# The Scientific Method: a Practical Guide

Michel Bakni

► To cite this version:

Michel Bakni. The Scientific Method: a Practical Guide. figshare, 2025, 978-2-9576887-5-3. 10.6084/m9 figshare.28330490. hal-04952875v2

HAL Id: hal-04952875

https://hal.science/hal-04952875v2

Submitted on 26 Feb 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# The Scientific Method
A Practical Guide

Define

1

Retest

8

2

Sources

Publish

7

3

Hypothesis

Conclude

6

4

Test

5

Analyse
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
I dedicate this book to my people ...

the Syrians,

who bravely revolts, fought, suffered and
triumphed against the most brutal dictator
of our time ...

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>
# The Scientific Method

## A Practical Guide

by

Michel BAKNI,
Ph.D.

2025

Orthez, France

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>
Bibliographical information

<table><tr><td>Title</td><td>The Scientific Method: A Practical Guide</td></tr><tr><td>Author</td><td>Michel BAKNI</td></tr><tr><td>Author ISNI</td><td>0000 0005 0354 6620</td></tr><tr><td>Publication date</td><td>2025</td></tr><tr><td>Edition</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Cover design</td><td>Lea CREMONT</td></tr><tr><td>Book ISBN</td><td>978-2-9576887-5-3</td></tr><tr><td>Book DOI</td><td>10.6084/m9 figshare.28330490</td></tr><tr><td>No. pages</td><td>xxvi, 433</td></tr><tr><td>Dimensions</td><td>14.8 cm x 21.0 cm</td></tr></table>

This book was printed at the ICN press

Postal address: ZI des Saligues, 64300 Orthez, France.

Telephone number: 0033 5 59 69 77 80

Email address: icn2@wanadoo.fr

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

icn

Imprimerie
Edition
**Copyright notice**

This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).

You are free to:

**Share** — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format

**Adapt** — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.

The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms:

**Attribution** — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

**No additional restrictions** — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Read the text of the full license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International on the following link:

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

Unless clearly mentioned otherwise, all images and illustrations in the book are licensed under CC BY 4.0 (Author: Michel BAKNI).
Content at glance

<table><tr><td>Introduction</td><td>xvii</td></tr><tr><td>PART I: Foundations of the scientific method</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Knowledge & its types</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Scientific facts</td><td>57</td></tr><tr><td>Research methodology</td><td>97</td></tr><tr><td>Scientific method</td><td>141</td></tr><tr><td>PART II: On the scientific method</td><td>191</td></tr><tr><td>On the research problem</td><td>193</td></tr><tr><td>On the sources</td><td>241</td></tr><tr><td>On the ethics of research</td><td>295</td></tr><tr><td>On writing and publishing</td><td>343</td></tr><tr><td>Index</td><td>391</td></tr><tr><td>References</td><td>415</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>
Table of contents

<table><tr><td>Introduction</td><td>xvii</td></tr><tr><td>PART I: Foundations of the scientific method</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>1. Knowledge & its types</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>1.1. Introduction</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>1.2. Nature of knowledge</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>1.3. Sources of knowledge</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>1.3.1. Indoctrination</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>1.3.2. Observation</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>1.3.3. Experimentation</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>1.3.4. Reasoning</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>1.4. Aspects of knowledge</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>1.5. Knowledge and science</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>1.6. Historical background</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>1.6.1. Ibn Al-Haytham (965-1040)</td><td>42</td></tr><tr><td>1.6.2. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)</td><td>44</td></tr><tr><td>1.6.2.1. Idols of the tribe</td><td>47</td></tr><tr><td>1.6.2.2. Idols of the cave</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>1.6.2.3. Idols of the market</td><td>50</td></tr><tr><td>1.6.2.4. Idols of the theatre</td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>1.6.3. René Descartes (1596-1650)</td><td>53</td></tr><tr><td>2 Scientific facts</td><td>57</td></tr><tr><td>2.1. Introduction</td><td>57</td></tr><tr><td>2.2. Facts as knowledge</td><td>58</td></tr><tr><td>2.2.1. The "fact" in the common sense</td><td>59</td></tr><tr><td>2.2.2. Etymology of "fact"</td><td>62</td></tr><tr><td>2.2.3. Origin of facts</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>2.2.4. What is a fact?</td><td>67</td></tr><tr><td>2.3. Classifications of facts</td><td>69</td></tr><tr><td>2.3.1. Time basis</td><td>69</td></tr></table>
<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>2.3.2.</td>
      <td>Structural basis</td>
      <td>70</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.4.</td>
      <td>Facts development</td>
      <td>73</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.4.1.</td>
      <td>Simple fact</td>
      <td>73</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.4.2.</td>
      <td>Complex fact</td>
      <td>77</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.5.</td>
      <td>The relationship between theories and hypothesis</td>
      <td>87</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.6.</td>
      <td>Notes on scientific facts</td>
      <td>90</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.6.1.</td>
      <td>On the credibility</td>
      <td>90</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.6.2.</td>
      <td>On the process development</td>
      <td>92</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.6.3.</td>
      <td>Hypothesis Vs assumption</td>
      <td>93</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.6.4.</td>
      <td>On the truthiness and falsehood</td>
      <td>94</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.</td>
      <td>Research methodology</td>
      <td>97</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.1.</td>
      <td>Introduction</td>
      <td>97</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.2.</td>
      <td>Getting started: methods defined so far</td>
      <td>98</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.3.</td>
      <td>Method vs. methodology</td>
      <td>101</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.3.1.</td>
      <td>Method</td>
      <td>101</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.3.2.</td>
      <td>Methodology</td>
      <td>105</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.3.3.</td>
      <td>Difference In the research domain</td>
      <td>108</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.4.</td>
      <td>Classification of research method</td>
      <td>110</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.4.1.</td>
      <td>Descriptive methods</td>
      <td>111</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.4.1.1.</td>
      <td>Example 1: Hadith studies</td>
      <td>115</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.4.1.2.</td>
      <td>Example 2: Historical method</td>
      <td>119</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.4.1.3.</td>
      <td>Example 3: Taxonomy</td>
      <td>123</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.4.2.</td>
      <td>Deductive methods</td>
      <td>125</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.4.2.1.</td>
      <td>Example: Court judges</td>
      <td>125</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.4.3.</td>
      <td>Inductive research methods</td>
      <td>126</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.4.3.1.</td>
      <td>Example 1: Mathematics</td>
      <td>127</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.4.3.2.</td>
      <td>Example 2: physics</td>
      <td>128</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.5.</td>
      <td>Approaches</td>
      <td>130</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.5.1.</td>
      <td>Literary approach</td>
      <td>131</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.5.2.</td>
      <td>Promotive approach</td>
      <td>133</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.5.3.</td>
      <td>Scientific approach</td>
      <td>135</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
4. Scientific Method 141

4.1. Introduction 141

4.2. What to consider a science? 142

4.2.1. Properties of the science 142

4.2.2. Modern classification of sciences 148

4.2.3. Non-Scientific paradigms 151

4.3. Understanding the scientific method 156

4.3.1. Structure 156

4.3.1.1. Defining the research problem 161

4.3.1.2. Conducting a state-of-the-art 163

4.3.1.3. Formulating a hypothesis 164

4.3.1.4. Building a test 166

4.3.1.5. Analysing of the collected data 168

4.3.1.6. Drawing conclusions 170

4.3.1.7. Publishing 171

4.3.1.8. Retesting 174

4.3.2. Properties 175

4.3.2.1. Reproducibility 175

4.3.2.2. Predictability 178

4.3.2.3. Systemacity 180

4.3.2.4. Skepticism 182

4.3.2.5. Objectivity 183

4.3.2.6. Reliability 185

PART II: On the scientific method 191

5. On the research problem 193

5.1. Introduction 193

5.2. Basic skills 194

5.2.1. Identify the structure of the scientific work 195

5.2.2. Selective reading algorithm 200

5.2.3. Reference management 202

5.3. Searching for a research problem 207
<table><tr><td>5.4.</td><td>Defining the research problem</td><td>213</td></tr><tr><td>5.4.1.</td><td>Defining by context</td><td>215</td></tr><tr><td>5.4.1.1.</td><td>Time aspect</td><td>216</td></tr><tr><td>5.4.1.2.</td><td>Location aspect</td><td>217</td></tr><tr><td>5.4.1.3.</td><td>Sources aspect</td><td>218</td></tr><tr><td>5.4.2.</td><td>Define by syntax</td><td>220</td></tr><tr><td>5.4.2.1.</td><td>Using description and questions</td><td>221</td></tr><tr><td>5.4.2.2.</td><td>Using hypotheses</td><td>223</td></tr><tr><td>5.5.</td><td>Research problem properties</td><td>230</td></tr><tr><td>5.5.1.</td><td>The status of the problem</td><td>231</td></tr><tr><td>5.5.2.</td><td>Size of the problem</td><td>233</td></tr><tr><td>5.5.3.</td><td>Availability of tools and sources</td><td>234</td></tr><tr><td>5.5.4.</td><td>Studyability of the problem</td><td>237</td></tr><tr><td>6.</td><td>On the sources</td><td>241</td></tr><tr><td>6.1.</td><td>Introduction</td><td>241</td></tr><tr><td>6.2.</td><td>The state-of-the-art</td><td>242</td></tr><tr><td>6.2.1.</td><td>Objectives</td><td>245</td></tr><tr><td>6.2.2.</td><td>Types</td><td>248</td></tr><tr><td>6.2.3.</td><td>Conducting a state-of-the-Art</td><td>255</td></tr><tr><td>6.2.3.1.</td><td>What to include?</td><td>259</td></tr><tr><td>6.2.3.2.</td><td>What to avoid?</td><td>262</td></tr><tr><td>6.3.</td><td>The references</td><td>267</td></tr><tr><td>6.3.1.</td><td>Basic terminology</td><td>267</td></tr><tr><td>6.3.2.</td><td>Authority control</td><td>271</td></tr><tr><td>6.3.2.1.</td><td>ISBN</td><td>273</td></tr><tr><td>6.3.2.2.</td><td>OCLC</td><td>275</td></tr><tr><td>6.3.3.3.</td><td>DOI</td><td>276</td></tr><tr><td>6.3.3.4.</td><td>ISSN</td><td>278</td></tr><tr><td>6.3.3.</td><td>Handling sources</td><td>278</td></tr><tr><td>6.3.3.1.</td><td>Classification</td><td>278</td></tr><tr><td>6.3.3.2.</td><td>Properties</td><td>282</td></tr></table>
6.3.3.3. Types 286

