Examples Of how Science Works

I'd like to see a thread for giving real world examples of how the scientific process works and showing the basics of how science works for those who still don't fully understand how it really works. For example, how a hypothesis is formed, how it is tested, how it is falsified, how it becomes part of a theory, and how it becomes a theory, what a theory is, and how theories becomes scientific laws.Thank you.

Thread copied here from the Examples Of how Science Works thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

I would like it fully explained the exact detailed process in determining bacterial resistant to antibiotics. The explanations so far on other threads are open to interpretation because the conclusions are not shared by many viewers. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic notice.

Words have precise meanings in science. For example, 'theory', 'law', and 'hypothesis' don't all mean the same thing. Outside of science, you might say something is 'just a theory', meaning it's supposition that may or may not be true. In science, a theory is an explanation that generally is accepted to be true. Here's a closer look at these important, commonly misused terms.HypothesisA hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. You can see this hypothesis can be disproven if a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying a thousand detergents, there might be one you haven't tried that could be different.TheoryA scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.LawA law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.

Shouldn't that be the other way around? Predict=Describe?Other than that, pretty nice message.My comment: In more casual conversion (even concerning scientific matters) scientists do use "theory" in a less that true science manner. But that's hopefully in a context where the listener/reader knows it's a casual comment.MooseAdded by edit:Percy posted the following at another topic, after I originally posted this message: SourceIs the above an example of casual use? Would those "theories" actually be hypotheses, while the "standard model" is the theory?Still MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : "Moosed" the message, then added more content, them "Moosed" it again. Had to edit to partly demoosify.Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added by edit, also tweaked subtitle. Remoosed at end.

I now realize why your message was so nicely done - You copy/pasted it from somewhere.Googling "Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them." gets you fficial&client=firefox-a]-->here. Apparently A LOT of people have directly or indirectly copied the material from somewhere.Copying materal from another source very much calls for a link to the source to be supplied.Adminnemooseusps: I still have the quesion of message 5. If there was indeed an error there, it seems a lot of web sites have copied the error.

---

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts. ​ Report a problem etc. type topics: Report discussion problems here: No.2 Thread Reopen Requests 2 Topic Proposal Issues ​ Other useful links: ​ Forum Guidelines

Admin writes: ​ It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon. ​ There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot. ​ Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Message 150

In regard to proton decay, I think this would be an actual theory based on the followingIE:Carbon 11 decays by both electron capture & positon emission(b+).There are no b+ in a carbon 11 neucleus.In both cases Boron 11 is formedC11 6 Protons + 5 Neutrons
B11 5 Protons + 6 NeutronsWhere does the positron & extra neutron come from and what happens to the missing proton?It is known that the positron is emitted by the annihilation radiation of 5.1E-1Mev given off as a g ray photon. Thus the only way that there can be a positron emitted and the loss of one proton & gain of one neutron if one proton becomes a neutron by positron emission thus proton decay.
Which is the accepted method. Handbook of Chemistry & Physics, 2006 pp11-50 & 11-52

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

OK, you covered the "added by edit" part.Now how about the original part?Moose

No - what you have there is just what we call an isospin rotation. The neutron and the proton are essentially different views of the same particle. One of the protons in the Carbon 11 nucleus "rotates" into a neutron, emitting a W⁺ boson which rapidly causes a charged pair-creation of two leptons (positron and electron neutrino)(at the quark level, one of the up quarks in the proton "rotates" into a down quark, and it is this quark that emits the W⁺)Proton decay is something different. Here we are talking about the proton/neutron nucleon decaying into something that isn't a baryon. Baryon non-conservation is something we don't see in the Standard Model, but it does occur in hypothetical extended theories. Here, for example, two quarks can interact to give one quark and one lepton. Thus a three quark uud proton can decay to a positron and a mixture of two quarks (a neutral pion), that then itself decays to two photons. So proton becomes positron plus two photons. This process is being looked for but has so far not been sufficiently substantiated. The current lower limit for a half-life (according to a quick look on Wiki) is 6.610³³ yr, which is a bloody long time in anyone's book!

What about the original? I simply agree with it.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Let me repost something that may help you understand how science works from this old thread. This example involves the Periodic Table.

quote:

---

I found it interesting that you brought up the Periodic Table, because it is a classic example of how science does work and why the Scientific Method (TOE) is far more likely to be right than ID or Biblical Creationism.

​

The important thing about Mendeleev's Table was that it had gaps and reordered many of the placements of elements in earlier attempts at creating a table. He took another series of steps based on the reasoning behind his arrangement and predicted two things; that when the elements he reordered were examined with greater precision the then accepted atomic weights for those elements would be found to be wrong; and that elements would be found to fill in his blanks and even what the properties of each of those elements would be.

​

I cannot overstate the importance of those actions. He presented a model that explained what was already known, and was also useful for making predictions about what would be learned in the future. In addition, as more was learned we found that the new elements discovered were exactly as he predicted and that the atomic weights of those he rearranged were as he predicted.

​

His model explained what was seen as well as what would be discovered. It went even further and provided the basis for us to create NEW elements, ones not found on earth, with a high degree of confidence of what their properties would be even before we created them.

​

The Periodic Table is a great example of why the TOE is valuable and ID and Biblical Creationism are worthless.

​

The value of the TOE has been in helping us understand what is seen, but in also providing the basis for future discoveries. What we have learned from the TOE has let us make predictions, and so far those predictions have been born out by each new discovery.

​

ID and Biblical Creationism have no predictive potential. There is nothing there to form our basis. A good example is in ID. When based on the evidence seen in living things it is pointed out that the I in ID should stand for Inept or Incompetent or Inelegant or Inscrutable or Ignorant we are told that we cannot know the Intent of the Designer. Well sorry, if we cannot know the Intent of the Designer then we cannot predict what the Designer will do. If that is the case then the ID concept is worthless.

​

The same argument is applicable to Biblical Creationism. The two (actually they are really just one) schools of thought are simply worthless.

---

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

That's a great point, Jar. Well said.