!

Enter Reader Mode

Choose Language

Home »
Expand/collapse »
global hierarchy
Bookshelves E

1.5: Scientific Investigations

Last updated: Sep 4, 2021

1.4: Theorie… 1.6: Scientifi…

Page ID

Suzanne Wakim & Mandeep Grewal

Butte College

Table of contents

! What Turned the Water Orange?

If you were walking in the woods and

saw this stream, you probably would
wonder what made the water turn
orange. Is the water orange because of
something growing in it? Is it polluted
with some kind of chemicals? To answer
these questions, you might do a little
research. For example, you might ask
local people if they know why the water is
orange, or you might try to learn more
about it online. If you still haven't found
answers, you could undertake a scientific
investigation. In short, you could "do"
science.
Yellow water flowing in the Rio Tinto, Spain

Figure 1.5.1:Rio Tinto river

"Doing" Science
Science is more about doing than knowing.
Scientists are always trying to learn more
and gain a better understanding of the
natural world. There are basic methods of
gaining knowledge that is common to all of
science. At the heart of science is the
scientific investigation. A scientific
investigation is a plan for asking questions
and testing possible answers in order to
advance scientific knowledge.

Figure 1.5.2 outlines the steps of the

scientific method. Science textbooks often
present this simple, linear "recipe" for a
scientific investigation. This is an
oversimplification of how science is actually
done, but it does highlight the basic plan
and purpose of any scientific investigation:
testing ideas with evidence. We will use this
flowchart to help explain the overall format
for scientific inquiry.

Science is actually a complex endeavor that

cannot be reduced to a single, linear
sequence of steps, like the instructions on a
package of cake mix. Real science is
nonlinear, iterative (repetitive), creative,
unpredictable, and exciting. Scientists often
undertake the steps of an investigation in a
different sequence, or they repeat the same
steps many times as they gain more
information and develop new ideas.
Scientific investigations often raise new
questions as old ones are answered.
Successive investigations may address the
same questions but at ever-deeper levels.
Alternatively, an investigation might lead to
an unexpected observation that sparks a
new question and takes the research in a
completely different direction.

Knowing how scientists "do" science can

help you in your everyday life, even
Sign in if you
aren't a scientist. Some steps of the
Forgot password
scientific process — such as asking
questions
How can andweevaluating
help you?evidence — can S
be applied to answering real-life questions
in
and solving practical problems.
Scientific method flow chart. described in text of page

Figure 1.5.2: The Scientific Method: The

scientific method is a process for gathering
data and processing information. It provides
well-defined steps to standardize how
scientific knowledge is gathered through a
logical, rational problem-solving method. This
diagram shows the steps of the scientific
method, which are listed below.

Making Observations
A scientific investigation typically begins with
observations. An observation is anything
that is detected through human senses or
with instruments and measuring devices
that enhance human senses. We usually
think of observations as things we see with
our eyes, but we can also make
observations with our sense of touch, smell,
taste, or hearing. In addition, we can extend
and improve our own senses with
instruments such as thermometers and
microscopes. Other instruments can be
used to sense things that human senses
cannot detect at all, such as ultraviolet light
or radio waves.

Sometimes chance observations lead to

important scientific discoveries. One such
observation was made by the Scottish
biologist Alexander Fleming (Figure 1.5.3 ) in
the 1920s. Fleming's name may sound
familiar to you because he is famous for the
discovery in question. Fleming had been
growing a certain type of bacteria on glass
plates in his lab when he noticed that one of
the plates had been contaminated with
mold. On closer examination, Fleming
observed that the area around the mold was
free of bacteria.

Figure 1.5.3: Alexander Fleming

experimenting with penicillin and bacteria in
his lab in the 1940s.

Asking Questions
Observations often lead to interesting
questions. This is especially true if the
observer is thinking like a scientist. Having
scientific training and knowledge is also
useful. Relevant background knowledge
and logical thinking help make sense of
observations so the observer can form
particularly salient questions. Fleming, for
example, wondered whether the mold — or
some substance it produced — had killed
bacteria on the plate. Fortunately for us,
Fleming didn't just throw out the mold-
contaminated plate. Instead, he investigated
his question and in so doing, discovered the
antibiotic penicillin.

Hypothesis Formation
To find the answer to a question, the next
step in a scientific investigation typically is to
form a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a
possible answer to a scientific question. But
it isn’t just any answer. A hypothesis must
be based on scientific knowledge. In other
words, it shouldn't be at odds with what is
already known about the natural world. A
hypothesis also must be logical, and it is
beneficial if the hypothesis is relatively
simple. In addition, to be useful in science, a
hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable.
In other words, it must be possible to
subject the hypothesis to a test that
generates evidence for or against it, and it
must be possible to make observations that
would disprove the hypothesis if it really is
false.