7. On the ethics of research 295

7.1. Introduction 295

7.2. Definition 296

7.3. Major issues 300

7.3.1. Honesty 301

7.3.2. Objectivity 306

7.3.3. Transparency 312

7.3.4. Copyrights 316

7.3.5. Environment 318

7.3.6. Privacy and data protection 323

7.4. Ethics integration in the research 328

7.5. Common ethical violation 331

7.5.1. Fabrication & falsification 332

7.5.2. Plagiarism 338

8. On writing and publishing 343

8.1. Introduction 343

8.2. Scientific writing 345

8.3. Types of publication 363

8.3.1. Research theses 364

8.3.2. Academic article 371

8.3.3. Research report 377

8.3.4. Popular science book 382

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>Table of figures</caption><thead><tr><td>#.</td><td>Title</td><td>Page</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1-1</td><td>Aspects of the knowledge</td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td>1-2</td><td>RADAR diagram.</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>1-3</td><td>The amphitheatre scenario</td><td>34</td></tr><tr><td>1-4</td><td>Earth's shape: Reality Vs. facts</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td>1-5</td><td>Timeline of scientific and non-scientific thinking</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>1-6</td><td>Imaginary drawing for Ibn Al-Haytham</td><td>43</td></tr><tr><td>1-7</td><td>Portrait of Francis Bacon</td><td>45</td></tr><tr><td>1-8</td><td>Plato's Cave</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>1-9</td><td>Rhombicosidodecahedron</td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>1-10</td><td>Portrait of René Descartes</td><td>54</td></tr><tr><td>2-1</td><td>Development of a simple fact</td><td>73</td></tr><tr><td>2-2</td><td>Development of a simple fact: fire example</td><td>76</td></tr><tr><td>2-3</td><td>Development of a complex fact</td><td>78</td></tr><tr><td>2-4</td><td>Development of a complex fact: Pythagorean theorem</td><td>81</td></tr><tr><td>2-5</td><td>Relationship between theories and hypothesis</td><td>87</td></tr><tr><td>2-6</td><td>Tests and credibility of the scientific facts</td><td>91</td></tr><tr><td>2-7</td><td>Relationship of simple and complex facts</td><td>93</td></tr><tr><td>3-1</td><td>Schematic diagram from creating simple and complex facts</td><td>99</td></tr><tr><td>3-2</td><td>method for defining a new concept</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>3-3</td><td>The fifth postulate of Euclid</td><td>118</td></tr><tr><td>3-4</td><td>A coin dated back to the era of Alexander the Great</td><td>123</td></tr><tr><td>4-1</td><td>The scientific method</td><td>157</td></tr><tr><td>4-2</td><td>Amy Cuddy presenting Power posing at PopTech Conference 2011 (Camden, Maine)</td><td>177</td></tr><tr><td>4-3</td><td>The first version of the periodic table of chemical elements (1869) by Mendeleev, with '?' indicating predicted elements</td><td>179</td></tr><tr><td>4-4</td><td>The peer-review process</td><td>186</td></tr><tr><td>5-1</td><td>Structure of an academic article of two pages</td><td>196</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>5-2</td><td>Selective reading algorithm</td><td>201</td></tr><tr><td>5-3</td><td>Comparison between reference and Quotation cards</td><td>204</td></tr><tr><td>5-4</td><td>Example of reference management</td><td>207</td></tr><tr><td>5-5</td><td>Diamond model for defining problems</td><td>212</td></tr><tr><td>6-1</td><td>The problem of the seven bridges of Königsberg</td><td>252</td></tr><tr><td>6-2</td><td>A screenshot of Nash bibliography section in his these</td><td>254</td></tr><tr><td>6-3</td><td>Research domains and fields on interests</td><td>261</td></tr><tr><td>6-4</td><td>Hierarchical structure of an academic journal publication</td><td>269</td></tr><tr><td>6-5</td><td>An ISBN barcoded</td><td>275</td></tr><tr><td>6-6</td><td>Classification of research sources</td><td>279</td></tr><tr><td>7-1</td><td>Philosophy and its branches</td><td>298</td></tr><tr><td>8-1</td><td>Using colours to differentiate lines and areas</td><td>359</td></tr><tr><td>8-2</td><td>Typical thesis title page</td><td>369</td></tr><tr><td>8-3</td><td>Typical research report title page</td><td>380</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>
Table of tables

<table><thead><tr><td>#</td><td>Title</td><td>Page</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1-1</td><td>Comparison between observation and experimentation</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>3-1</td><td>Comparison between quantitative and qualitative tools used to obtain data</td><td>139</td></tr><tr><td>4-1</td><td>Classification of modern sciences</td><td>150</td></tr><tr><td>4-2</td><td>Comparison of non-scientific paradigms</td><td>156</td></tr><tr><td>5-1</td><td>Defining the gender gap research problem through description and questions</td><td>222</td></tr><tr><td>5-2</td><td>Time-based table for variables value</td><td>227</td></tr><tr><td>5-3</td><td>Age-based table for variables value</td><td>229</td></tr><tr><td>6-1</td><td>Stand-alone and integrated state-of-the-arts comparison</td><td>249</td></tr><tr><td>6-2</td><td>Required bibliographical information</td><td>294</td></tr><tr><td>8-1</td><td>words to be avoided in scientific writing</td><td>352</td></tr><tr><td>8-2</td><td>common types of figures used in statistics, their best uses, and examples</td><td>361</td></tr><tr><td>8-3</td><td>Comparison of different types of scientific publications</td><td>389</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>
List of abbreviations

**AI:** Artificial Intelligence.

**APA:** American Psychological Association,

**CMOS:** Chicago Manual of Style

**CNG:** Classical Numismatic Group

**CRU:** Climatic Research Unit

**CUDOS:** Communism, Universalism, Disinterestedness, Organised Skepticism

**DOI:** Digital Object Identifier

**EU:** European Union

**FFP:** Fabrication, Falsification, and Plagiarism

**GDPR:** General Data Protection Regulation

**GMC:** General Medical Council

**GPS:** Global Positioning System

**HIPAA:** Health Insurance Portability and Accountability

**IRB:** Institutional Review Board

**IRENA:** International Renewable Energy Agency

**ISBN:** International Standard Book Number

**ISNI:** International Standard Name Identifier

**ISO:** International Organisation for Standardisation.

**ISSN:** International Standard Serial Number.

**MLA:** Modern Language Association

**MMR:** measles, mumps, and rubella

**MPS:** Master of Professional Studies
**OCLC:** Online Computer
Library Centre

**Ph.D.:** Doctor of Philosophy

**PD:** the Public Domain

**UEA:** University of East
Anglia.

**UFO:** Unidentified Flying
Object

**UK:** United Kingdom

**URL:** Uniform Resource
Locator

**US:** United States

**VIAF:** Virtual International
Authority File

**WWII:** World War 2

**WWW:** World Wide Web
**Introduction**

Research has undoubtedly been a driving force in shaping human civilisation over the past few centuries. When applied scientifically, the research process uncovers natural laws that allows to predict changes in the physical world with remarkable accuracy. However, research is not confined to the study of nature, it is also widely utilised in social sciences. While outcomes in this field are often less definitive, research contributes significantly to enhance understanding of human behaviour, societal structures, and development.

Although research is grounded in scientific methods, the term “scientific” can sometimes seem ambiguous. What truly drives the success of research is the adherence to a systematic process, a set of well-defined steps that must be strictly followed. For this reason, the term “systematic” may more accurately describe the essence of research.
The systematic nature of research introduces complexities that often limit its accessibility. In the modern world, research findings are frequently challenged by political figures using weak or overly simplistic arguments. Unfortunately, these arguments often resonate with the public, leading to widespread scepticism towards science and easy political victories.

Humans, as individuals, are not naturally inclined towards logic, it is a skill acquired through education and practice. In everyday life, people often rely on instinct and make quick decisions without a solid foundation. This tendency can weaken the public's ability to appreciate research findings, despite their well-structured and evidence-based nature.

This challenge, faced by research, was the main motivation behind creating this work. The book is designed as a straightforward and concise guide to research, carefully prepared for postgraduate students starting their research journey. However, it
is equally suitable for anyone seeking to understand
the nature of science and the structure of research.

**Why I am writing this book and what qualifies me?**

Research has always been an integral part of my daily
life. As a specialist in applied science with a Ph.D. in
electronics, I work as a research engineer in higher
education. My role involves conducting research for
both academia and industry while also teaching and
mentoring students.

During my academic journey, I had the opportunity to
guide engineering students from Jiangsu University
as part of a student exchange programme at ESTIA
institute of technology. Over four years, I taught
these students research methodology, supervised
their final graduation projects, and helped them
write research theses. This experience gave me a
profound understanding of what students need to
transition from merely receiving knowledge to
creating and discovering during their final stage of
their studies.
In addition to my academic responsibilities, I received a grant<fnref n="1" /> from the Wikimedia Foundation to develop a learning module on the scientific method. This module aimed to enhance the contributions of Wikipedia editors by aligning their work with scientific principles. Teaching approximately 50 Arabic Wikipedia editors from diverse backgrounds, ranging from high school students to retirees, was a challenging yet rewarding experience.<fnref n="2" /> It helped me better understand the gap between researchers and non-researchers and taught me how to simplify methods and concepts for people outside the academic sphere.

In recent years, I have deliberately worked with researchers from various fields to explore research methods beyond the inductive approach, typical in applied sciences, my primary domain. This journey

<footnote n="1">¹ Check the grant page for more details: https://w.wiki/6BeP.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² A MOOC was developed as a result, check the MOOC page for more details: https://w.wiki/7HUD.</footnote>
allowed me to practice descriptive research methods
in history<fnref n="3" /> and deductive methods in law<fnref n="4" />,
broadening my understanding of diverse
research methods.

These varied experiences in practicing and teaching
research have equipped me with a comprehensive
perspective. I have gained a solid foundation in how
to approach research, how to present it to new
researchers, and how to help individuals take their
first steps into this domain.

<footnote n="3">³ Refer to “Osman I, father of kings” published in WikiJournal of Humanities in 2021. Mainly Authored by Bassem FLEIFEL. DOI: 10.15347/WJH/2021.001, URL: https://w.wiki/wiT.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Refer to the articles: “Dual Higher Education in Belgium: Legal Framework, Application and Educational Paths” DOI: 10.25162/EJDHE-2024-0004, and “Dual Higher Education in Luxembourg: Legal Framework, Application and Educational Paths”, DOI: 10.25162/EJDHE-2024-0007. Both mainly authored by Anna DUPOUY.</footnote>
## Structure of the book

The primary goal of this book is to serve as a practical, accessible guide for early-carrier researchers taking their first steps into the world of research. It is not designed as a specialised or intensive guide for any particular research field.

For this reason, the content focuses on common elements shared across research domains, such as defining the research problem and writing the final report. In contrast, it only briefly touches on aspects that vary between disciplines, such as designing experiments or analysing results. Each of these specialised phases is a complex subject on its own, requiring domain-specific treatment. Covering them in a single book would compromise its broad applicability.

The book is structured into two main parts. Part I explores the foundations of the scientific method, including its historical origins, key principles, and overall structure. Part II focuses on the practical
aspects of research, such as formulating research questions and scientific writing.

Part I includes four chapters:

* **Chapter 1** defines knowledge by exploring its types, characteristics, how it is created, and how to describe a piece of it. It also provides a brief introduction to historical figures who contributed to shaping humanity's understanding of science and knowledge.

* **Chapter 2** focuses on facts, explaining how people use knowledge to create both simple and complex facts. It highlights that facts are not always valid, especially when they are not established through a solid method.

* **Chapter 3** introduces the research method as a structured approach to generating scientific facts. It clarifies the distinction between method and
methodology and explains different types
of research methods, including
descriptive, deductive, and
inductive approaches.

* Chapter 4 explores the scientific method as a specific type of research method, presenting it as a continuous eight-step process. Each step is explained in detail, along with a discussion of the key properties that define the scientific method.

Part II includes four chapters:

* Chapter 5 focuses on identifying, defining, and describing a research problem scientifically. This is the first and most challenging step in the scientific method. Therefore, early-carrier researchers often need guidance from senior researchers to navigate this stage effectively.
* Chapter 6 is dedicated to the sources used in developing a research problem. It explains what qualifies as an acceptable source in the research domain, how to search for reliable information efficiently using selective reading, and how to organise acquired knowledge systematically. This ensures that all references remain traceable to their original sources whenever needed.

* Chapter 7 explores research ethics, why they exist, where they originate, and their role in maintaining integrity in research. The chapter includes real-world examples that highlight the importance of ethical considerations in academia and industry. Additionally, it provides a set of recommendations to help researchers avoid unintentional ethical violations.
* **Chapter 8** introduces scientific writing and publication, covering best practices for maintaining a straightforward and precise scientific style. It discusses essential elements such as wording, figures, and tables while also outlining the various scientific outputs that research can generate.

The reference section is the final part of the book and is organised into four main categories: articles (AR), books (BK), theses (THS), and web sources (WEB). Each category is arranged in the order of citation as it appears in the book.

To further streamline the references, articles and books are classified by language using specific letter identifiers: A for Arabic, E for English, F for French, G for German, and L for Latin.

For example, a reference labelled [BKE15] indicates the fifteenth entry in the English books category,
while [ARG01] represents the first reference in the
German articles category.

