Some parts of this site are currently incomplete & will be updated asap
  Other parts will change continually so use “Refresh” in your browser !!
  There is extensive use of “Tooltips” text to support learning which do not seem to render on a Smartphone, so this site is best viewed via a computer’s HD monitor

Learning -> Resources Available, All Work is Subject to DHRF's "GD"

¹ Important Note

Science

A detailed discussion…

The whole of Science and all the scientific discoveries of the last few hundred years have been based upon the use of the Scientific Method and its underlying philosophy and rules…

The Scientific Method

”The Scientific Method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterised the development of science since at least the 17th century”    Source: Wikipedia

Image#1    Based on (Enger et al. 2002, p. 4)     Verification (in new page)
Mark-up in RED by David Husband

Make Observations

“The scientific method begins with observations and questions. The observations may rely on what we can see, hear, touch, taste, or smell, or they may be based on existing knowledge and experimental results”
(Hoefnagels 2018, p. 10)

² “Often, a great leap forward happens when one person makes connections between previously unrelated observations”    (Hoefnagels 2018, p. 10)   (DHRF emphasis)     Verification (in new page)

“Scientific inquiry often begins with an observation that an event has occurred repeatedly. An observation occurs when we use our senses (smell, sight, hearing, taste, touch) or an extension of our senses (microscope, tape recorder, X-ray machine, thermometer) to record an event”    (Enger et al. 2002, p. 4)

“Observation is more than a casual awareness. You may hear a sound or see an image without really observing it. Do you know what music was being played in the shopping mall? You certainly heard it but if you are unable to tell someone else what it was, you didn’t “observe” it. If you had prepared yourself to observe the music being played, you would be able to identify it. When scientists talk about their observations, they are referring to careful, thoughtful recognition of an event - not just casual notice”    (Enger et al. 2002, p. 4)

“Scientists train themselves to improve their observational skills since careful observation is important in all parts of the scientific method. The information gained by direct observation of the event is called empirical evidence (empiric = based on experience; from the Greek empirikos = experience). Empirical evidence is capable of being verified or disproved by further observation. If the event occurs only once or cannot be repeated in an artificial situation, it is impossible to use the scientific method to gain further information about the event and explain it”
(Enger et al. 2002, p. 4)   (DHRF emphasis)

(1) - Make Descriptive Observations

“Much of science is descriptive”
“The classic vision of the scientific method is that observations lead to hypotheses that in turn make experimentally testable predictions”    (Raven et al. 2019, p. 4)

(1a) - Publish (with No Hypothesis)

“In this way, we dispassionately evaluate new ideas to arrive at an increasingly accurate view of nature. It is important to understand that much of science is purely descriptive: In order to understand anything, the first step is to describe it completely. Much of biology is concerned with arriving at an increasingly accurate description of nature“    (Raven et al. 2019, p. 4)   (DHRF emphasis)

“One of the most important accomplishments of molecular biology at the dawn of the 21st century was the completion of the sequence of the human genome“     Source:   Wikipedia

“In the fields of molecular biology and genetics, a genome is all the genetic material of an organism. It consists of DNA (or RNA in RNA viruses). The genome includes both the genes (the coding regions) and the noncoding DNA, as well as mitochondrial DNA and chloroplast DNA. The study of the genome is called genomics”
Source:   Wikipedia

“Many new hypotheses about human biology will be generated by this knowledge, ³ and many experiments will be needed to test these hypotheses, but the determination of the sequence itself was descriptive science“    (Raven et al. 2019, p. 4)   (DHRF emphasis)

“Sometimes called descriptive science, discovery science describes natural structures and processes as accurately as possible through careful observation and analysis of data. For example, discovery science gradually built our understanding of cell structure, and it is discovery science that is expanding our databases of genomes of diverse species”    (Campbell and Reece 2005, p. 19)   (DHRF emphasis)

Index of Descriptive Observations

(2) - Make Observations that lead to Questions

Index of Observations that Lead to Questions

(3) - Ask Questions

“As scientists gain more empirical evidence about an event they begin to develop questions about it“

• “How does this happen?”
• “Why does this happen?”
• “What causes it to occur?”
• “When will it take place again?”
• “Can I control the event to my benefit?”

