Is science always defined by the scientific method?

[qijino1236]

Is science always defined by the scientific method?

What is the format for the big bang theory in the scientific method for steps 3-8? ....

1. Define a question - Is the big bang real?

2. Gather info and resources....I observed that many believe in the big bang theory.

.....

3. Form an explanatory hypothesis <---what would 1(or more) hypotheses be?

4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner<--what would these be?

5. Analyze the data<-.....?

6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis<-.....?

7. Publish results<-.....?

8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)<-.....?

 

theory's are many hypotheses... so what are some example hypotheses for the big bang?

[Phi for All]

To answer the title, yes. When you share ideas with your peers, they're going to want to see how you arrived at your conclusions. If you haven't been rigorous about this, your work will come into question. If you've followed all the steps, then your methodology is sound and your peers can go about testing on their own and trying to recreate your work.

 

The Big Bang has had many experiments done on countless observations. As an example, Einstein's general relativity work formed the basis for equations done by Alexander Friedmann, which led Georges Lemaître to propose that the distance a galaxy was away from us should be proportional to its redshift. When Edwin Hubble observed just that, it led Lemaître to conclude that the farther away a galaxy or cluster was, the higher its apparent velocity. If things are farther away today they must have been closer in the past.

 

I hope I have this chain of events correctly, but the point is that this idea not only works on it's own, it solves some other issues as well, like why spiral galaxies seem to be moving away from us. Ideas that tend to fit like puzzle pieces to bring other ideas together are what eventually get called theories.

 

I'm oversimplifying here, but it sounds like you want to use the scientific method to see if the Big Bang theory is "real". Your observation, that "many believe in [it]", is flawed. It's not "belief". Science is not about having faith that something is true. It's not about being "pretty sure". It's about taking small steps in a very careful way and asking questions that can only be answered by actual observation and confirming evidence.

 

We're not just "pretty sure" the earth is round. We don't just "believe" that. We made observations and drew inescapable conclusions about the way it seemed to rotate and about the shape of other planets long before we were ever able to orbit around the earth for eyewitness proof.

 

if you still want to use the scientific method to determine if the Big Bang theory is "real", then you're going to have to read all about it. No guesses as to what it means, no skipping over the math involved, and if you find a term you don't understand, you have to learn about that too. No shortcuts. Science didn't take shortcuts to arrive at this theory, so you shouldn't if you want to say it's wrong.

[swansont]

Is science always defined by the scientific method?

 

I think you have to start by acknowledging that there is no "the" scientific method. A scientific approach can follow a few different paths; however, they will all include testing/falsifiability and gathering of scientific evidence, which is compared to a model.

 

Sometimes the observation comes first and the framework of interpretation follows. Sometimes that is reversed — the model predicts a behavior and an experiment is done to see if the effect can be observed. In the situation of the big bang, the recession of stars was observed and a theory developed from that. A prediction of the background radiation and of isotopic abundances (to name two) were made, and observed to be correct.