Acknowledgements

This book would not have been possible without the
support and encouragement of many individuals.
Writing this book is no easy task, and countless
colleagues have, often indirectly or even
unknowingly, influenced the process of creating it. I
extend my gratitude to those mentioned below,
regardless of the order in which they appear.

* I am deeply grateful to my colleagues at The ESTIA institute of technology. The Engineering School where I work. I extend my special thanks to Olivier LARRE and my two colleagues, Cynthia LAMOTHE and Juhane DASCON, for creating a positive and supportive atmosphere at work, which allowed me to dedicate time and focus to this project.
* I would also like to thank my Ph.D. supervisor, Dr. Octavian CUREA, from whom I learned not only how to conduct research but also the importance of precision and critical thinking. His guidance and mentorship shaped my approach to academic work, teaching me to look beyond the surface and seek a deeper understanding of the reasons behind what we observe.

* I extend my sincere thanks my friends in the Arabic Wikipedia community, especially Dr. Bassem FLEIFEL, Dr. Alaa NAJJAR, and Ahmed Nagy ABOUELASAAD, who generously contributed their time to engage in discussions and help develop ideas that are now integrated throughout the chapters of this book. Their dedication to knowledge-sharing and collaboration has been truly inspiring.
* Finally, I am profoundly thankful to my wife, Sandra HANBO, whose constant support, both technical and emotional, carried me through the challenging moments of writing this book. Her belief in my work and her encouragement were invaluable in bringing this project to completion.

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>
# PART I: Foundations of the scientific method

Ch. 1 Knowledge & its types

Ch. 3 Scientific facts

Ch. 2 Research methodology

Ch. 4 Scientific method
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>
# Knowledge & its types

## Introduction

What is knowledge? A challenging question to begin with. The difficulty lies in the fact that, to accurately define a concept or idea, one must already have a deep understanding of it. Therefore, having knowledge about the subject being studied is crucial to forming a clear and precise definition, even when that subject is knowledge itself.

Knowledge has shaped human society throughout history. In the prehistoric era, knowledge was transmitted orally through storytelling until the invention of writing, which allowed for the documentation of knowledge in the form of myths and religious texts. Thousands of years later, in classical antiquity, ancient Greece made the first significant efforts to explore the nature of knowledge, and philosophy was created as a result. During the Middle Ages, known as the Age of Faith,
knowledge played a crucial role in both Christian and
Islamic worlds, but in different ways. In Europe, the
Church controlled knowledge, creating a small,
literate class and ushering in the so-called "Dark
Ages". Meanwhile, in the Islamic world, knowledge
was widely valued and pursued, leading to what is
now known as the Islamic Golden Age.

As time progressed, the pursuit of knowledge
became the driving force behind the Renaissance and
Enlightenment ages in Europe, leading to a more
accessible education system beyond the Church's
control. This laid the foundation for the scientific
revolution, which emerged as a global force and
profoundly influenced the modern era. The history of
knowledge is the history of humankind.

This chapter explores the nature of knowledge and
offers an overview of the history of science. It
examines the relationship between science and
knowledge, and how this connection influences
modern definitions of knowledge.
Nature of knowledge

To establish a solid foundation, the first step is to
define what knowledge is. However, dealing with
abstract and unquantified concepts, like knowledge,
is not simple. As the discussion in the book advances,
similar challenges will inevitably emerge. Therefore,
before proceeding, it is crucial to outline how to
approach these complex ideas with the aim of
forming clear definitions.

Defining a concept involves several steps:

1. Identify the key term and review its definitions in standard dictionaries.

2. Examine the etymology<fnref n="1" /> of the term of the word.

3. Develop a definition of the concept using the knowledge gained from the previous steps.

<footnote n="1">¹ Etymology is the study of the origins and development of words. It is a branch of linguistics that examines how words evolve over time, their sources, and their connections to other words in the language.</footnote>
With all that in hand, the starting point is knowledge.

After completing the first step, the following
definitions have been gathered. The first definition,
obtained from the Oxford Learner's Dictionaries<fnref n="2" />, is:

> "Knowledge is the information understandings
> and skills that you gain through education or
> experience."

The second dictionary is the Cambridge Dictionary,
it reads:<fnref n="3" />

<footnote n="2">² Hereafter, “Oxford Learner's Dictionaries” will refer to the 10th edition of the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, published in 2023 by Oxford University Press. Full bibliographical details are provided in [BKE01].</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Hereafter, “Cambridge Dictionary” will refer to the 4th edition of Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, published in 2013 by Cambridge University Press. Full bibliographical details are provided in [BKE02].</footnote>
> "Knowledge is information and facts about something you know."

The last dictionary is Merriam Webster Dictionary<fnref n="4" />. In this dictionary the knowledge is defined as follows:

> "It is the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association."

It should be noted that these definitions are closer to common sense than to a solid definition.

However, some shared terms can be identified:

* Both Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries include the term "information".

<footnote n="4">⁴ Hereafter, "Merriam Webster Dictionary" will refer to the revised edition of The Merriam-Webster dictionary, published in 2013 Merriam-Webster, Inc. Full bibliographical details are provided in [BKE03].</footnote>
* Cambridge and Merriam-Webster both use the term “fact”.

* Oxford First and Merriam-Webster share the term “experience”.

Next, the etymology<fnref n="5" /> of the word “knowledge” reveals its origins in Old English, dating back to the early 12th century, where it meant “to be able to distinguish”. The word is composed of two parts: “know” and “ledge”.

The first part of the word traces back to the proto-indo-european root “gno-” meaning “to know”. The origin of the second part, however, remains unknown. With current linguistic knowledge, its exact origin cannot be determined.

The suffix “gno-” appears in other English words like agnostic, ignorant, and recognise. In each of these

<footnote n="5">⁵ Hereafter, etymology is based on the 2nd edition of the Oxford English dictionary, published in 1989 by Oxford University Press. Full bibliographical details are provided in [BKE04].</footnote>
words, the meaning of “to know” or “to distinguish between two things or concepts” is evident.

The third step is to define the concept, in this case: “knowledge”. Scientists and philosophers today have significant disagreements about what constitutes “knowledge”. It is generally accepted that there is no consensus on its precise meaning. Some philosophers even argue that true “knowledge” might not exist at all. Thus, unfortunately, there is no exact definition.

How can this problem be addressed? Why is it so challenging to define a concept that is frequently used in daily life?

The difficulty comes from the fact that the word “knowledge” has three different meanings:

1. The first type is theoretical knowledge, also known as “know-that knowledge”. For example, knowing that World War II ended in 1945 is an example of this type of knowledge.
2. The second type is practical knowledge, referred to as “know-how knowledge”. For instance, knowing how to cook or play football falls into this category.

3. The third type is personal knowledge, which comes from personal experience and relationships. For example, stating that Lionel Messi<fnref n="6" /> is the greatest football player of all time is a form of personal knowledge based on individual opinions and personal judgments.

The difference between theoretical and personal knowledge is that theoretical knowledge is likely to be consistent among people. For instance, almost everyone agrees that World War II ended in 1945. In contrast, personal knowledge varies widely. For example, asking who is the greatest football player of

<footnote n="6">⁶ Lionel Andrés Messi (1987-) an Argentine professional footballer, widely regarded as one of the greatest football players of all time.</footnote>
all time will yield many different answers, none of
which can be definitively proven valid or invalid.
These answers are based on individual opinions
and interpretations.

Due to the various types of knowledge and the
different meanings of the term, defining
"knowledge" is a complex task. Despite advances in
technology, a universally accepted definition of
knowledge remains elusive.

Sources of knowledge

Knowledge is obtainable. At birth, a human has no
knowledge, neither theoretical, practical,
nor personal.

There are four main sources of knowledge:
indoctrination, observation, experimentation, and
reasoning. The following section will briefly cover
these sources, focusing on the challenges associated
with each.
## Indoctrination

Indoctrination can be a source of all types of knowledge. It occurs when people get ideas, attitudes, and information by listening to each other.

Indoctrination is completely based on imitating others, repeating what they are doing, or believing what they have said without any intent to understand the underlying reasons or methods.

For instance, accepting information simply because it was stated, like believing that Napoleon<fnref n="7" /> invaded Egypt in 1798 or that Canada is north of the United States, are examples of indoctrination. This concept can extend to various behaviours, especially when followed without question, such as wearing certain clothing, adhering to specific diets, or participating in religious rituals.

<footnote n="7">⁷ Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821), also known as Napoleon I, was a French military officer who rose to prominence following the French Revolution. He declared himself Emperor of the French from 1804 to 1814. Bonaparte is regarded as one of the greatest military commanders in history.</footnote>
Indoctrination comes with several issues:

* It can be false. For example, no one alive today witnessed Napoleon invading Egypt, so this could be just misinformation.

* It can be inaccurate. In the case of Napoleon's expansion, the date is given only as a year, with no specific month or day. This lack of detail limits the ability to further develop or refine the information.

* It can be fictional. For instance, stating that Frodo Baggins<fnref n="8" /> destroyed the One Ring at Mount Doom in Mordor is a true piece of information, but it is completely fictional.

* It is difficult to verify. For example, how can one prove that Napoleon really existed while Frodo Baggins did not?<fnref n="9" />

<footnote n="8">⁸ Frodo Baggins is one of the main characters in J.R.R. Tolkien trilogy: The Lord of the Rings.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ Historians use a specific approach called the Historical Method, which will be discussed in Chapter 3. The challenge with this method is that it requires specialised skills. Those who lack =</footnote>
* It can be manipulated. The spread of conspiracy theories related to COVID-19 illustrates how information can be distorted when its source is indoctrination.

## Observation

Observation involves using the senses, such as seeing and hearing, to identify patterns in natural phenomena.

This process can also apply to human phenomena. For instance, before the Renaissance, knowledge about the stars was based entirely on observation. People observed the night sky over generations and recorded their findings. They identified patterns in the stars, which were crucial for various applications. For example, sailors in antiquity and the Middle Ages used these patterns to navigate by determining directions based on the positions of stars.

<footnote>= these skills, including non-specialists or those without sufficient experience, may find it difficult to use or may not fully understand how it works.</footnote>
Another example involves civilisations located near rivers. People in these areas observed the river's flow patterns at different times of the year, which helped them determine the agricultural seasons and plan their activities accordingly.

The primary aspect of this source is its personal nature; this means that two individuals observing the same phenomenon may see different aspects or interpret the same observation in varying ways.

Another characteristic of observation is independence. This means that observers should not interfere with the phenomenon they are studying. They need to observe from a distance without affecting or altering the phenomenon in any way. If observers intervene, control, or modify the phenomenon, it is no longer a true observation.

Observation also has several limitations:

* It relies entirely on the senses, which can be deceived.
* It is subjective, meaning that personal biases can affect the accuracy of the observations and notes taken.

* It can be risky. For example, observing a volcano closely can be dangerous due to the extreme heat and toxic gases associated with such phenomena.

Experimentation

Experimentation is the third source of knowledge. It involves identifying patterns in phenomena created by humans, using both senses and instruments. Since these phenomena are human-made, observers know precisely when and how they will occur, allowing them to be well-prepared and use devices to measure various aspects accurately. Thus, experimentation relies on both sensory observation and precise instruments. Examples of experiments range widely, from a teacher conducting a chemistry experiment in a high school class to government tests assessing the strength of nuclear weapons.
In experimentation, the observer actively engages in the process, unlike observation, where the observer remains passive.

A key characteristic of experimentation is repeatability, which means that an experiment can be conducted as many times as necessary. This repeatability is due to the controlled and human-made nature of the experiment.

Experimentation is also associated with several challenges:

* Preparation is required. Before conducting an experiment, it is necessary to determine what to measure, how to measure it, and which instruments to use.

