How Does Science Work?

Getting a deeper understanding of the scientific method

Made with Canva by All Things Psychology

So in this first post of the Psychological Research Series, we will dive into the question of „How does science work?“. We live in a time where scientific evidence is debated in the media as if it was an opinion, something you can just disagree with. I believe that is partly the case because a lot of people don’t really know what it means to conduct science. That is really a shame because science is what moves our world forward. Without science we wouldn’t have medicine, vaccines, cars, planes, refrigerators, computers, phones, machines, or anything else this wonderful world has to offer us. Without science and human curiosity, we would probably still live like hunter gatherer groups. The way I see it, science and human society are interconnected, the one cannot live without the other and scientists who dedicate their life to observation and experiment are the one’s who shape our world. Not understanding science and the scientific method therefore means not knowing what is going on in the world and being left behind in new scientific discoveries and discourses. So to make science and the scientific method more feasible for the average person, to demystify what it means to do science, and to make very clear that science is not an opinion, I dedicate this post to it.

Introduction

We start this post the same way we started the very first post on „What is Psychology?“ — with a language lesson, so buckle up. Science is derived from latin and means knowledge. That’s it. Science means knowledge.

Science refers to the totality of human knowledge; the knowledge and experience of an era, which is systematically expanded, collected, preserved, taught, and handed down. So science is both a system and a process.

Modern science is divided into three branches: the formal sciences, like mathematics and logic, the natural sciences, like physics, biology, and chemistry, and the social sciences, like psychology, and sociology.

Formal sciences generate knowledge using formal systems. They rely on the objective and systematic study of an area of research. In contrast to empirical sciences, they do not need empirical evidence to verify their concepts. They rely on deductive reasoning to do that. Natural sciences can be further divided into life sciences, like biology or anatomy, and physical sciences, like physics and astronomy. They describe, understand, and predict natural phenomena by observing and conducting experiments from which they gather empirical evidence. Social Sciences study human individuals and societies; their behavior, functioning, and processes. They rely on quantitative methods, like statistics, as well as qualitative methods, like case studies or interviews.

Science can also be divided into basic research and applied research. Basic research, also called fundamental research, aims to improve scientific theories and methods to better understand and predict the world. Applied research uses the scientific method and knowledge to attain practical goals, like developing interventions via technology. An applied science in the formal sciences is computer sciences, for example, whereas medicine is an example for an applied natural science.

Made with Canva by All Things Psychology

Scientific Method

Now that we’ve established what the different branches of science are, let’s take a closer look at how science in any field is conducted. This happens via the scientific method, which follows a clear path by which events are objectively explained in a reproducible way. It is an iterative, cyclical process where information is continually revised.

1. First, you have a research question. A research question can result from previous research, from a new discovery, or from everyday life. The research question is formulated as specific as possible and always has a method in mind to test it. The method can be freely chosen but must be adequate to test the research question.
2. Next, researchers gather available information on the topic they like to investigate. This means they look for previously published research articles to get a better understanding of their topic.
3. In a next step, they form a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an assumption or explanation of a phenomenon. It is formulated as a prediction concerning the outcome of an experiment or observation.
4. The hypothesis is then tested by means of an experiment. How experiments are set up and conducted varies greatly between and also within different scientific disciplines. In another post, we will look at different experimental set ups more closely.
5. The data that is collected during the experiment is then analyzed. Through data analysis you can find patterns, trends, and relationships within the data. This helps to determine whether the hypothesis can be accepted or rejected. If the experimental outcome is in line with the prediction of the hypothesis, it means that the hypothesis is accepted. If the experimental outcome contradicts the prediction of the hypothesis, it is rejected. One important word of caution here. Accepting a hypothesis as true, does by no means indicate that the same hypothesis is the truth. It just means that under the circumstances of this particular observation or experiment, the hypothesis holds up. It can be rejected at a later point in time through different methods.
6. After it is established whether the hypothesis is accepted or rejected in face of the collected data, the results are then interpreted and conclusions are drawn from them. The experimental results are imbedded in already existing literature, which either supports or contradicts the experiment’s findings. This can also function an opportunity to formulate new hypotheses.
7. In a last step, the scientific paper, which includes the theoretical background, the research question and hypotheses, the methods, results, and the discussion of the study, is submitted to a journal and subsequently peer reviewed. During the peer review process, other scientists working in the same field, anonymously give feedback on the submitted paper and determine its suitability for publication. After revisions, the paper is either rejected or accepted for publication. Now, other researchers can expand on the published paper by either deriving new hypotheses from its findings, by replicating it, or by referring to it in some other way.

Made with Canva by All Things Psychology

To make the scientific method more understandable, I will illustrate it with an example. Let’s say you would like to know if emotionally charged words are remembered better than neutral words. Your research question could be: Are emotionally charged words better remembered than neutral words?

