Science Meets Real Life
Science Meets Real Life
Scenario 1: You arrive home late at night. You walk up to the front door, unlock it, and reach in to turn on the light switch located just inside the front door. The light does not come on! Now what? As a typical human being, you are compelled to undergo will go a mental as well as physical procedure of premise testing. It should be noted that, the process including the subsequent steps ensues quite swiftly in mind and, proceeding to this, you might not have had tags for the range of directions, which are much the scientific technique. This could then be ensued by observation where the first instance is to encounter darkness, when you switch the lights on, no light and the darkness persists. Hence, a question follows, could the power out? In essence this would subsequently raise a hypothesis or a prediction by asserting that, if perchance the power is out, then the entire neighborhood ought to be dark when I look around. Eventually, this would lead to an experiment that is, observing if the neighborhood is lighted and this would be indirect evidence. Equally, this would be sustained by analysis of if the neighborhood houses have lights, if they do, this would mean the prediction or hypothesis failed and the conclusion would translate to rejecting the entire hypothesis. Hence, another area to consider would be the possible error in regard to failed lights hence assuming the error was a result of generator. However, if the entire neighborhood is unlighted, the hypothesis holds ground and the conclusion entail that the hypothesis stays. Therefore, another question, could the entire neighborhood be out for dinner or a social gathering? The decision would entail that, no lights in vicinity, note probability error signifying no ultimate answer (Gartrell, 1999). Pertaining to reversed trial, it would be essential to try another bulb or lamp in the house, with a revised prediction: thus, if the power is out the bulbs or the lamp won’t either turn on. However, in regard to the immediate analysis, if the bulb works, then the hypothesis fails, conclusion being, rejecting the prediction/hypothesis. Thus:
If lamp fails to light, forecast is supported,
conclusion: does not discard hypothesis
Question: Is lamp/bulb blazed out?
Prediction: If lamp/bulb is burned out, the possibility is that, the old bulb will not support or light a different lamp Experiment: fix old bulb into a different lamp.
Control Experiment: establish that a fresh bulb lights the new lamp. Analysis (i): the previous (original) bulb fails to light both lamps Conclusion: substantiation supports premise, does not discard hypothesis Or
Analysis (ii): Old lamp/Bulb do not light additional lamp
Conclusion: theory is redundant; old bulb is not flamed out. Therefore, begin with fresh question, novel premise for Analysis (1): If the old lamp/bulb is blazed out, then lamp will function after installing a new bulb. Analysis: if the Light appears, supports theory, if no light, it would be instrumental to begin again with a fresh n question. New Question: Is lamp/bulb fixed?
Hypothesis: Lamp/bulb ought to be functional if plugged in appropriately. Experiment: verify if bulb is plugged correctly, turn on lamp. Run Experiment: fix in a different bulb that is identified as functioning. Analysis: If the bulb turns on, theory is supported. If the two bulbs are not functional, revise theory Revised Hypothesis: bulbs will not work if the channel is not effective. Prediction: bulb will work in a different outlet
Experiment: fix the bulb into a different outlet.
Control Experiment: utilize outlet that operational with a different lamp. Analysis: If the bulb turns on, theory is supported, not discarded. The previous (original) channel requires further exploration. If the bulb does not light, new question may arise, is the...