* It is personal experience. Thus, it can be biased. Similar to observation, if the
experimenter has biases, these can influence
the results.<fnref n="10" />

* It has moral aspects. Especially when it affects humans, animals, or the environment. Ethical responsibilities must be upheld: for human subjects, their rights must be respected throughout the process. For animals, experiments should avoid unnecessary suffering, adhering to guidelines that prevent pain and require euthanasia if the tests cause permanent damage. And for the environment, experiments like nuclear tests should consider their long-term impact, pollution and ecosystem destruction. These moral aspects must be integrated into the planning and execution of any experiment.<fnref n="11" />

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ Bias can be minimised, or even removed, by following a clear and detailed method. This topic will be explored in depth later in the book.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹ The ethical aspects of research will be addressed in Chapter 7 of the book.</footnote>
Observation and experimentation share several similarities and differences. The following comparison will examine these two methods based on the criteria of perception, neutrality, human involvement, repeatability, and verifiability.

Perception refers to how knowledge is acquired and what tools or methods are used. Neutrality addresses the role of the observer in the knowledge-gathering process. The human role criterion examines how individuals influence the acquisition of knowledge. Repeatability assesses whether the process can be replicated to obtain the same results. The final criterion evaluates the ability to verify the knowledge obtained.

Table 1-1 presents a comparison between observation and experimentation. In terms of perception, both methods use sensory input and tools. Knowledge is gained and understood through the senses, with devices aiding in the process.
Ultimately, senses are essential to read the written results.

Regarding neutrality, both observation and experimentation can be subject to bias, as both methods involve human participation, and humans can introduce biases, which can affect both the process and the results.

In terms of repeatability, naturally occurring phenomena generally cannot be repeated exactly. For example, while a river may flood annually, it is not feasible to replicate the flooding precisely for repeated observations. Conversely, experiments are repeatable because they are human-designed. Since the phenomenon is created by humans, it can be replicated to measure different aspects consistently.

Finally, regarding verifiability: knowledge gained from observation is often difficult to verify because the observed scenario cannot be recreated to check all possible parameters. In contrast, knowledge from experiments is easier to verify because experiments
involve human-created phenomena that can be
repeated to check and confirm all relevant
parameters. Therefore, knowledge obtained from
experiments is generally more reliable than
knowledge obtained from observation.

<table><caption>Table 1-1. Comparison between Observation and Experimentation</caption><thead><tr><th>Criteria</th><th>Observation</th><th>Experimentation</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Perception</td><td colspan="2">Sensory & tools</td></tr><tr><td>Neutrality</td><td colspan="2">Might be biased</td></tr><tr><td>Human role</td><td>Passive</td><td>Active</td></tr><tr><td>Repeatability</td><td>Non-repeatable but<br>can be periodic</td><td>Repeatable</td></tr><tr><td>Verifiability</td><td>Possible, with<br>complexity</td><td>Possible</td></tr></tbody></table>

Reasoning

The fourth source of knowledge is reasoning, which
involves using logic consciously to draw conclusions
and acquire knowledge.

Reasoning is purely mental and does not require tools
or sensory input. While reasoning aims to produce
new knowledge, the conclusions can be valid, but
they may also be false or corrupted.
Here are two examples of reasoning. Consider the
following statements:

a. All French people speak French.

b. Francois is a French.

From these two statements, the following conclusion
can be drawn:

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

The second example include the
following statements:

a. Aluminium expands with heat.

b. Iron expands by heat, and

c. Aluminium and Iron are metals.

From these three statements, the conclusion can
be drawn:

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>
In the first example, the initial statement provides a general case, while the conclusion represents a specific case. In contrast, the second example starts with specific cases or instances and draws a conclusion that applies to the general case or the entire category.

Reasoning can be classified into two main types: deductive and inductive. The first example illustrates deductive reasoning, which emphasises specificity. In deductive reasoning, one starts with general statements and aims to draw conclusions about specific cases. Conversely, the second example demonstrates inductive reasoning, which focuses on generalisation. Inductive reasoning begins with specific instances and aims to form general conclusions that apply to a broader category.

Here are two additional examples to clarify the difference. In the third example, the first statement:
a. In every triangle, the total of all three angles is 180 degrees.<fnref n="12" />

b. ABC is a triangle.

From these two statements, deductively, it can be
concluded that:

*"The sum of ABC angles is 180"*

The starting point addresses the whole, and through
deductive reasoning, the conclusion is drawn to apply
to a specific case.

In the fourth example, a box contains 50 balls that are
identical in all aspects except for their colours: black
and white. The exact number of each colour is
unknown.

<footnote n="12">¹² This statement is only valid in Euclidean geometry and does not apply to other geometries, namely elliptic and hyperbolic.</footnote>
Ten balls are drawn, resulting in eight black and two white. Although not all 50 balls are drawn, a generalisation is made from this sample:

> "80% of balls in this box are black and 20% are white"

The process begins with specific parts and extends to a general conclusion.

Reasoning, however, has its challenges:

* It requires skill and training to be used effectively. Unlike common sense, reasoning relies entirely on logic, which can only be developed through practice.
* It can be misleading. If not applied carefully, reasoning can lead to fallacies,<fnref n="13" /> where corrupted knowledge will be created.

## Aspects of knowledge

Knowledge is difficult to define due to its complexity. It encompasses multiple dimensions that cannot be fully captured by simple yes or no logic. Instead, a spectrum<fnref n="14" /> is required to accurately describe each of its aspects.

Knowledge involves five aspects: credibility, level of details, complexity, degree of abundance, and the skills needed to understand or use it. Figure 1-1 shows how aspects can be presented using spectrums.

<footnote n="13">¹³ Also known as paralogia, this term refers to the use of faulty reasoning to build a false argument that may seem logically sound.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ In this context, “spectrum” refers to a range where values are distributed on a continuous decimal scale.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1-1. Aspects of the knowledge</figcaption></figure>

Concerning credibility, this refers to how trustworthy a piece of information is. It can vary from low to high, with intermediate levels in between.

The level of detail describes how specific the information is. It can range from general to specific, with various degrees of specificity in between.

Complexity refers to how sophisticated the information is. Is it easy to understand, or does it require breaking down into smaller parts to be comprehended? Knowledge can be simple, complex, or somewhere in between.

The degree of abundance pertains to a set of information rather than a single piece. It addresses
how comprehensive the set is and whether there is
repetition within it. The spectrum ranges from few
knowledge to plentiful.

Finally, the skill required to understand or use the
information involves assessing whether expertise is
needed. The spectrum for this aspect ranges from
basic understanding to professional expertise, with
varying levels in between.

Figure 1-2 illustrates how to represent a piece of
information using a RADAR diagram. This diagram is
pentagon-shaped, with each vertex representing one
aspect of knowledge. The lines connecting each
vertex to the centre of the polygon are called radii,
and they are scaled from 1 to 10. A higher value
indicates a greater influence of the aspect it
represents, while a lower value suggests a lesser
influence. For example, in the RADAR diagram shown
in Figure 1-2, the information has a skill needed rated
at 9, credibility at 7, level of detail at 4, complexity
at 5, and degree of abundance at 3.
<figure><img src="image_19.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1-2. RADAR diagram</figcaption></figure>

The advantage of the RADAR diagram is that its axes are independent of each other. This means that a piece of information can have a value of 10 on one aspect while having a value of zero on another aspect. This independence allows for a straightforward representation of varying values across different aspects.
## Knowledge and science

This section will start by following the same steps outlined earlier in this chapter, conducting a search for the term “science” in various dictionaries.

To begin with, the Oxford Learner's Dictionary defines “science” as follows:

> “Knowledge about the structure and behaviour of the natural and physical world based on facts that you can prove for example by experiments the same injury”

In Cambridge Dictionary, it reads as follow:

> “The study of the physical world by collecting information and testing it”
Finally, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the entry for “science” is as follow:

> "Knowledge or a system of knowledge
> covering General truces, or the operation of
> the general laws especially as obtained and
> tested through scientific method"

In both the first and third definitions, the keyword “physical” is common. Science focuses on the physical world, which can be observed and measured. Another keyword, “test”, is shared between the second and third definitions. This concept will be explored further in this section.

In the second step, the focus will be on the origin of the word “science”. Its roots can be traced back to the mid-14th century, where it was used to mean “to know”. The word itself is derived from the proto-indo-european root “skei-”, which means to cut, split, or divide.
It is widely accepted among linguists that the original meaning of the word “science” is rooted in the idea of distinguishing what is known from what is not.

The same root also gave rise to other words that are still in use in modern English. For example, “conscience” refers to the inner sense or voice that guides a person in judging the rightness or wrongness of their actions. Another word is “schism,” which describes a division or split between opposing groups, often driven by differences in belief or opinion.

Given this information, the next question is: what is the precise definition of science?

Although multiple definitions exist, they generally agree on the core meaning but vary in expression. A comprehensive definition is provided by Edward Wilson in his book “Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge”; it reads:<fnref n="15" />

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ See p. 53 in [BKE05]</footnote>
> "Science is the organised systemic enterprise
> that gathers knowledge about the world and
> condenses the knowledge into testable laws
> and principles"

In this definition, the terms “systematic” and “testable” are key elements. These characteristics of science will be examined in detail in the following.

Based on this definition, it is safe to conclude that not all knowledge is scientific. For knowledge to be deemed scientific, it must be developed in a systematic manner and be testable.

A systematic approach means that the method used to generate the knowledge is repeatable and typically follows a series of steps. Testable means that the method can be verified; others should be able to replicate the process under the same conditions and obtain consistent results.
To demonstrate these two properties, consider the following example (Figure 1-3): A large amphitheatre at a university is examined. Two individuals are positioned in front of it. A question is posed: “How many seats are there?”

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1-3. The amphitheatre scenario</figcaption></figure>

If the response is that “Based on experience, it is estimated that there are 700 seats”, this answer lacks a systematic approach, as there is no clear explanation of how the number 700 was determined. Consequently, it is safe to conclude that the response, or the knowledge obtained, does not meet the criteria for scientific knowledge.
Conversely, if the response is: "Determine the number of rows and then multiply it by the number of seats per row", the obtained knowledge is considered systematic. This approach provides a clear method for calculating the total number of seats. Additionally, it is testable; one can count the rows and seats, and then verify the result against the proposed calculation. Therefore, this method of obtaining knowledge is regarded as scientific.

This example demonstrates how science can refine and enhance knowledge. In this scenario, once the counting begins, an additional issue arises: the number of seats per row varies. As a result, using a multiplication method may yield low accuracy. Nevertheless, the method can be adapted to improve the accuracy of the findings.

This exemplifies how science operates: through the continuous refinement and enhancement of method. However, this raises a significant question: if scientific knowledge is always subject to change and
improvement, is the knowledge-based
understanding of reality genuinely real?

To address this question, it is essential to define both
reality and facts. Reality refers to what exists
independently of the observer's awareness or
perception. It remains true regardless of whether or
not it is recognised by the observer. A pertinent
example is radio waves. They have always existed,
but they were undetectable by human senses for
centuries. Despite their invisibility, radio waves are a
part of reality.

However, as technology advanced, humans were
able to improve their understanding of reality.
Devices that could detect these previously invisible
waves were developed. Additionally, Humans used
these waves for their interests, and today, nearly all
wireless communication systems rely on them.

In other words, scientific facts offer the best current
understanding of reality. However, because this
understanding is incomplete, scientific facts can be
inaccurate. They are not permanent but can change over time. As technology progresses, the scientific comprehension of the physical world is expected to become more precise and align more closely with reality.

Figure 1-4 illustrates the progression of human understanding regarding the Earth's shape over time and its connection to reality and scientific facts. Today, it is a scientific fact that the Earth is nearly spherical. This has always been the case, even when humans did not exist or were unable to comprehend this reality.

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1-4. Earth's shape: Reality Vs. facts</figcaption></figure>

On the other hand, human understanding of the Earth's shape has evolved over time:
1. Initially, it was believed that the Earth was flat. This belief was considered a fact for centuries, and many lost their lives in attempts to prove that this fact was invalid.

2. As humans progressed in time and technology, it became undeniable that the Earth was spherical, and for many years, this was the widely accepted fact.