Next, you will look at the literature and see if there’s already some information out there. You might find that it has already been established that people remember situations where they felt strong emotions better than situations where they felt less strong emotions. This could be a clue that the same holds true for words. Then, you need to formulate at least one testable hypothesis. A hypothesis here could be: emotionally charged words will be remembered longer than neutral words.

To test this hypothesis, you need to conduct an experiment. This could look like this: you randomly divide participants into two groups. One group is given a list of emotionally charged words, the other group is given a list of neutral words. Each list contains the same amount of words. They are asked to read the words and try to remember as many of them as possible. They have 10 minutes to memorize them. The next day, you ask the participants of both groups to write down all the words they remember from yesterday’s session.

You then compare both groups on how many words they remembered, on average. You will either find that the group that was given the emotionally charged words remembered more words than the other group, which would support your hypothesis, or you will find the opposite, which would contradict your hypothesis. Let’s say your results support the hypothesis. Emotionally charged words are indeed better remembered than neutral words. You then need to come up with explanations as to why this might be the case. Here, you refer to the literature you read when researching your topic. You write everything down in a paper, submit it to a journal, and hope to get published.

Falsifiability

Falsifiability is one of the most important concepts in science and was developed by the Austrian scientist Karl Popper. It means that a theory or hypothesis can be contradicted by logic or an empirical test. It separates science from pseudo-science. Falsifiability is opposed to verifiability, which is intuitively similar to the concept of falsifiability, but in reality it is not. If you want to verify the claim „all insects have six legs“, it would require you to observe all the insects that are currently alive, which is impossible. This means if you see 100 insects and all of them have six legs, this does not verify your claim that all insects have six legs because there could be insects out there who do not have six legs, but you just have not seen them yet. It is, however, possible to falsify that claim by observing only one insect that has more than or less than six legs. This is possible and reasonable to do. Falsifiability is the gold standard of science and needs to be adhered to at all times.

A hypothesis that is not falsifiable cannot be tested and therefore is not scientific.

Made with Canva by All Things Psychology

Observation and Experiment

Science revolves around observation and experiment. Scientific observation is the process by which scientists closely examine phenomena of their interest. In the old days, scientists did this only equipped with their senses and simple instruments. Today, we are assisted by sophisticated technologies like microscopes, telescopes, particle accelerators, gene sequencers, you name it. The observations gained from these instruments and technologies need to be meticulously recorded so they can be compared with past and future observations, in order to draw knowledge from them. Astronomy, subatomic physics, and genetics are some disciplines which rely on observation.

Then there are experiments. An experiment can be seen as an extension of observation and it tests hypotheses. It is a planned and systematic observation in which the effects of one variable on another is carefully studied. Deliberate changes are made to the variables to see what effects those changes have. This ensures that the results obtained from the experiment result from the changes made by the experimenters and not by other outside sources. How experiments are conducted (= methods) and the results must again be recorded, so everything the researchers do is transparent and can be reproduced by other scientists. The more knowledge is gained through experiments, the more the relationships between different variables become clearer and predictions can be made with greater accuracy. Physics, chemistry, and psychology are disciplines that rely on experiments.

Quality Criteria

Quality criteria are a set of characteristics used to assess the quality of measurement instruments and survey procedures, their design, and application. I will dedicate an extra episode to quality criteria in this series, so for now I will just quickly explain the three main quality criteria, which are objectivity, reliability, and validity.

Objectivity means that a study’s results are independent from the people who carried out the observation or experiment. Measurements should be similar for all subjects, which means that the specific test situation needs to be standardized and controlled. Furthermore, the analysis and interpretation of results should adhere to a standardized protocol as well. This ensures that no matter who analyzes or interprets the data, the results will be the same.

Reliability describes the degree of accuracy of a measurement. The aim is to ensure that a measuring instrument measures exactly as it should and that the measurement results are not distorted by measurement errors. Therefore, a measuring instrument is considered reliable if it produces the same results when used repeatedly under the same conditions.

Validity means the extent to which a tool measures what it claims to measure, that it is well-founded and corresponds as much to the real world as possible. I will go into the different kinds of validity in the episode on quality criteria.

Made with Canva by All Things Psychology

Can Science Arrive at the Ultimate Truth?

So the question you might be asking yourself is, after we carefully plan and conduct a study and closely adhere to the quality criteria of science, can science at some point arrive at the ultimate truth? The short answer, unfortunately, is no. Science is never able to grasp the whole truth, but it nonetheless strives for it. The universe is complicated and complex and we as humans possess a limited capability to capture all there is to know, no matter our technologies. With science, we can come close, however. Science strives to objectively conduct observations and experiments and to derive universally valid statements from the results obtained from them, stripped from any subjectivity, morals, and worldviews. Every observation, every study adds to an existing body of knowledge, bringing us closer to the „truth“, whatever that may be.

This post corresponds to Episode 7 of my Podcast All Things Psychology.

Listen to my podcast: https://linktr.ee/allthingspsychology

Follow my podcast on instagram: https://www.instagram.com/allthingspsychology_podcast/