The Who - What - When - Where - Why - How aspects are known as “the problem domains”

A detailed discussion of problem domains… … (and Comfort Zones)

(3a) - What if ?

DHRF suggests this is THE most important question to ask !!
Because it enables a leap of creative imagination to take place…

A Detailed Discussion of “fact-finding”

(3b) - Publish (with No Hypothesis)

Asking the Right Questions

“The formation of the questions is not as simple as it might seem because the way the questions are asked will determine how you go about answering them. A question that is too broad or too complex may be impossible to answer; therefore a great deal of effort is put into asking the question in the right way. In some situations, this can be the most time-consuming part of the scientific method; asking the right question is critical to how you look for answers”    (Enger et al. 2002, p. 4)   (DHRF emphasis)

“Once a decision has been made about what question to ask, scientists explore other sources of knowledge to gain more information. Perhaps the question has already been answered by someone else or several possible answers have already been rejected. Knowing what others have already done allows one to save time and energy. This process usually involves reading appropriate science publications, exploring information on the Internet, or contacting fellow scientists interested in the same field of study”    (Enger et al. 2002, p. 4)

“Even if the particular question has not been answered already, scientific literature and other scientists can provide insights that may lead toward a solution. After exploring the appropriate literature, a decision is made about whether to continue to explore the question. If the scientist is still intrigued by the question, a formal hypothesis is constructed and the process of inquiry continues at a different level”    (Enger et al. 2002, p. 4)

A Detailed Discussion of “fact-finding”

Index of Questions Asked

(3c) - Define the Problem

“Ask questions about the observation that are relevant and testable. Define the null hypothesis to provide unbiased results”   (Ryan and O’Callaghan 2002)

(4) - Formulate a Hypothesis

A hypothesis (or two, or three…)

“A hypothesis is a statement that provides a possible answer to a question or an explanation for an observation that can be tested. A good hypothesis must be logical, account for all the relevant information currently available, allow one to predict future events relating to the question being asked, and be testable. Furthermore, if one has the choice of several competing hypotheses one should use the simplest hypothesis with the fewest assumptions”   (Enger et al. 2002, pp. 4-6)

“Just as deciding which questions to ask is often difficult, the formation of a hypothesis requires much critical thought and mental exploration. If the hypothesis does not account for all the observed facts in the situation, doubt will be cast on the work and may eventually cast doubt on the validity of the scientist’s work”
(Enger et al. 2002, pp. 4-6)

“If a hypothesis is not testable or is not supported by the evidence, the explanation will be only hearsay and no more useful than mere speculation. Keep in mind that a hypothesis is based on observations and information gained from other knowledgeable sources and predicts how an event will occur under specific circumstances. Scientists test the predictive ability of a hypothesis to see if the hypothesis is supported or is disproved. If you disprove the hypothesis, it is rejected and a new hypothesis must be constructed”    (Enger et al. 2002, pp. 4-6)   (DHRF emphasis)

“However, if you cannot disprove a hypothesis, it increases your confidence in the hypothesis, but it does not prove it to be true in all cases and for all time. Science always allows for the questioning of ideas and the substitution of new ones that more completely describe what is known at a particular point in time. It could be that an alternative hypothesis you haven’t thought of explains the situation or you have not made the appropriate observations to indicate that your hypothesis is wrong”    (Enger et al. 2002, pp. 4-6)   (DHRF emphasis)

(4c) - Publish (without testing the Hypothesis)

Index of Hypotheses

(5) - Publish in a "Scientific Publication"

DHRF has made the policy decision that the medium of “scientific publication” for its work will be this website
It is the 21st century !!

Within this context, we believe that DHRF is pioneering a new research paradigm that we call Research in Action

“One central characteristic of the scientific method is the importance of communication. For the most part science is conducted out in the open under the critical eyes of others who are interested in the same kinds of questions. An important part of the communication process involves the publication of articles in scientific journals about one’s research, thoughts, and opinions”    (Enger et al. 2002, p. 8)

Index of Scientific Publications

(6) - Communicate with other scientists

… by having a “professional dialogue” with them…

“The communication can occur at any point during the process of scientific discovery. People may ask questions about unusual observations. They may publish preliminary results of incomplete experiments. They may publish reports that summarise large bodies of material. And they often publish strongly held opinions that may not always be supportable with current data. This provides other scientists with an opportunity to criticise, make suggestions, or agree”    (Enger et al. 2002, p. 8)