3. Finally, with further advancements, humans were able not only to discover and measure the Earth's shape but also to see with their own eyes that it is nearly spherical.

At first, the belief that the Earth was flat was accepted as a fact, but it was not scientific because it could not be tested. In contrast, the facts that the Earth is spherical and nearly spherical are scientific. These facts are systematic and can be mathematically proven. They are also testable. For instance, telecommunication systems, such as the Global Positioning System (GPS), provide practical evidence
that the Earth is spherical and, more precisely, nearly
spherical. If this were not the case, these systems
would not function correctly, at least from a
mathematical perspective. Further discussion on
scientific facts will be developed in Chapter 2.

**Historical background**

The final section of Chapter 1 focuses on the history
related to science and scientific thinking. Figure 1-5
presents a timeline with two key reference points.
The earliest, around 3500 BCE, marks the estimated
creation of the first writing system in human history.
It is a significant milestone as knowledge could not be
systematically stored before writing became
possible. Prior to this date, knowledge primarily
depended on memory, and due to the lack of written
records before the invention of writing, the available
knowledge from that period is minimal. The second
reference point is the Renaissance, which began
around 1500 CE.
<figure><img src="image_22.png" /><figcaption>Figure1-5. Timeline of scientific and non-scientific thinking</figcaption></figure>

Science, as it is understood today, began to take shape during the Renaissance, marking a significant point in human history.

However, this does not mean that scientists did not exist before this period. Throughout history, various civilisations, often separated by vast distances, made scientific attempts to explain natural events.

Unfortunately, these early efforts were not organised systematically; while there were brilliant individuals contributing to knowledge, science was confined to specific people or groups and had not yet evolved into a clearly defined method.

As Figure 1-5 illustrates, it can be reasonably assumed that non-scientific thinking prevailed during the first five thousand years of human history, whereas scientific thinking has become dominant in
the last 500 years. This period represents about 10 percent of recorded history, yet technological advancements during this time have far exceeded that proportion.

Science is crucial to technological advancement: non-scientific thinking focuses on the results, if something works, it does not matter how. In contrast, scientific thinking is primarily concerned with the method or technique used.

And here is an example that show the difference:

$$ (a + b)^2 = a^2 + 2ab + b^2 $$

This is a simple middle-school-level equation. From a non-scientific perspective, it may seem like nothing more than a series of symbols put together, with no practical application. However, from a scientific standpoint, this equation is a tool: anyone can substitute values for a and b and obtain clear, precise results.
What is seen as basic knowledge today was unimaginable 700 years ago. Although this transformation took centuries of gradual progress, several key contributions stand out and will be highlighted in the remainder of this chapter.

## Ibn Al-Haytham (965-1040)

The first figure to introduce is Al-Hasan, also known as Ibn Al-Haytham in Arabic. Al-Hasan was a pioneer in developing scientific methods.

He lived in the 10th century, residing in Basra and Cairo, which are in present-day Iraq and Egypt, respectively. At that time, Islamic civilisation was at its peak. Although Al-Hasan was involved in the Fatimid Caliphate, he is best known for his contributions to optics rather than politics. He discovered the basic principle of photography. In fact, the word “camera” originates from the Arabic word “Qumrah” meaning chamber or room.<fnref n="16" /> In this

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ The original Arabic word is “قُمْرَة”.</footnote>
chamber, designed by Al-Hasan, light was captured
and treated as the source of the image.

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1-6. Imaginary drawing for Ibn Al-Haytham<sup>17</sup></figcaption></figure>

Al-Hasan is widely recognised as the first individual to
describe the scientific method. During the 10th
century, a period known as the Age of Faith<sup>18</sup>, it was
unusual to encourage people to question their

<footnote n="17"><sup>17</sup> This image is taken from the Iraqi 10 Dinars banknote issued by the Central Bank of Iraq in 1981.</footnote>

<footnote n="18"><sup>18</sup> Will and Ariel Durant used this phrase as the title for the fifth volume of their history series, “The Story of Civilisation”. This volume was published in the USA by Simon & Schuster in 1950.</footnote>
established knowledge as a means of verification. In
that era, Al-Hasan wrote:<fnref n="19" />

> "The duty of the man who investigates the writings of the scientists if learning the truth is his goal is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads he should attack what he reads from every side he should also suspect himself as he performed his Critical examination of it so that he may avoid failing into either Prejudice or leniency"

## Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

Moving ahead five centuries to the Renaissance
period, the next figure to be introduced is Francis
Bacon, the Lord High Chancellor of
England (Figure 1-7).

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ This is quoted from the original Arabic book: Doubts Concerning Ptolemy, Al-Shukūk ‘alā Batlamyūs = الشكوى على = الشكوى على, see p. 3-4 in [BKA01].</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_24.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1-7. Portrait of Francis Bacon<fnref n="20" /></figcaption></figure>

Although Bacon had a notable political career, he is best known for his book “Novum Organum”. The title, written in Latin, translates to “The New System”, “The New Way”, or even “The New Machine” in English. This title references Aristotle's<fnref n="21" /> influential work, “Organon”. At Bacon's time, Aristotle's

<footnote n="20">²⁰ Painted in 1617 (91 x 74.5 cm²), the artwork is titled Portrait of des Francis Bacon (Dutch: Porträt des Francis Bacon). It is housed in the Łazienki Palace in Poland and is catalogued under accession number ŁKr 896.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹ Aristotle (Greek: Άριστοτέλης) (384–322 BCE) was a classical Greek philosopher and polymath.</footnote>
approach to understanding the world was
still dominant.

Although Aristotle was an reputed philosopher, his
views on optics, biology, and women were notably
invalid. The primary issue with Aristotle's approach
was his lack of observation, experimentation, and
critical thinking. Bacon argued that these elements
were essential to the new scientific method. For
example, according to Aristotle:<fnref n="22" />

*"Women have fewer teeth than men"*

This argument is invalid and can be easily disproven
by simply examining and counting inside any
woman's mouth. Like Al-Hasan, Bacon emphasised
the importance of observation and reasoning, and he

<footnote n="22">²² This quotation is taken from Bertrand Russell's work *The Impact of Science on Society* (see p. 6 in [BKE06]). Despite its broad dissemination following Russell's publication, several critics have challenged his interpretation of Aristotle's original text.</footnote>
also maintained that the observer must
remain impartial.

Bacon was convinced that errors in mental
processing obstruct human progress. He used the
“Idol”<sup>23</sup> to describe his idea, and identified four
categories of these “Idols of the mind”. They are:

1. Idols of the tribe

2. Idols of the cave

3. Idols of the market

4. Idols of the theatre

In the following sections, each of the Idols will be
briefly described.

Idols of the tribe

For Bacon, the “tribe” represents all of humankind,
meaning these idols are common to everyone.

Examples of idols in this category include the
tendency to overgeneralise and make hasty

<footnote n="23"><sup>23</sup> An idol is a thing that is loved and admired very much.</footnote>
conclusions, as well as the influence of emotions
on judgement.

Idols of the cave

The second group of idols is named after
Plato's Cave.<fnref n="24" />

Long before Bacon, Plato<fnref n="25" /> used the cave as a
metaphor to describe how an individual's perception
of reality can be easily proven false or inaccurate.
Figure 1-8 provides an illustration of Plato's cave.

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1-8. Plato's Cave<fnref n="26" /></figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="24">²⁴ This allegory is discussed in Plato's work: "The Republic" (Greek: Πολιτεία), written around 375 BCE.</footnote>

<footnote n="25">²⁵ Plato (Greek: Πλάτων) (42? – 348 BCE), an ancient Greek philosopher born and died in Athens. He is known for creating written dialogue and dialectic forms in philosophy, and for raising problems in major areas of both theoretical and practical philosophy.</footnote>

<footnote n="26">²⁶ Image created by “4edges” published online on 24 October 2018. Licensed under CC BY SA 4.0.</footnote>
Plato asked people to imagine a group of prisoners chained to a wall inside a cave, with their faces always turned toward the wall. Behind them, a great fire burns, and people move objects in front of it. The prisoners can only see the shadows of these objects, not the objects themselves.

This scenario serves as a metaphor for reality, represented by the objects, and our understanding of it, represented by the shadows.

Unfortunately, this is the only part of Plato's Cave that is relevant to understanding the idol of the cave. The remainder of the story takes a different direction, which is not aligned with the purpose of this section and will therefore be deliberately left out.

Since the prisoners in Plato's Cave have never seen a horse, for example, they will begin to judge what they see based on their feelings, creating a barrier that separates them from reality.
These idols represent all forms of human perspectives and ideas about physical world and society. Extreme versions of atheism, nationalism, or socialism fit into this category. These idols become mind-blocking when individuals stop perceiving the world objectively and view it only through their narrow perspective.

## Idols of the market

For Bacon, the “market” symbolises society. This barrier arises directly from the interactions between people in public spaces. Bacon argued that this issue originates from the use of language, where words can sometimes be too simplistic and thus misleading. For instance, the word “Earth” can refer to either the planet or its surface. Similarly, the word “home” might signify the apartment where someone lives, the place where they were born, or simply where they feel they belong. Another example is the question “Where are you from?” the response could
vary greatly, referring to a street, neighbourhood,
city, or even a country.

The concept, over which the “idol of the market” was
defined, also applies when language is overly
complex. Sometimes, philosophers or scientists use
specialised terminology that is inaccessible to non-
experts. As a result, knowledge is confined to a small
group of people with the necessary expertise. This
underscores the importance of science
popularisation: to break down these barriers and
make knowledge accessible to a broader audience.<fnref n="27" />

For instance, Figure 1-9 shows a polyhedron known
as a Rhombicosidodecahedron. This is an abbreviated
form of its full name: “Truncated icosidodecahedral
rhombus, with icosidodecahedral rhombus”.

<footnote n="27">²⁷ This is one of the main reasons why footnotes are utilised in this book.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_26.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1-9. Rhombicosidodecahedron</figcaption></figure>

## The idols of the theatre

The final group of Idols are the Idols of the theatre. To Bacon, the theatre represents human heritage, and the actors within it symbolise influential figures from history. Bacon emphasised that people should not accept ideas simply because they were proposed by a renowned figure.

A classic example of the Idols of the theatre is the emission theory of vision. For centuries, it was widely believed that vision occurred because the human eye emitted radiation towards objects, a claim supported by some Greek philosophers, including Plato.
It may seem naive by today's standards, but this was a widely accepted belief for centuries! People simply trusted this claim because influential figures endorsed it, even though the claim could easily be disproven. After all, humans are unable to see in complete darkness.

René Descartes (1596-1650)

The final figure to discuss is René Descartes, born in the late 16th century. Descartes is well-known for his famous statement, which can be translated into English as:<fnref n="28" />

*"I think, therefore I am"*

<footnote n="28">²⁸ The original sentence first appeared in Discourse on the Method (French: Discours de la Méthode), specifically in the first paragraph of its fourth section. It is written in French as: *je pense, donc je suis.* See vol. 1, p. 158 in [BKF01].</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_27.png" /><figcaption>Figure 10. Portrait of René Descartes<fnref n="29" /></figcaption></figure>

Descartes rejected any idea that had not been tested. In his writings, he consistently emphasised doubt and critical thinking. He is also known for his book “Discourse on the Method”.<fnref n="30" /> in which he developed

<footnote n="29">²⁹ Painted around 1675 (77.5x68.5 cm²) by an unknown artist. This artwork is housed in the Louvre Museum in France, with the accession number INV 1317.</footnote>

<footnote n="30">³⁰ The original title in French is “Discours de la Méthode Pour bien conduire sa raison, et chercher la vérité dans les sciences”, which translates to “Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One's Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences”. It was published in Leiden in 1637.</footnote>
a systematic approach to research. He described his method as follows:<fnref n="31" />

> *The true method by which to arrive at the knowledge*

Descartes's method is founded on four key principles: certitude, analysis, synthesis, and total induction. Here is a brief overview of each principle:

* **Certitude:** Also known as the rule of doubt, this principle dictates that nothing should be accepted without verification, regardless of its popularity or the respect it commands. Descartes advocated for a thorough questioning of all assumptions at least once.

