We are familiar with what is called the Scientific Method; it has been in existent for some years. It is factual that during the course of human history scientists and mathematicians because of the rudimentary basics they were able to follow the method, even though they were rarely acknowledged and hardly tracked the Method precisely. Scientific Method was initially invented by an Italian doctor know as Francesco Redi in the late 17th centuries, it was the experiments he did that refuted the impulsive generation of maggots on rotting garbage. It was through his experiments of those maggots that appeared to mysteriously form on rotting meat, but it would be through hypothesizing that this was proven not to be true. The Scientific Method is the standard process that scientists are expected to follow when conducting experiments, in order to try to construct a dependable, reliable, and non-arbitrary picture of our surroundings.
In order to follow the Scientific Method, one would need to be strict and stick very closely to a order of conducting tests. The one thing that the scientist need to do first, would be that the scientist has to detect the phenomenon of importance. What happens after that is the scientist has to offer a premise, or thought in which the experimentations would be founded around. With that there must be a repeat of the experimentation, because the hypothesis could prove to be incorrect or are it could actually turn out to be a theory. If the hypothesis is confirmed to be incorrect, the scientist would have to reformulate his or her thoughts and come up with another hypothesis, and the experiment would have to commence over. This process will have to be repeated till a theory is produce. It would then be called a theory in the making which is called a conclusion.
What will be brought out in this paper and it will be shown just how observation and description of a phenomenon or a group of phenomena is done. Also Formulation of a hypothesis or hypotheses to explain the phenomena, why it’s important for the use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to quantitatively predict the results of new observations and the performance of testing of predictions by several independent experimenters. A famous scientist once said, clever people like smart attorneys can come up with a very good explanation for a incorrect point of view.
The scientific method which will be shown here will attempt to minimalize the effect of partiality or prejudice in the experimenter when testing a hypothesis or a theory.
A primary stage involved in the scientific process is the observing and explanation of a phenomenon or a group of phenomena. The forensic examiner must notice an occurrence or situation. How this scientific process phase connects to forensic science would be, for instance, in a crime scene examination concerning ballistics. The observation would be of a specific bullet imprint in a surrounding. Maybe the defense in the situation would increase in their legal argument that the offender could not possibly have killed the victim given the point of entrance and point of exit wounds or the kind of bullet involved. The forensic examiner on the specific case may have the responsibility of arguing this claim. Young (2017)
Forensic ballistic investigation in criminal cases is not restricted exclusively to ballistics, rather includes blood-stained pattern examinations as well linking missile. Science should be, about the facts. Truth in its theoretical, divine or metaphysics forms is vital, but science deals only with experiential certainty. The scientific process has demonstrated itself over time to be a dependable way to reach an actual, quantifiable, apparent certainty. Past events, by their nature of being in the past, have passed from actual to abstract. All that is in the past is now in the form of retention or record, if it is in any form at all. To reach the certainty of past events, mainly truth that is actual, calculated, or experiential, the anamnestic information must not be disregarded or diminished. It must be joined with the explanations made at the crime sight, in the crime test center or in the post-mortem suite. Young (2017)
The scientific technique without change to allow for past events will only cause inaccuracies. Inaccuracies of this nature lead to prejudice. Those of us in the legal and forensic science communities should never allow this kind of prejudice or permit it to happen. The Shaken Baby Syndrome is one instance of how a incorrect use of the scientific technique from past events can lead to years upon years of errors and prejudices. There are many other instances that could be mentioned, but this paper is limited to a certain amount of words. With all the time that has lapsed there is no divinity way of determining just how to estimate the prejudices brought about by perplexed science. Some prejudices in time may be resolved, but regrettably most will not. It is my hope that forensic scientists, police officers, the legal community, and others who systematically investigate events from the past will uniformly embrace the change of the scientific process for past events: the forensic scientific method. Young (2017)
A hypothesis is used to explain a phenomenon or predict a relationship in communication research. There are four evaluation criteria that a hypothesis must meet. First, it must state an expected relationship between variables. Second, it must be testable and falsifiable; researchers must be able to test whether a hypothesis is truth or false. Third, it should be consistent with the existing body of knowledge. Finally, it should be stated as simply and concisely as possible. Allen (2017)
Formulating a hypothesis requires a specific, testable, and predictable statement driven by theoretical guidance and/or prior evidence. A hypothesis can be formulated in various research designs. In experimental settings, researchers compare two or more groups of research participants to investigate the differences of the research outcomes. These participants are randomly. Allen (2017)
An example of this would be: if I eat more vegetables, I would lose more weight faster. The result would be this. Direct effects of the intervention would be found for the change in the body weight (b=-3.84, R2=0.074), fruit/vegetable intake (b=2.00, R2=0.083), and (EBI) eating behaviors mediated scores (b=7.15, R2=0.229) (ps < 0.05). The treatment group to weight change path was not statistically significant (b=-0.673, R2=0.208) when fruit/vegetable intake change and EBI score change were specified as intervention mediators in the model. The total indirect effect was 3.17 lbs. indicating that the indirect paths explained 82.6% of the total effect on weight change.