A hypothesis is often expressed in the form

of prediction: If the hypothesis is true, then
B will happen to the dependent variable.
Fleming's hypothesis might have been: "If a
certain type of mold is introduced to a
particular kind of bacteria growing on a
plate, the bacteria will die." Is this a good
and useful hypothesis? The hypothesis is
logical and based directly on observations.
The hypothesis is also simple, involving just
one type each of mold and bacteria growing
on a glass plate. This makes it easy to test.
In addition, the hypothesis is falsifiable. If
bacteria were to grow in the presence of the
mold, it would disprove the hypothesis if it
really is false.

Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis testing is at the heart of a
scientific investigation. How would Fleming
test his hypothesis? He would gather
relevant data as evidence. Evidence is any
type of data that may be used to test a
hypothesis. Data (singular, datum) are
essentially just observations. The
observations may be measurements in an
experiment or just something the researcher
notices. Testing a hypothesis then involves
using the data to answer two basic
questions:

1. If my hypothesis is true, what would I

expect to observe?
2. Does what I actually observe match what
predicted?

A hypothesis is supported if the actual

observations (data) match the expected
observations. A hypothesis is refuted if the
actual observations differ from the expected
observations.

Testing Fleming's Hypothesis

To test his hypothesis that the mold kills
bacteria, Fleming grew colonies of bacteria
on several glass plates and introduced mold
to just some of the plates. He subjected all
of the plates to the same conditions except
for the introduction of mold. Any differences
in the growth of bacteria on the two groups
of plates could then be reasonably
attributed to the presence/absence of mold.
Fleming's data might have included actual
measurements of bacterial colony size, like
the data shown in the data table below, or
they might have been just an indication of
the presence or absence of bacteria
growing near the mold. Data like the former,
which can be expressed numerically, are
called quantitative data. Data like the latter,
which can only be expressed in words, such
as present or absent, are called qualitative
data.
Table 1.5.1: Hypothetical data of bacterial growth
on plates with and without mold introduction.
Bacterial Plate… 1

Introduction o… yes

Total Area of … 48

Bacterial Plate… 2

Introduction o… yes

Total Area of … 57

Bacterial Plate… 3

Introduction o… yes

Total Area of … 54

Bacterial Plate… 4

Introduction o… yes

Total Area of … 59

Bacterial Plate… 5

Introduction o… yes

Total Area of … 62

Bacterial Plate… 6

Introduction o… no

Total Area of … 66

Bacterial Plate… 7

Introduction o… no

Total Area of … 75

Bacterial Plate… 8

Introduction o… no

Total Area of … 71

Bacterial Plate… 9

Introduction o… no

Total Area of … 69

Bacterial Plate… 10

Introduction o… no

Total Area of … 68

Analyzing and Interpreting Data

The data scientists gather in their
investigations are raw data. These are the
actual measurements or other observations
that are made in an investigation, like the
measurements of bacterial growth shown in
the data table above. Raw data usually must
be analyzed and interpreted before they
become evidence to test a hypothesis. To
make sense of raw data and decide whether
they support a hypothesis, scientists
generally use statistics.

There are two basic types of statistics:

descriptive statistics and inferential
statistics. Both types are important in
scientific investigations.

Descriptive statistics describe and

summarize the data. They include values
such as the mean, or average, value in
the data. Another basic descriptive
statistic is the standard deviation, which
gives an idea of the spread of data
values around the mean value.
Descriptive statistics make it easier to
use and discuss the data and also to
spot trends or patterns in the data.
Inferential statistics help interpret data
to test hypotheses. They determine how
likely it is that the actual results obtained
in an investigation occurred just by
chance rather than for the reason posited
by the hypothesis. For example, if
inferential statistics show that the results
of an investigation would happen by
chance only 5 percent of the time, then
the hypothesis has a 95 percent chance
of being correctly supported by the
results. An example of a statistical
hypothesis test is a t-test. It can be used
to compare the mean value of the actual
data with the expected value predicted
by the hypothesis. Alternatively, a t-test
can be used to compare the mean value
of one group of data with the mean value
of another group to determine whether
the mean values are significantly
different or just different by chance.

Assume that Fleming obtained the raw data

shown in the data table above. We could
use a descriptive statistic such as the mean
area of bacterial growth to describe the raw
data. Based on these data, the mean area
of bacterial growth for plates with mold is 56
mm2, and the mean area for plates without
mold is 69 mm2. Is this difference in
bacterial growth significant? In other words,
does it provide convincing evidence that
bacteria are killed by the mold or something
produced by the mold? Or could the
difference in mean values between the two
groups of plates be due to chance alone?
What is the likelihood that this outcome
could have occurred even if mold or one of
its products does not kill bacteria? A t-test
could be done to answer this question. The
p-value for the t-test analysis of the data
above is less than 0.05. This means that
one can say with 95% confidence that the
means of the above data are statistically
different.