* **Analysis:** This involves breaking down a problem into smaller, more manageable

<footnote n="31">³¹ The original text reads in French: “et à chercher la vraie méthode pour parvenir à la connaissance”. See Vol. 1, p. 158 in [BKF01].</footnote>
components and solving each one individually. The focus should be on defining and understanding the problem before attempting to solve it, rather than rushing to conclusions

* **Synthesis:** This principle involves using reason to integrate the solutions of the smaller problems to address the original issue. It is a process that researchers apply when writing theses or academic articles, where they build from verified, smaller scientific facts to broader generalisations.

* **Total Induction:** This principle stresses the importance of repeated testing and validation. As Al-Hasan suggested, researchers should thoroughly examine their own ideas to ensure they are robust, and that no critical aspect has been overlooked.
# Scientific facts

## Introduction

Knowledge refers to the awareness of facts, understanding of situations, and the practical skills that individuals possess. In addition to that, Chapter 1 highlighted that facts are a form of knowledge representing our best current understanding of reality. Since knowledge constantly evolves, facts also change as new technologies and discoveries emerge.

Facts can be scientifically established when obtained through a systematic and testable process. Such facts are considered scientific. However, not all facts are created this way. Many are based solely on personal perception, interpretation, or indoctrination.

Chapter 2 focuses on facts, especially scientific ones. Its aim is to clarify: what is a fact? How is it created? And how is it managed? The chapter also introduces
the concept of the research method, setting the stage for Chapter 3, which will focus on this topic.

This chapter is structured as follows: it begins by examining facts as pieces of knowledge. Next, the evolution of facts is explored from two distinct perspectives: simple and complex. While the human mind continuously generates simple facts, creating complex facts is a more challenging task. This process is neither quick nor straightforward; in fact, complex facts often take centuries to reach a stable form. The chapter concludes with general remarks on scientific facts, emphasising the difference between facts and scientific laws.

## Facts as knowledge

Referring back to Chapter 1, it was established that facts are a specific type of knowledge. However, this relationship is not bidirectional. While facts are knowledge, not all knowledge qualifies as a fact. Knowledge encompasses much more, including aspects like emotions.
Facts are also connected to reality, but while reality is constant, facts can change. Reality exists as it is, independent of observation, and remains fixed. In contrast, human understanding of the world evolves as tools and technologies advance.

## The "fact" in the common sense

In the following sections, the method for comprehending new, complex concepts will be applied, as outlined in detail in Chapter 1.

The process begins by understanding what a fact means in everyday language. According to the Oxford Learner's Dictionary, the definition of "fact" is as follows:

"A thing that is known to be true especially when it can be proved"
In Cambridge Dictionary it reads as follow:

"Something that is known to have happened or to exist especially something for which proof exists or about which there is information"

Finally in Merriam Webster Dictionary it reads:

"Something that has actual existence, or a piece of information presented as having objective reality"

To analyse this, similarities will be sought. Starting with the Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries, both share a similar idea. The term "known" appears in both definitions. In this context, the word "known" does not refer to personal knowledge or emotions, but to collective knowledge, where a consensus is reached among a group of people.
This accepted knowledge may also be false or invalid,
but that is not the focus here. For example, when
people believed the Earth was flat, this belief was
considered a fact for centuries.

The second part of both definitions highlights a
specific characteristic of facts: they are associated
with proof. The first definition uses the term
“proved”, while the second uses “proof.” Proof refers
to physical evidence, consensus, or reasoning used to
establish the validity of a statement. Therefore, facts
hold greater value when they are supported by proof,
however, this is not a requirement for establishing
a fact.

To prove something, a method must be employed. If
this method is systematic and testable, it aligns with
scientific principles. Conversely, if the method is
based on dogma<fnref n="32" />, it often serves propaganda. It
involves presenting information as fact to manipulate

<footnote n="32">³² From Greek: δόγμαν via Latin. Literally, it means an opinion, belief, or judgment. In modern use, it means principle laid down as unquestioningly true in an ideology or belief system.</footnote>
people and make them believe statements that are not valid.

The third definition includes the term “reality”, underscoring the requirement for knowledge to be presented as reflecting an objective reality in order to be considered a fact.

However, a fact is not necessarily the same as valid knowledge. According to the third definition, if someone presents their knowledge as an explanation of reality and manages to convince others of its validity, it is recognised as a fact. Thus, a fact does not need to be always valid; it may still be invalid! This is often referred to as propaganda.

## Etymology of “fact”

The term “fact” can be traced back to Old English, where it has been used in its current form since the 16th century. The word's origins can be further traced to Latin through Old French.

In Roman times, the term “factum” referred to an event, occurrence, or achievement. Notably, the
significance of this term relies on a shared agreement among people about what constitutes an achievement. The emphasis is on collective agreement rather than the intrinsic validity of the achievement.

The word can also be traced back to a proto-indo-european suffix “dhe-”, pronounced like “the”, which meant to set or put.

Unfortunately, the meanings of words derived from this root have evolved significantly over time, making it difficult to see a direct connection with the modern use of the word “fact”. However, linguists agree that words like “do”, “affect”, and “affair” all share this common origin.

Returning to the historical usage of the word, its meaning has evolved significantly over the past four centuries:

* In the 16th century, “fact” referred to an action or something done, with clear agreement among people on its meaning.
* During the late 17th and 18th centuries, the term shifted to denote a truth established by observation or reliable testimony.

* By the 19th century, “fact” came to represent the fundamental reality of existence.

In summary, as human understanding of reality progresses, the term “fact” increasingly comes to represent reality itself.

## Origin of facts

Based on the definitions reviewed, it is evident that facts arise from two main sources: consensus and reasoning.

Consensus refers to what a group of people agree upon. The critical aspect is not whether the fact is valid, but rather that there is agreement on it. The more widespread the agreement, the stronger and more accepted the fact becomes. Examples include human laws and conventions; these are considered facts because they are supported by people. When support fades, laws may be ignored or changed. For
instance, slavery was once universally accepted and legally authorised. Over time, as social and moral perspectives evolved, it was widely rejected, demonstrating that what was once considered a fact is no longer accepted today.

Languages and grammar serve as prime examples of facts based on consensus. People may use different names for things or express themselves in various ways. Grammar rules are also agreed upon collectively. As new generations emerge, they bring new vocabulary and expressions, which can lead to changes in the grammar of a language. Thus, languages and their grammar are considered facts, but these facts are only valid for those who use them.

Over time, languages and grammar will continually evolve.

Conversely, reasoning involves using logic to generate new knowledge, with scientific facts resulting from this process.
Referring to the example of the Earth's shape (Figure 1-4): it is evident that the belief that “the Earth is flat” was established through consensus. In contrast, the scientific fact that “the Earth is spherical or nearly spherical” was derived through reasoning.

While reasoning challenges were thoroughly explored in Chapter 1, issues with consensus will now be examined to enhance the understanding of this process:

* People may agree on an invalid statement. Consensus does not guarantee accuracy. Instead, it only reflects how people are convinced.

* Appeal to popularity, it is a logical fallacy where people believe something is true merely because it has widespread support. Consensus can function in the same way, where individuals accept a “fact” not because it is verified or accurate, but simply due to others endorsing it.
* Consensus lacks a systematic approach and cannot be considered scientific. Conversely, consensus is often subjective and influenced by factors such as education levels and social contexts. Fear or manipulation can drive people to agree on irrational actions. As discussed in Chapter 1, science provides a structured way to generate verifiable knowledge.

## What is a fact?

Building on the knowledge gathered, the next step is to tackle the question: What is a fact? However, the definition of a fact can vary depending on the field, whether in philosophy, law, history, or applied science. This chapter specifically focuses on scientific facts. Therefore, the question is refined to: What is a scientific fact? And The following is a proposed answer:
> It is an objective and verifiable observation
> intended to explain or interpret natural or
> human-made phenomena

This definition incorporates the four key terms identified in the previous section: objective, verifiable, observation, and human-made phenomena. These terms contribute to the definition in the following way:

* **Objective:** The scientist must remain impartial, without personal bias, allowing the facts to guide their conclusions.

* **Verifiable:** This means the fact can be tested. Anyone equipped with the necessary tools and knowledge can verify its accuracy.

* **Observation** and **human-made phenomena** (i.e., experimentation) are two methods for generating knowledge, thoroughly covered in Chapter 1.
# Classifications of facts

Facts can be classified based on both time and structure. The temporal view looks at how stable a fact remains over time, while the structural view examines the nature of the fact and how it is constructed.

Each of these perspectives will be discussed in the next section. Before proceeding, it is important to recall that facts can be illustrated using the five-axis RADAR diagram introduced in Chapter 1, However, for simplicity, the following section will concentrate only on the axes of credibility and complexity.

## Time basis

In a time-based classification, the focus is on the relationship between credibility and time. Some facts are constant over time, meaning their validity does not depend on when they are observed.

Time-based classification doesn't imply that facts remain unchanged. facts do evolve. However, the
cause of this change is not the passage of time itself,
but rather new discoveries or revised calculations.

For instance, the fact that “gold is a metal” remains
true, as long as the definitions of gold and metals stay
the same. Time does not affect this fact.

However, some facts are time-dependent, meaning
their validity relies on time-sensitive variables. For
example, the statement “Joe Biden” is the US
president” is accurate at the time this book was
published. But if you look 10 years into the past or
future, this fact will no longer be valid, as it depends
on the presidency term, which is time-bound.

Structural basis

Facts can also be categorised based on their
structure, as either simple or complex.

* Simple facts are derived from basic
knowledge that anyone can observe through
their senses. For instance, “Summer is usually
hot” is a simple fact. However, some might
argue that this fact depends on other
underlying facts, as the concept of “summer”
itself can be viewed as complex and open to
further simplification. This process could
continue indefinitely.<fnref n="33" /> To define simple facts
more precisely, a lower threshold of common
understanding must be established,
representing the basic collective knowledge
shared within a group. While this threshold
may vary between groups, it still exists, and all
facts that fall within this common knowledge
are considered simple.

* Complex facts represent sophisticated constructed knowledge. For instance, the fact that “the area of a circle is equal to πr²” is considered a complex fact. While it may seem straightforward, it involves several advanced

<footnote n="33">³³ There is ongoing debate among semanticists about whether it is even possible to define concepts, particularly simple ones. For further discussion on this topic, refer to the introduction of [BKE07].</footnote>
concepts that are not based on
simple knowledge:

o A circle, a flat, round shape where every point on its edge is the same distance from a central point known as the centre

o An area, which refers to the size or measurement of the surface of an object.

o The radius, a straight line from the centre of the circle to any point on its edge.

o Pi<fnref n="34" />, a complex mathematical concept. A constant approximately equal to 3.14. However, its precise value cannot be calculated exactly.

o Square function is also used. it involves multiplying a number by itself.

<footnote n="34">³⁴ Represented by the Greek letter π, Pi is a mathematical constant that denotes the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. As an irrational number, Pi cannot be precisely expressed as a ratio of two integers. Consequently, no matter how many digits are used, Pi can never be exactly represented. However, with the help of calculus, Pi can be calculated to a high degree of precision, extending to hundreds of digits.</footnote>
o Multiplication function, a mathematical operation used to find the product of a number by adding it to itself repeatedly.

Each of the concepts mentioned above can be broken down further into more basic ideas.

# Facts development

## Simple fact

As mentioned earlier, simple facts are typically part of a group's shared knowledge and are commonly used in everyday life. They do not require advanced skills to understand or apply.

Figure 2-1 illustrates the process of development of a simple fact starts from a physical phenomenon.

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2-1. Development of a simple fact</figcaption></figure>
The process of generating simple facts begins with natural sources. Humans rely on their senses to interpret the world around them. Sensual perception plays a crucial role as people observe phenomena, hear, touch, and physically interact with them.