Previously it was mention that the scientific method tries to minimalize the effect of the scientist's prejudice on the outcome of an experiment. When testing a hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a partiality for one result or another, and it is significant that this first choice not bias the outcome or their clarification. The greatest fundamental error would be to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, short of carrying out experimental testing or rule out information which does not back up the hypothesis. 'The Scientific Method “Hypotheses, Models, Theories, (2019)
Preferably, the person that is doing the experiment will be open to possibility that the hypothesis is right or wrong. From time to time, a scientist may have a strong conviction that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect, or feels internal or external weight to get a precise outcome. In that case, there may be a mental propensity to discover something incorrect, such as methodical effects, with information which do not back up the scientist's anticipation, while information which does agree with the anticipation might be checked more carefully. The object lesson here would be that all information has to be handled in the same way. 'The Scientific Method “Hypotheses, Models, Theories (2019)
Another common error could arise from the failure to calculate quantitatively methodical mistakes and all mistakes. There are countless instances of detections which were misused by experimenters whose information contained a new phenomenon, but who explained it away as a methodical background. On the other hand, there are numerous instances of so-called new detections which later shown to be due to methodical mistakes not accountable for by the discoverers. In an arena where there is vigorous testing and open interaction amongst associates of the scientific community, the prejudices of people or groupings might stop, as experimental tests are reiterated by other scientists that may have other prejudices. There are other kinds of experimental formats that have other bases of methodical mistakes. Over a period spanning a variety of experimental tests typically at least numerous years, a consensus grows in the public as to which experimental outcomes have stood the test of time. 'The Scientific Method “Hypotheses, Models, Theories“(2019)
The final step in this entire process of scientific method of course is the performing of the experiments. There are many testers and as such they are all trying to predict by doing their own independent experiments, therefore trying to come up with their own predictions. What this means is whether or not their hypothesis will be reinforced by the results they come up with, because once the testing has been conducted and predicted and results attained, the hypothesis is now considered to be believable. The test must be a control testing implemented by more than a few self-governing alchemists/ scientist. It is the job of the examiner or the scientists to contrast and or control because the repetition aspects of these testing are critical. Within these final stages of testing there should be an attempt of numerous testing times on numerous subjects. It is imperative in doing so in the last stages so that it may be determine that the outcome is not merely coincidental, but rather intentional and undeniable. Schafersman (1997)
Forensics science is crucial in the request to law and permitted questions as fairness is hinging on unwavering and precise outcomes. Luckily, science and technology have greatly enhanced in recent years to decrease the number of flawed accusations and judgments for the not guilty. But on the other hand this same control is for more stretching in that a criminal or perpetrator is just about certain to be arrested given the probability that minuscule strands of traced evidence is practically always located at the scene of a crime. Schafersman (1997)
Striving for brilliance is oftentimes convoyed by misfortune, because one cannot rely on one thing more than it does the other, like the research within itself are testing that will be the determining factor in reality. This was a known fact when G.A. Magnini, openly declared that Galileo’s observations showed that Jupiter had satellites, therefore he proved this was incorrect. Schafersman (1997) Although the scientific revolution emerged gradually, Galileo’s ideas were able to be traced to the thirteenth century. Galileo’s (2009)
Forensic science is at a crossroads. There is an ongoing recognition that the law do require for forensic feature-comparison method to be done, in order for it to be consider as scientifically valid and dependable before it might be used in the court of law, this certainly can only be carried out by being satisfied by an actual empirical testing. There are several forensic regulations, like latent-print examination, clearly establish that a genuine empirical testing has been done and that it is possible and can help drive change for the better. There must be a generation of forensic scientists prepared and enthusiastic to embrace a fresh, empirical method including black-box studies, white-box studies, and technology expansion efforts to transform subjective approaches into unbiased approaches.
Reference
Allen, M. (2017) Hypothesis Formulation - SAGE Research Methods Retrieved from https://methods.sagepub.com reference the-sage-encyclopedia-of-community
Galileo Galilei: Biography, Inventions & Other Facts | Space (2009) Retrieved from https://www.space.com 15589-galileo-galilei
Schafersman, S. D. (1997). An Introduction to Science Retrieved from
https://pbisotopes.ess.sunysb.edu esp files scientific-method
The Scientific Method “Hypotheses, Models, Theories, and (2019) Retrieved from http:// https://bscdesigner.com Executive’s Toolkit
Young, Dr. T. (2017) Forensic Science and the Scientific Method – Heartland Retrieved from http://www.heartlandforensic.com writing forensic-science-and-the-scientific