calls “the great advantage of the scientific method”: “it is unprejudiced: one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false. The conclusions will hold irrespective of the state of mind, or the religious persuasion, or the state of consciousness of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation.”

   The copyright of the article Looking at Scientific Studies in Breast Health is owned by Mary D. Brown. Permission to republish Looking at Scientific Studies in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

   Go To Page: 1 2

   Articles in this Topic    Discussions in this Topic