The following step involves mentally processing the information gathered through the senses. This stage is entirely individual, as each person has unique experiences and skills, leading to variations in how the data is processed and, consequently, in the resulting conclusions.

It is essential to recognise that the first two steps are entirely personal, meaning each individual can carry them out independently. In contrast, the third step is a collective process. This is known as the constitutive definition, where a phenomenon is given a name that is accepted and used by a group of people.

Different groups may use various terms to describe the same concept, and they might not capture all its aspects. For instance, they might only highlight one
or two features, which is perfectly fine as long as the fact serves the group's practical needs in daily life. This is the primary purpose of simple facts.

Simple facts can also be applied in science, but they must undergo an additional step involving the scientific method.<fnref n="35" /> The simple fact is tested multiple times and may be combined with others to cover all aspects of the phenomenon. This process is known as creating an operational definition.

While constitutive definitions are specific to local groups and their contexts, operational definitions are broader and aim to encompass as many aspects of the phenomenon as possible. At this stage, the fact is ready for scientific application.

Figure 2-2 shows the fire as an example. It is a physical phenomenon, and individuals may have varied experiences with it:

<footnote n="35">³⁵ Chapter 4 is dedicated to the scientific method.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_29.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2-2. Development of a simple fact: fire example</figcaption></figure>

* Some individuals may use it as a source of heat.

* Others may use it to provide light.

* Others may have been burned by it, and thus, associate fire with painful memories.

It is evident that heat, light, and pain are directly linked to sensory experiences. The brain then processes these sensory inputs. In the example given, the physical phenomenon transforms into abstract mental perceptions: for instance, heat is perceived as hot, while pain may evoke feelings of fear, and so on.

Thus, varying experiences lead to different interpretations. For example, a fire that destroys a home will be perceived very differently by those
affected compared to individuals who use fire for cooking in their daily lives. Consequently, the linguistic expressions used to describe these experiences will differ. People may use different terms to describe aspects of the phenomenon, which means that constitutive definitions may lack clarity and accuracy.

Finally, through scientific methods, a universally accepted definition of fire can be established. Fire is defined as the rapid oxidation of material.

## Complex Fact

The creation of complex facts is not a straightforward everyday process. It relies heavily on reasoning and is grounded in logical analysis. Developing these complex facts requires advanced skills, making it the responsibility of scientists and philosophers.

Figure 2-3 shows the development of a complex fact. Similar to simple facts, the process begins with a physical phenomenon, which serves as the initial source for complex facts. Using sensors or
instruments, humans can observe and measure
various aspects of the phenomenon. The gathered
results are then analysed to generate a list of
potential explanations.

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2-3. Development of a complex fact</figcaption></figure>

Although each answer represents a potential
explanation for the phenomenon, all must undergo
verification. However, it is usually impractical to
verify every item on the list. Therefore, through
logical reasoning, only a few potential answers are
chosen for deeper investigation.

This step can be challenging because the correct
explanation might be overlooked. That is why
individuals with advanced skills in logic and reasoning
are essential, as they significantly reduce the
likelihood of missing the accurate explanation.

However, it is always possible to miss the valid
answer. If none of the selected answers succeeds in
the next steps, it may indicate that all are invalid, and
the valid answer has not yet been proposed. This
would require further observation or a more detailed
analysis of the obtained results.

Each potential explanation is referred to as a
hypothesis: a statement that must be tested. The
next step involves evaluating the hypothesis by
comparing it against known facts or laws to
determine if the explanation aligns with them. If a
hypothesis withstands several fact-checks, it gains
scientific credibility. Strong hypotheses, when
supported, can contribute to the formation of
a theory.

A theory is a temporal explanation for a group of
phenomena. Theories are not the final form and
remain subject to testing. They can offer a reliable
explanation for certain aspects of a phenomenon, but
not necessarily for all of its components. A theory
requires ongoing testing. Interestingly, this is done
using less reliable hypotheses. A theory gains
strength when it can be validated by these hypotheses, and the more tests it successfully passes, the more it becomes accepted by scientists as a valid explanation for the phenomenon under investigation.

Finally, when there is no possible way to prove that a theory is invalid, and when the theory is capable of predicting the exact explanation and behaviour of the phenomenon, it becomes a theorem. A theorem is the natural law and the explanation of a natural or human-made phenomenon.

Here are a few examples to apply these abstract concepts to the physical world. The first example<fnref n="36" /> is the Pythagorean theorem<fnref n="37" /> (Figure 2-4).

<footnote n="36">³⁶ The following story is purely fictional, with no historical evidence to back it up.</footnote>

<footnote n="37">³⁷ The Pythagorean theorem, named after the ancient Greek philosopher Pythagoras (circa 570 – 495 BCE), is a principle in Euclidean geometry that relates to the three sides of a right-angled triangle. It states that the area of the square built on the hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle) is equal to the combined areas of the squares constructed on the other two sides.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_31.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2-4. Development of a complex fact: Pythagorean theorem</figcaption></figure>

Once upon a time, in a kingdom from the ancient world, farmers worked on the king's land and had to report their harvest to the King's officials. Farms A, B, and C were situated close to each other, as shown in Figure 2-4. It was obvious that Farm A was bigger than Farms B and C. The King's officials began to observe that the combined harvest of Farms B and C was almost equal to that of Farm A, which was an interesting observation.

The next step is to analyse the collected data, which in this case involves the observation. Here is a list of possible explanations for the observed phenomenon:
* It could be a coincidence.

* The farmers of Farms B and C might work harder, while the farmer of Farm A could be working less.

* The combined area of Farms B and C might be equal to the area of Farm A.

The King's men treated each possible explanation as a hypothesis and proceeded to test them:

* For the first hypothesis, they waited for the next year's harvest, and the result was the close to the first year. Even after the third year, there was no significant change, so this hypothesis was proven false.

* For the second hypothesis, the King's men observed the farmers and found that they were working at a similar pace. Therefore, this hypothesis was also invalid.

* For the third hypothesis, they measured the areas of the farms and found that the combined area of Farms B and C was indeed
equal to that of Farm A, confirming this hypothesis as true.

This outcome was sufficient for the King's men. However, a wise man in the king's court decided to explore further and wrote the following analysis:

> *"The area of the square whose side is the hypotonus is equal to the sum of the areas of the squares on the other two sides"*

This is a theory. It is broad and abstract because it does not focus on particular farms. Instead, it can be applied universally when the conditions are met. In contrast, a hypothesis is tied to a specific, physical example.

As the story goes on, the King's men continued to measure the land in similar cases over the years. In every instance, the theory held true. Although it
cannot be definitively proven, its consistency led to it becoming the well-known Pythagorean theorem:<fnref n="38" />

$$a^2 = b^2 + c^2$$

Here is another example: gravity. A simple hypothesis about gravity would be that:

> if an object is thrown or released in Earth's atmosphere, it will fall downward

This hypothesis is closely linked to the physical world, and it can be easily tested and observed.

In contrast, a theory explaining gravity would state the following:

> It is a force attracting and uneven distribution of masses together

The theory is abstract. If the linking words are removed, it consists of just seven words, five of which are key “concepts” that require clear definitions to

<footnote n="38">³⁸ This equation can be read as follows: the area of a square is the value of its side squared.</footnote>
fully understand the theory. These five concepts are
"force", "attraction", "uneven", "distribution", and
"mass". For someone without a solid background in
physics, it could take around 30 minutes to research
and understand the meaning of each term before
linking them together to make the theory clear.

The third example is dark matter. Scientists propose
that it exists within the universe, though the
mechanisms behind its presence remain
undetermined. Apart from its existence, there is
minimal empirical data available about dark matter.
Consequently, there are no definitive explanations
for its nature or behaviour at this time.

This section will conclude with definitions of
"hypothesis", "theory," and "theorem" as provided
by the Oxford Dictionary of Science. Here is the
definition of "hypothesis":<fnref n="39" />

<footnote n="39">³⁹ See the origins in the corresponding material in [BKE08].</footnote>
> "A hypothesis is a law that might not be universally true"

And on the theory:

> "A theory is a description of nature that encompasses more than one law but has not achieved the incontrovertible status of a theorem"

And on the theorem:

> "A theorem is a descriptive principle of nature that holds in all circumstances covered there are no loopholes in laws of nature and any exceptional event that did not comply with the law would require the existing theorem to be discarded"
**The relationship between theories and
hypothesis**

In the previous section, it was demonstrated that
while a hypothesis is closely related to the physical
world, a theory is more abstract and logical in nature.
However, the interplay between theories and
hypotheses is much more complex.

As noted earlier, a hypothesis fulfils two key
roles (Figure 2-5):

1. It is the basis of a new developed theory.

2. It is used to test other theories.

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2-5. Relationship between theories and hypothesis</figcaption></figure>

On the other hand, theories are used to test
hypotheses. A hypothesis does not become a theory
unless it has been thoroughly tested multiple times
using various theories.
However, Figure 2-5 might misleadingly suggest that this process is linear and straightforward. In reality, it is not a quick or simple series of steps. Numerous challenges can arise, such as the lack of appropriate tools or insufficient technological advancements.

For instance, in 1905, Einstein's<fnref n="40" /> suggested that gravity, if strong enough, can distort the time flow.<fnref n="41" /> While this was well-defined in mathematical terms, the challenge was to find a method to test this concept. It took scientists over a century to develop the necessary technology to detect such distortions.<fnref n="42" />

The challenge may also arise from insufficient data, which necessitates additional testing to develop robust hypotheses. Even when all conditions are

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰ Albert Einstein (1879–1955), a theoretical physicist renowned for his development of the theory of relativity. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921 "for his contributions to theoretical physics, and particularly for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect".</footnote>

<footnote n="41">⁴¹ See the original work, written in German, in [ARG01]. An English translation is available in [BKE09].</footnote>

<footnote n="42">⁴² See [ARE01] for more details.</footnote>
fulfilled, exceptional intellect is still required to
advance the process.

Essentially, the process involves a series of theories
developed over varying periods, each contributing
incrementally to human understanding. Ultimately,
this leads to the formulation of a theorem.

The classical (Newtonian) and quantum mechanics
are an example of this long chain of theories.

When Isaac Newton<fnref n="43" /> developed a new framework
for understanding mechanics, the equations he
wrote was able to describe motion everywhere, from
a wagon down the road to the stars in the far galaxies.
Newtonian mechanics was considered universal, and
at that time, there was no known phenomenon that
seemed to contradict it. It was believed that
Newton's laws applied universally throughout
the cosmos.

<footnote n="43">⁴³ Sir Isaac Newton (1642–1727) was an English mathematician and physicist, and a fellow of the Royal Society. He is renowned for his development of Newtonian mechanics, his explanation of universal gravitation, his contributions to calculus and algebra, and his generalisation of the binomial theorem.</footnote>
As technology advanced, scientists discovered extremely small entities such as atoms, neutrons, and electrons. The movement of electrons could not be explained by Newton's laws, revealing that these laws were not universally applicable as previously thought. This led to the development of a new branch of mechanics, known as quantum mechanics, to address the behaviour of these small entities. At the time of this book's publication, both Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics remain valid within their respective domains, and there is no "Theory of Everything"<fnref n="44" /> that unifies the two.

## Notes on scientific facts

### On the credibility

Scientific facts are distinguished by the extent to which they have been tested (Figure 2-6).

<footnote n="44">⁴⁴ Also referred to as the final theory, ultimate theory, unified field theory, or master theory, it is a proposed, comprehensive theoretical framework in physics that aims to explain all aspects of the universe.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_33.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2-6. Tests and credibility of the scientific facts</figcaption></figure>

At the lowest level of validation is probability, which represents a potential answer or explanation that has not yet been tested. The next level is the hypothesis, an explanation chosen for testing from a set of potential answers based on logical reasoning. Theories represent a more developed stage; they are provisional explanations of physical phenomena that typically integrate multiple hypotheses. A theory has undergone extensive testing and examination under various conditions but may not account for all aspects of the phenomenon and requires further refinement. The highest level of validation is the theorem, a well-established natural law that has no known exceptions. Once a theorem is formulated, it is considered valid.
On the process development

Developing complex facts involves a lengthy process.
As previously discussed, this development is not
linear but rather consists of a sequence of theories
evolving over irregular time intervals.

