From: Gaertk at aol.com [mailto:Gaertk at aol.com] > Okay, just so we're talking about the same thing, this is > what I think of as the Scientific Method: > > 1. Gather data > 2. Form hypothesis > 3. Devise experiments to test hypothesis > 4. Compare results > 5. Revise hypothesis > 6. Repeat previous three steps until confident you're right > 7. Publish so other scientists can try to reproduce your > results and find holes in your assumptions and chain of > logic, etc. This reply is actually to all those who said "#1 wasn't present" or "1 & 2 were reversed". Forming hypotheses without preexisting data is pointless. We gather data all the time, all of us. We form hypotheses all the time too. For example: someone notices that plant is shaped just like a liver. Then s/he thinks it might cure a liver ailment. What differentiates the "scientific method" from pre-modern methods[1] is the rest of it. >From JAA > as a 'real' scientist, i will tell you that 1 and 2 are most often >reversed. i come up with a cool question then design experiments >then gather data----the first two are the easiest--it is getting the >data and figuring out what the hell it means that takes up so much >time--actually it is just the last that is time consuming. But don't you come up with your cool question based on previous research? I don't know if I qualify as a "real" scientist yet or just another exploited graduate student, but my entire thesis is based on research done in three labs: two labs which produced data that appeared to contradict my lab's data. My "gather data" step consisted of a literature search (well, a lot of information was initially provided by my advisor of course, but he got it from the literature which I have since memorized, er, read.) #7, Publish, is particularly important not just for the peer-review process but also because it keeps science from being a "he said-she said" thing, keeps the focus on believing what we see (empirical) rather than what we're told(authoritative). And it makes the knowledge public, so that anyone can contribute rather than just a select few, another important distinction from pre-modern methods. Rachel [1] I'm using the vague and probably inaccurate term "pre-modern" because I don't know a better way to say it, but I think it conveys what I'm intending.