Myth 1

It is a belief that scientific ideas pass through a sequence to be finally accepted. Many
believe that these ideas pass through the hypothesis and theory stage before becoming
worthy of consideration as law. But theories and laws are different concepts and are worthy
of consideration. Laws are generalization of nature and principles, and theories are its
explanation.
Myth 2
It is believed that hypothesis is an educated guess but guess about what, so it can be said
that without a clear view of context it’s impossible to tell. Hypothesis has three definitions,
so it should be used with caution. According to Sonleitner trial laws be called generalizing
hypothesis, provisional theories as explanatory hypothesis. Therefore, generalizing
hypothesis becomes law and speculative theories become theory. Those who think these
are forecasts should call it simply as predictions.
Myth 3
It is a generalized notion that scientists follow a set of common steps that are listed in every
textbook. This may be due to the way in which results are published in journals. Scientists
don’t follow any specific research method. They do not have a framed copy of steps to be
followed.
Myth 4
All investigators collect evidences through induction. Even a lot of evidences cannot
produce valid knowledge because of the problem of induction by this it is meant that it is
impossible to collect relevant evidences of all time however; by relevant observation can
one make a conclusion. This is problem of induction. If this problem is kept aside there is
still an issue that how scientists made a conclusion from mass of evidences.
Myth 5
It is believed that scientific results must be valid. However scientific knowledge is under
continuous revision and new information is added. Evidences can support a law or theory
but cannot prove it to be true. A truly conclusive knowledge is only produces when a notion
is falsified.
Myth 6:
A paradox is brought with the fact that induction is foundation of theories and laws, which is
still not a guaranteed method then how scientists create laws and theories? The formation
of laws from these facts is only bases on the creative observance of a scientist. If science
was only procedural than two experts studying same facts would have same results but this
is not the case in science.
Myth 7

Myth 8
Scientists leave no stone unturned to keep their theory objective. However, philosophy and
psychology say otherwise. Firstly, the method of conjectures and refutations proposed by
Popper illustrate that laws given by scientists ought to be conjectures and then it should be
strongly refuted. Absence of disproof would mark credibility of a law. Such a method leaves
no space for "complete objectivity". Secondly, theory-laden observations elucidate that prior
knowledge affects everyone's ability to make observations. So it's impossible to work
neglecting the preconceptions and biases people usually have. Thirdly, Thomas Kuhn says
that scientists work within a research tradition called paradigm which provides direction to
research but, at the same time, limits it. Most of the observations that fall beyond paradigm
are likely to get rejected. This encompasses many examples including continental drift
which was later accepted in 1960s. Nevertheless, Paradigm does not have entirely negative
implications rather positive also as acknowledged by Thomas Kuhn.
Myth 9
Indubitably experimentations contribute alot to the scientific knowledge but there are
alternate methods as well. For example, Copernicus and Kepler used extensive
observations, Darwin exercised qualitative techniques, speculations and thoughts jotted in a
notebook along the inductive method proposed by Bacon, for their view of solar system and
revolutionary discoveries respectively. Later Goodall and Fossey followed Darwin’s suit.
Myth 10
Results of a scientific method ought to be reviewed for authenticity but, regrettably, the busy
schedule and limited funding restrict scientists to do so. This has put the legitimacy of a
research questionable. Issues like academic tenure, personal competition and funding,
alongWith the thirst to acquire new information and giving only the valid but negative results
has increased the likelihood of spuriousness. Providing both the positive and negative
aspects of research can help the discipline prosper.