R

E

A

D

T

H

I

N

K

C

R

E

A

T

E

Look at the example of a more systematic approach, but a very useful way. Start scientific observation: when you have observed, in the midst of the noise at night. Have a general understanding of, or hypothesis for the cause of the noise is correct, then you can predict the cause of the dogs and cats recover. Conduct experiments, and when you have been looking for evidence of such a chase.           Scientific Method         Science can seem mysterious, especially when presented in great detail. In essence, however, it is remarkably straightforward. Scientists simply try to gain a fundamental understanding of natural phenomena.   Everyone uses scientific reasoning to some degree. For example, if you hear a noise in the middle of the night, it may be important that you understand the cause of the noise. You might conjecture that the noise was caused by your dog Domino chasing your cat Puck. That scenario might seem harmless enough to you that you'd decide to stay in your nice warm bed. But, if you wanted to make sure, you would get out of bed, turn on some lights, and look for evidence such as an overturned lamp or guilty-looking animals.   Let's look at this example in a more systematic, yet extremely useful, way. Science begins with observations: You have observed a noise in the middle of the night. If your general understanding, or hypothesis, about the cause of the noise is correct, you could predict that it was caused by the dog chasing the cat. You perform an experiment when you get up and look for evidence of such a chase.   If the result of the experiment is not the one you've predicted (both Domino and Puck are sleeping innocently), then your general understanding is clearly inadequate and must be reformulated or recycled as a REVISED HYPOTHESIS. If the result matches the prediction, this supports (but does not prove) the validity of your hypothesis. After all, the lamp may have been knocked down by a burglar. Each time a hypothesis withstands these tests, its credibility increases. Each time it does not, the hypothesis must be either revised or discarded. Scientists must be open to either possibility.   ... Another way scientists test hypotheses is by looking for preexisting (but as yet unknown to them) examples from reality that are consistent with their statement. For example, if you visit Disney World and observe that it rains briefly every afternoon during your week-long stay, you could evaluate the hypothesis that it rains briefly in the afternoon all year long not only by predicting a brief afternoon shower for tomorrow, but also by looking at local weather reports in the local newspaper for the past several months. If your search reveals a dry spell that lasted several days, the hypothesis will have to be revised accordingly.   Scientists thus have two ways to evaluate hypotheses: by seeking new instances predicted by the hypotheses, and by looking for preexisting examples consistent with the hypotheses.              — Charles M Wynn, Arthur W. Wiggins, Quantum Leaps in the Wrong Direction - Where Real Science Ends and Pseudoscience Begins             Indexes/04