I’m acquainted with the scientific method myself, but when I try to explain it to science deniers I always fall short of capturing what makes it such a universal and thorough method. Any help?
In: 6
* Come up with a thought
* Come up with a way to test your thought
* Run the test.
* Did the test prove that your thought was wrong? Oh well, the end.
* Does it look like your thought may be correct? Neat! If so, then…
* Tell other people about your thought, and tell them about how you tested it, and tell them that it looked like you were correct.
* Now they can test it too! *<– This is the “universal” part*
* If someone proves your thought wrong, then…oh well! Guess you were wrong.
* If *no one* can prove that your thought was wrong, then it looks like you’ve just added something new to science! Yay!
* If someone comes along years later and discovers something new that proves you were wrong, then *still yay* because we’ve learned something new!
Latest Answers