Drawing Conclusions
A statistical analysis of Fleming's evidence
showed that it did indeed support his
hypothesis. Does this mean that the
hypothesis is true? No, not necessarily.
That's because a hypothesis can never be
proven conclusively to be true. Scientists
can never examine all of the possible
evidence, and someday evidence might be
found that disproves the hypothesis. In
addition, other hypotheses, as yet
unformed, may be supported by the same
evidence. For example, in Fleming's
investigation, something else introduced
onto the plates with the mold might have
been responsible for the death of the
bacteria. Although a hypothesis cannot be
proven true without a shadow of a doubt,
the more evidence that supports a
hypothesis, the more likely the hypothesis is
to be correct. Similarly, the better the match
between actual observations and expected
observations, the more likely a hypothesis is
to be true.

Many times, competing hypotheses are

supported by evidence. When that occurs,
how do scientists conclude which
hypothesis is better? There are several
criteria that may be used to judge competing
hypotheses. For example, scientists are
more likely to accept a hypothesis that:

explains a wider variety of observations.

explains observations that were
previously unexplained.
generates more expectations and is thus
more testable.
is more consistent with well-established
theories.
is more parsimonious, that is, is a
simpler and less convoluted explanation.

Correlation-Causation Fallacy
Many statistical tests used in scientific
research calculate correlations between
variables. Correlation refers to how closely
related two data sets are, which may be a
useful starting point for further investigation.
However, correlation is also one of the most
misused types of evidence, primarily
because of the logical fallacy that correlation
implies causation. In reality, just because
two variables are correlated does not
necessarily mean that either variable
causes the other.

A simple example can be used to

demonstrate the correlation-causation
fallacy. Assume a study found that both ice
cream sales and burglaries are correlated;
that is, rates of both events increase
together. If correlation really did imply
causation, then you could conclude that ice
cream sales cause burglaries or vice versa.
It is more likely, however, that a third
variable, such as the weather, influences
rates of both ice cream sales and burglaries.
Both might increase when the weather is
sunny.

An actual example of the correlation-

causation fallacy occurred during the latter
half of the 20th century. Numerous studies
showed that women taking hormone
replacement therapy (HRT) to treat
menopausal symptoms also had a lower-
than-average incidence of coronary heart
disease (CHD). This correlation was
misinterpreted as evidence that HRT
protects women against CHD. Subsequent
studies that controlled other factors related
to CHD disproved this presumed causal
connection. The studies found that women
taking HRT were more likely to come from
higher socio-economic groups, with better-
than-average diets and exercise regimens.
Rather than HRT causing lower CHD
incidence, these studies concluded that
HRT and lower CHD were both effects of
higher socioeconomic status and related
lifestyle factors.

Communicating Results
The last step in a scientific investigation is
communicating the results to other
scientists. This is a very important step
because it allows other scientists to try to
repeat the investigation and see if they can
produce the same results. If other
researchers get the same results, it adds
support to the hypothesis. If they get
different results, it may disprove the
hypothesis. When scientists communicate
their results, they should describe their
methods and point out any possible
problems with the investigation. This allows
other researchers to identify any flaws in the
method or think of ways to avoid possible
problems in future studies.

Repeating a scientific investigation and

reproducing the same results is called
replication. It is a cornerstone of scientific
research. Replication is not required for
every investigation in science, but it is highly
recommended for those that produce
surprising or particularly consequential
results. In some scientific fields, scientists
routinely try to replicate their own
investigations to ensure the reproducibility
of the results before they communicate
them.

Scientists may communicate their results in

a variety of ways. The most rigorous way is
to write up the investigation and results in
the form of an article and submit it to a peer-
reviewed scientific journal for publication.
The editor of the journal provides copies of
the article to several other scientists who
work in the same field. These are the peers
in the peer-review process. The reviewers
study the article and tell the editor whether
they think it should be published, based on
the validity of the methods and significance
of the study. The article may be rejected
outright, or it may be accepted, either as is
or with revisions. Only articles that meet
high scientific standards are ultimately
published.

Review
1. Outline the steps of a typical scientific
investigation.
2. What is a scientific hypothesis? What
characteristics must a hypothesis have to
be useful in science?
3. Explain how you could do a scientific
investigation to answer this question:
Which of the following surfaces in my
home has the most bacteria: the house
phone, TV remote, bathroom sink faucet,
or outside door handle? Form a
hypothesis and state what results would
support it and what results would refute