“Scientists attend conferences where they can engage in dialog with colleagues. They also interact in informal ways by phone, e-mail, and the Internet. The result is that most of science is subjected to examination by many minds as it is discovered, discussed, and refined”    (Enger et al. 2002, p. 8)

Index of Communications with other Scientists

(5) & (6) - Peer Reviews

A robust “peer reviewing” process needs to be exployed at all stages. Fig 1.2 is rather implicit on this, and it is addressed explicitely in the link below…

The Peer-Reviewing Process - a detailed discussion

(7) - Test the Hypothesis

“The test of a hypothesis can take several forms. It may simply involve the collection of pertinent information that already exists from a variety of sources”

“In other cases a hypothesis may be tested by simply making additional observations”

“Another common method for testing a hypothesis involves devising an experiment. An experiment is a recreation of an event or occurrence in a way that enables a scientist to support or disprove a hypothesis. This can be difficult because a particular event may involve a great many separate happenings called variables”

“To help unclutter such situations, scientists use what is known as a controlled experiment which allows scientists to construct a situation so that only one variable is present. Furthermore, the variable can be manipulated or changed. A typical controlled experiment includes two groups; one in which the variable is manipulated in a particular way and another in which there is no manipulation. The situation in which there is no manipulation of the variable is called the control group; the other situation is called the experimental group”

“Scientists are not likely to accept the results of a single experiment because it is possible a random event that had nothing to do with the experiment could have affected the results and caused people to think there was a cause-and-effect relationship when none existed”

“Only when there is just one variable, many replicates (copies) of the same experiment are conducted, and the results are consistently the same; are the results of the experiment considered convincing. Furthermore, scientists often apply statistical tests to the results to help decide in an impartial manner if the results obtained are valid (meaningful, fit with other knowledge) and reliable (give the same results repeatedly) and show cause and effect, or if they are just the result of random events”    All the above from (Enger et al. 2002, p. 6)

(7a) - Thought Experiments

(7b) - A Hypothesis should be Falsifiable

“In the philosophy of science, a theory is falsifiable (or refutable) if it is contradicted by an observation that is logically possible, i.e., expressible in the language of the theory, and this language has a conventional empirical interpretation. Thus there must exist a state of affairs, a potential falsifier, that obtains or not and can be used as a scientific evidence against the theory, in particular, it must be observable with existing technologies. For example, “All swans are white” is falsifiable, because “Here is a black swan” contradicts it”   (DHRF emphasis)

” To make falsifiability more intuitive, one can assume that the potential falsifier is allowed by some other law than the one that is falsified. For example, Newton’s law of gravitation is also falsifiable — it is falsified by “The brick fell upwards when released”, which is a state of affairs that can be observed if some hidden force other than gravity acts on the brick”

“Falsifiability was introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book Logik der Forschung (1934), faithfully translated into English by himself and two other translators in 1959 as The Logic of Scientific Discovery. He proposed it as the cornerstone of a solution to both the problem of induction and the problem of demarcation. The role of falsifiability in Popper’s philosophy is to make a deductive testing and a rational critic of the theory possible”    Source: Wikipedia   (DHRF emphasis)

Index of Hypotheses Tests

(8) - Revise the Hypothesis

“During experimentation, scientists learn new information and formulate new questions that can lead to even more experiments. One good experiment can result in 100 new questions and experiments. The discovery of the structure of the DNA molecule by Watson and Crick resulted in thousands of experiments and stimulated the development of the entire field of molecular biology”

“If the processes of questioning and experimentation continue, and evidence continually and consistently supports the original hypothesis and other closely related hypotheses, the scientific community will begin to see how these hypotheses and facts fit together into a broad pattern. When this happens, a theory has come into existence”    (Enger et al. 2002, p. 7)

Index of Hypotheses Revisions

(9) - Make a decision? Yes?

Does the work fit into current scientific theories and/or laws?

Index of “YES” Answers

(10) - Make a decision? No?

