There is no observation that would not fit this hypothesis!

Here is a simplified version of the logic of the scientific method:we begin the encounter with nature by making observations and then throughsome creative process a hypothesis is generated about how some processof nature works.

SOLUTION: “Observation, Hypothesis, Experimentation…

hypothesis-drivenresearch) involves Observation, Hypothesis, Controlled Experiment and Conclusion.
Photo provided by
Flickr

Observation, Hypothesis, Experimentation, and Verification

Participant Observation
A field research method whereby the researcher develops knowledge of the composition of a particular setting or society by taking part in the everyday routines and rituals alongside its members. A principle goal of participant observation is develop an understanding of a setting from a member¿s perspective, which may be accomplished through both informal observations and conversations as well as in-depth interviews.

“Observation, Hypothesis, Experimentation, and Verification.”

Methodology
The principles, procedures, and strategies of research used in a study for gathering information, analyzing data, and drawing conclusions. There are broad categories of methodology such as qualitative methods or quantitative methods; and there are particular types of methodologies such as survey research, case study, and participant observation, among many others.

If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must berejected or modified.
Photo provided by
Flickr

Observation Hypothesis Theory Scientific Law ..

Truth. It’s natural to think that computability, range of application,and other things being equal, true theories are better than falseones, good approximations are better than bad ones, and highlyprobable theoretical claims are better than less probable ones. Oneway to decide whether a theory or a theoretical claim is true, closeto the truth, or acceptably probable is to derive predictions from itand use observational data to evaluate them. Hypothetico-Deductive(HD) confirmation theorists propose that observational evidence arguesfor the truth of theories whose deductive consequences it verifies,and against those whose consequences it falsifies (Popper 1959,32–34). But laws and theoretical generalization seldom if everentail observational predictions unless they are conjoined with one ormore auxiliary hypotheses taken from the theory they belong to. Whenthe prediction turns to be false, HD has trouble explaining which ofthe conjuncts is to blame. If a theory entails a true prediction, itwill continue to do so in conjunction with arbitrarily selectedirrelevant claims. HD has trouble explaining why the predictiondoesn’t confirm the irrelevancies along with the theory ofinterest.

Concepts and meanings of observation method 1 Meaning ..

Theories are customarily represented as collections of sentences,propositions, statements or beliefs, etc., and their logicalconsequences. Among these are maximally general explanatory andpredictive laws (Coulomb’s law of electrical attraction and repulsion,and Maxwellian electromagnetism equations for example), along withlesser generalizations that describe more limited natural andexperimental phenomena (e.g., the ideal gas equations describingrelations between temperatures and pressures of enclosed gasses, andgeneral descriptions of positional astronomical regularities).Observations are used in testing generalizations of both kinds.

hypothesis experimentation, and independent verification

Francis Bacon (Bacon 1620, 70) said that allowing one’s commitment toa theory to determine what one takes to be the epistemic bearing ofobservational evidence on that very theory is, if anything, even worsethan ignoring the evidence altogether. HD, Bootstrap, Bayesian, andrelated accounts of conformation run the risk of earning Bacon’sdisapproval. According to all of them it can be reasonable foradherents of competing theories to disagree about how observationaldata bear on the same claims. As a matter of historical fact, suchdisagreements do occur. The moral of this fact depends upon whetherand how such disagreements can be resolved. Because some of thecomponents of a theory are logically and more or lessprobabilistically independent of one another, adherents of competingtheories can often can find ways to bring themselves into close enoughagreement about auxiliary hypotheses or prior probabilities to drawthe same conclusions from the evidence.