Hello and welcome to GeekTeach, todays video
is how science works.
In every science textbook you will ever pick
up for secondary or post 16 education you
can almost always guarantee that there will
be a how science works section.
Understandably, as the scientific process
is an integral part of science.
But my problem with this is, it's over simplified
to the point where it presents science as
a dull and overly structured monster.
Science is already shown to be intimidating
with the hefty textbooks in libraries and
seemingly complex language but coupled with
THIS it would scare away even the most curious
of students.
So in this video I want to explain the scientific
process in its true form and how it is used
in the real world.
So lets get started with how science works.
The aim of science is to explain how and why
things happen, they do this by asking questions,
suggesting answers and testing them to see
if they are correct.
This is the scientific method in summary.
But really it is all interchangeable and builds
on its self.
So rather than a step by step guide it fits
into itself working as a nearly continuous
cycle.
So the main part is testing ideas so we will
put that right in the middle with a nice big
circle around it.
but to get to that point we generally learn
new things and come up with an idea on that
so lets put that up here, we will call that
Innovation.
When we test ideas we also get feedback from
the scientific community so lets add a feedback
section.
From testing ideas we also get the benefits
like smaller batteries so lets add a benefits
section here aswell.
Now when I say it is all interchangeable I
really mean it which makes it difficult to
find a place to start.
For the purpose of this lets start in the
innovation section.
So you start with some sort of motivation
for going into the system.
Be it new technology, a surprising observation,
a practical problem or general curiosity.
So we have this motivation, we will use a
practical problem.
And we are lead by it into the innovation
section.
What happens in here can happen in any order
and can loop around until you come to a point
where you can test something.
Generally what it consists of is research,
you look into the problem and possible solutions,
you ask questions, share ideas.
Its really a discussion stage.
Most scientists work in groups so they openly
discuss possible solutions and question others
and decide which one is best to go forward
with, students tend to do the same thing with
there teachers when writing reports.
Its usually about this point when you come
up with a hypothesis.
Then we get to the testing stage.
So we gather the data and we compare expected
results to actual results.
From that we can tell if it is supportive,
contradictory, surprising or inconclusive.
The surprising one tends to lead to a new
hypothesis.
The results are then shared, scientists do
this using journals and joining other scientists
in a similar field to discuss the recent discoveries.
Scientists are actually one of the most highly
travelled professionals because they go to
events worldwide to participate in discussions
like this.
Before its published the journal sends it
off to other scientists and asks them to replicate
it and see if they get similar results and
draw similar conclusions from them.
This prevents people making up results and
regulates the scientific community.
Once its published other scientists come up
with new ideas and questions and even build
theories on it.
Then we get to the benefits section.
So the benefits of science could be to improve
technology, to address societal issues, solving
everyday problems, building knowledge and
informing policy.
The informing policy part is particularly
important for discoveries like CFCs damage
to the atmosphere, if scientists didn't discover
that and use it to inform policies we would
still be using CFCs and there would be a bigger
whole, but the discovery led to laws being
passed banning its use in aerosol.
Just like laws with asbestos.
So now I just want to prove it as a cycle.
You could start of with the benefits section,
say your aim is to improve technology like
making a smaller battery.
You start there you go to innovation, reaserch,
you discuss, come up with ideas and then form
hypothysis.
You then test this check it all works and
then end up at feedback.
Or you could start at feedback, say someone
published a paper and you have a better idea,
then you can either go to benefits or innovation
and start the cycle again.
And then there are the cycles within themselves.
So you are testing something you go to feedback
and get bad feedback so you are back in testing.
Or you test aiming for a smaller battery and
get it but go back to 
testing to see if you can make it even smaller.
I hope I have shown you how it all interlinks
and isn't as linear as the textbooks make
it out to be.
If you went through this process and discovered
something new or a better way to explain something
like the electromagnetic force It is accepted
until someone can come up with a better solution
or explanation.
We accept what evidence backs up, and so if
you came up with electromagnetism and the
results proved it, it would be accepted.
Just as it is today but if someone found a
flaw in it, somewhere where the data and expectation
doesn't add up it cant be accepted as a final
explanation and must be improved.
Sometimes you cant do an experiment to get
an answer instead you have to do a study.
An example would be Does drinking chlorinated
water increase the risk of cancer.
In this case they would get 2 groups that
are as similar as possible like ages, genders,
diets etc and having one group drink only
tap water and the other only pure water.
Over time they then record the number of cases
of that cancer in each and compare it. and
that's your study and you draw conclusions
from that.
So that is the scientific process.
I hope I did it justice in this explanation.
Thank you for watching and I look forward
to seeing you next time.