So formulate a new scientific theory…

Index of “NO” Answers

Summary: Hypothesis v. Theory

Put very simply: “A Hypothesis Is a Proposed Idea, Whereas a Theory Is a Broad Explanation Backed by Extensive Evidence…“   (Brooker et al. 2017, p. 14)   Verification (in new page)

Formulate a New Scientific Theory

Scientific Theory    Wikipedia

“A theory is a widely accepted, plausible generalisation about fundamental concepts in science that explain why things happen”

“Theories and hypotheses are different. A hypothesis provides a possible explanation for a specific question; a theory is a broad concept that shapes how scientists look at the world and how they frame their hypotheses”

“Because they are broad unifying statements, there are few theories. However, just because a theory exists does not mean that testing stops. As scientists continue to gain new information they may find exceptions to a theory or, even in rare cases, disprove a theory”    All the above from (Enger et al. 2002, p. 7)

What is a Scientific Law?

“A scientific law is a uniform or constant fact of nature that describes what happens in nature. An example of a biological law is the biogenetic law, which states that all living things come from pre-existing living things. While laws describe what happens and theories describe why things happen, in one way laws and theories are similar. They have both been examined repeatedly and are regarded as excellent predictors of how nature behaves”
(Enger et al. 2002, p. 7)   (DHRF emphasis)

“In the process of sorting out the way the world works, scientists use generalisations to help them organise information. However, the generalisations must be backed up with facts. The relationship between facts and generalisations is a two-way street. Often as observations are made and hypotheses are tested, a pattern emerges which leads to a general conclusion, principle, or theory”    (Enger et al. 2002, p. 7)

“This process of developing general principles from the examination of many sets of specific facts is called induction or inductive reasoning“   Wikipedia within (Enger et al. 2002, p. 7)   (DHRF emphasis)

“Once a rule, principle, or theory is established, it can be used to predict additional observations in nature. When general principles are used to predict the specific facts of a situation, the process is called deduction or deductive reasoning“    Wikipedia within (Enger et al. 2002, p. 7)   (DHRF emphasis)

Scientific Theories v. Scientific Laws

“Scientific theories explain why something happens, whereas scientific law describes what happens”
Source: Wikipedia   (DHRF emphasis)

Image:    Based upon Wikipedia image    Mark-up in RED by David Husband

The Who - What - When - Where - Why - How aspects are known as “the problem domains”

A detailed discussion of problem domains… … (and Comfort Zones)

Evidence v. Proof

The Scientific Method is based upon the acquisition of Evidence to support a hypothesis and then, hopefully leading to a consensus to support a theory    Based upon the referenced Wikipedia pages

Discussion of Evidence, Proof, etc

“Standing on the Shoulders of Giants”

“If I have seen further [than others], it is by standing on the shoulders of giants” - Sir Isaac Newton

A very good example of what this means…

Important Note !!

DHRF.NET is a scientific & learning web site. The Research Work Streams are a inclusive, dynamic Scientific Journal, hosting live and on-going Scientific Research which DHRF calls a “DNA “Research-in-Action” site”

Given this, obviously DHRF cannot, and does not support and/or encourage Pseudoscience in any shape or form…

DHRF does not support or promote “Creationism” or “Creationists” because it is Pseudoscience with no scientific basis (and therefore outside of the scope of Science)

DHRF does not support or promote “Conspiracy Theories” or “Conspiracy Theorists” because it is corrosive and very mentally unhealthy “junk thinking” that might even be masquarading as Pseudoscience but with no scientific basis (and therefore outside of the scope of Science)    Detailed discussion

In life there are loads of nice, warm, fuzzy things or concepts to believe in like Father Christmas or the Easter Bunny, but all these things are outside of the scope/remit of a scientific website…

References:

Campbell, N. A. and Reece, J. B., 2005. Biology. 7th ed. San Francisco: Pearson, Benjamin Cummings.

Enger, E. D., Ross, F. C. and Bailey, D. B., 2002. Concepts in Biology. 10th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Brooker, R. J., Widmaier, E. P., Graham, L. E. and Stiling, P. D., 2017. Biology. 5th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Hoefnagels, M., 2018. Biology : The essentials. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Raven, P. H., Johnson, G. B., Mason, K. A., Losos, J. B. and Singer, S. R., 2019. Biology. 12th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.

Ryan, M. and O’Callaghan, A., 2002. The Scientific Method. The University of Nevada, Cooperative Extension, Fact Sheet-02-66 [online]. Available from: http://dhrf.net/pdfs/fs0266.pdf.

Page Map