Additionally, it is important to note that the process
is not always unidirectional. While this chapter has
presented it as progressing from specific facts to
general ones, development can also move in the
opposite direction.

In certain fields, such as the humanities, where
human subjects are studied, the process often works
from general principles to specific instances. For
example, a judge in a court of law applies general
laws to make specific rulings. In many cases, no
specific law directly addresses the case at hand, so
the judge must apply general principles deductively
to form a particular judgment.

In most applied sciences, the process typically follows
a inductive approach, moving from simple facts to the
formulation of theorems, with hypotheses and theories in between. This is true because applied sciences are based on physical nature, and their main objective is to explain it.

The concepts of “inductive” and “deductive” reasoning are key in this context (Figure 2-7). Deductive reasoning is used to build complex facts from basic principles. In contrast, inductive reasoning is employed to derive simple facts from complex observations.

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2-7. Relationship of simple and complex facts</figcaption></figure>

## Hypothesis Vs. assumption

There is a significant difference between an assumption and a hypothesis, though they are often incorrectly used as synonyms.
A hypothesis, as previously described, is a proposed explanation for a physical phenomenon that has yet to be tested for validity. Conversely, an assumption is a statement accepted as valid without evidence. For example, judging people based on their appearance is an assumption. Similarly, believing one can understand how others feel or think without direct communication is also an assumption.

## On the truthiness and falsehood

Scientific facts are not concerned with notions of truthiness or falsehood. In scientific discourse, terms like "right" or "wrong" are not appropriate. Instead, the terms "valid" and "invalid" are used, as seen throughout the first two chapters.

Scientific facts are inherently provisional, reflecting the ever-evolving nature of science. What is crucial from a scientific standpoint is that facts are testable and subject to validation. New discoveries or calculations may challenge existing scientific facts, and this is considered a constructive part of the
scientific process. Such challenges are integral to the advancement of science and are not viewed as confrontational or inappropriate.

Although science is continually evolving, this progression is not arbitrary. The scientific facts are subject to change does not imply that every valid fact today will necessarily become invalid in the future.

Science is directed by empirical evidence, and changes in scientific understanding generally lead to more precise and accurate models or laws. This process is irreversible, making it uncommon to disprove a theorem once it has been established.

While it is not impossible for a theorem to be proven invalid, it is rare. The process of validating a theorem involves extensive testing, so it is unlikely for a theorem to be invalidated. Later, however, it is possible for a theorem to be refined or expanded to account for new information.
<figure><img src="image_35.png" /></figure>
# Research methodology

## Introduction

In the previous two chapters, both knowledge and scientific facts were explored in detail. Chapter 1 focused on knowledge, demonstrating that facts are a specific form of knowledge. Chapter 2 expanded on the concept of facts, distinguishing between simple and complex facts. The chapter concluded that Scientific facts, as complex facts, are developed through scientific methods.

This chapter will focus on research methodology, aiming to clarify the various types of research methods and the different approaches that can be applied within them. This will pave the way for Chapter 4, where the scientific method will be examined in detail.

Chapter 3 is divided into four main topics: First, defining what a research method is, followed by an explanation of methodology and the importance of
distinguishing between the two. Third, research methods will be classified into three types: descriptive, deductive, and inductive, with examples provided for each. Finally, different approach will be discussed, including literary, promotive, and scientific with a special focus on how the scientific approach differs from others.

## Getting started: methods defined so far

Figure 3-1 illustrates the creation of both simple and complex facts as discussed in Chapter 2. It outlines a specific method for generating simple facts, consisting of four sequential steps to be followed in order to achieve the desired result. A similar approach applies to complex facts, shown below in the figure, each box has his own number and label that describes it.

In both cases, the sequence of steps is crucial, which is why each step is numbered. The steps must be carried out in the correct order, as it is not possible to
complete Step 3 before Step 2. The output of each step serves as the input for the next. This structured process, is referred to as a method.

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3-1. Schematic diagram from creating simple and complex facts</figcaption></figure>

Another approach was used to determine the meaning of a complex concept in the first two chapters (Figure 3-2). The process involves the following steps:

1. Searching for the definition of the word that describes the concept in general-purpose dictionaries, such as the Oxford Learner's Dictionaries, Cambridge Dictionary, and Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

2. Investigating the etymology of the word to understand its origins.

3. Looking for the word's meaning within a specific-field or domain.
4. Using the knowledge gathered from the first three steps to formulate a precise definition of the word.

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3-2. Method for defining a new concept.</figcaption></figure>

Although these steps are numbered, their execution does not have to follow a strict sequence. The process can begin at any step, whether it is Step 1, Step 2, or Step 3. The order of execution can vary, such as Step 1 followed by Step 2 and Step 3, or even Step 3 followed by Step 2 and then Step 1. As long as all three steps are completed before moving on to Step 4, the outcome will be the same. The key is to ensure the steps are defined in detail.

In simple terms, a research method is a structured approach to generating new knowledge, where a
specific set of rules or steps is followed. These steps
can be either ordered or flexible. If the knowledge
gained is a scientific fact, the process is known as a
scientific method.

**Method vs. methodology**

The terms “method” and “methodology” are often
used interchangeably, but they represent distinct
concepts. To understand the difference, it is
important to define each term.

The steps outlined earlier in the chapter will be
applied to define both “method” and “methodology”,
as a new concepts, enabling a comparison between
the two.

**Method**

The starting point is the common dictionaries. In
Oxford Learner's Dictionaries, the entry reads:

*“A particular way of doing something”*
The definition is identical, word for word, in the
Cambridge Dictionary.

In the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the entry for
“method” reads:

*“A way, technique or a process of or for doing something”*

All three dictionaries agree that a “method” is
defined as “a way of doing something”. Merriam-
Webster further elaborates by stating that it may also
refer to “a technique or a process”.

Tracing the etymology of the word, it originates from
Latin, where it meant “an inquiry or investigation”,
and its roots can be traced further back to Ancient
Greek, where “methodos”<sup>45</sup> signified “a pursuit or
following after”. By the early 15<sup>th</sup> century, “method”
was used to describe “a regular or systematic

<footnote n="45"><sup>45</sup> Romanised form Greek: μέθοδος.</footnote>
treatment of a disease”. By the late 17th century, the meaning of the word had evolved significantly to refer to “a system or set of rules designed to achieve a specific goal”, a definition that remains in use today.

The first part of the word is “meta”, which is a complex prefix with multiple meanings. Misinterpreting or confusing these meanings can result in an idol of the market, thoroughly discussed in Chapter 1 of the book.

The suffix meta has the following meanings:

* After, in a physical sense, such as one object positioned behind another.

* Beyond, in a non-physical sense, referring to ideas that go beyond a particular concept.<fnref n="46" />

<footnote n="46">⁴⁶ As discussed in Chapter 1, idols of the market are obstacles to logical thinking, often arising from language misuse. The term “metaphysics” emerged from a misunderstanding of two meanings of “meta”. Originally, Aristotle's 12th work was on physics, and the term “metaphysics” referred to the 13th work, which literally meant “after physics” on the shelf. However, the=</footnote>
* To change, as seen in words like “metabolism”.

* Across or over, which is the relevant meaning in the word “method”. Other English words, like “metaphor”, use this same meaning for the prefix.

The second part of the word is “hodos”,<fnref n="47" /> which also has multiple meanings, but the most relevant for this context is “way” or “road”. The “hodos” element appears in many modern English words. For instance, “Exodus”,⁴⁸ from Judeo-Christian tradition, literally means “the way out”.

Another example is the word “episode”, which is commonly used in modern media to refer to a part of

<footnote n="47">⁴⁷ Romanised from the Greek: ὁδός.

⁴⁸ Romanised from the Greek “ἔξοδος”, it is now known as the Book of Exodus. This is the second book in both the Jewish Torah and the Christian Bible.</footnote>
a series. However, its original meaning was different,
referring to “something added along the way”.

Finally, the word "diode" serves as a third example. It
is the name of a semiconductor device and is
composed of two parts:

* “di-”, meaning two.

* “hodos”, meaning road.

Together, the two parts denote a device with
two terminals.

Combining the meanings of “meta” and “hodos”, the
Greek term translates to “a following after”.

Methodology

Starting with the general meaning of the word
“methodology”, the common dictionaries will be
consulted. According to the Oxford Learner's
Dictionaries, the entry for “methodology” reads
as follows:
"A set of methods and principles used to perform a particular activity"

In Cambridge dictionary, the entry reads as follow:

"A system of ways of doing teaching or studying something"

The term “way” is synonymous with “method”, as previously noted. Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret the definition from the Cambridge Dictionary as:

"System of methods"

Finally, in Merriam-Webster dictionary, the entry reads:
> "A body of methods, rules, and postulates
> employed by a discipline"

Examining the three definitions, the terms “set”, “system”, and “body” all indicate a group, in this case, a collection of methods that share a common purpose: they can be applied to a particular activity or used to study a specific subject. Therefore, while a method is a sequence of steps followed to systematically address a task, a methodology refers to a set of methods employed within a specific field. Etymologically, the word "methodology" has been in use since the 19th century, initially meaning “a branch of logic concerned with how abstract logical principles are applied to the generation of knowledge”.

The word “methodology” can be traced back to Latin
via French. In all instances, it is evident that the word
consists of two components: “method” and the suffix
"-logy". The first part, "method" has already been examined in the previous section.

On the other hand, the suffix "-logy" is added to the end of a word to give it a specific meaning: a branch of knowledge or science. It appears in commonly used terms like "biology" meaning the study of living organisms. Another example is "geology", where the prefix<fnref n="49" /> "geo-" refers to Earth, making geology the science of Earth's physical structure. Lastly, "egyptology" refers to the study of ancient Egypt.

Following the same reasoning, "methodology" can be defined as: the science that studies the methods applied within a specific field.

## Difference In the research domain

In this book, the emphasis is not on the broad, general meaning of the word "method", but rather on its specific application in research. Therefore, the question can be reframed as: What precisely is a

<footnote n="49">⁴⁹ A prefix is a group of letters attached to the beginning of a word to give it a specific meaning.</footnote>
research method? The following provides a
clear answer:<fnref n="50" />

> "Research methods are the strategies processes or techniques utilised in the collection of data or evidence for analysis in order to uncover new information or create better understanding of a topic"

A closer examination of this definition reveals that a research method is a tool or process employed to systematically generate new knowledge.

In contrast, the definition of methodology is provided
in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
as follows:<fnref n="51" />

<footnote n="50">⁵⁰ This definition is quoted from the research guide of University of Newcastle, see the original text in [WEB01].</footnote>

<footnote n="51">⁵¹ See p. 820 in [BKE10].</footnote>
> "The branch of philosophy of science that
> explores the methods by which signs arrive at
> its truth and critically explores rationales for
> these methods"

Thus, in research domain, methodology refers to the
systematic study of research methods.

What stands out in this definition is the term
"critically". When the structure of research methods
is examined later in Chapter 4, attention will be given
to the potential risks of corruption or misuse, which
can lead to invalid results. This is where methodology
plays a crucial role, by critically, assessing and refining
research methods to ensure accuracy and validity.

**Classification of research method**

Classification is the process of grouping things based
on shared qualities or characteristics. It involves
assigning an adjective to objects that are
being described.
In this section, research methods will be classified based on how they produce knowledge. The three primary classes are descriptive, deductive, and inductive methods. Each will be explored in detail with several examples.

## Descriptive methods

The primary goal of the descriptive method is to provide detailed scientific accounts of various objects. In this context, an “object” refers to anything that has an impact, whether physical or conceptual. For instance, taxonomy focuses on classifying organisms, which are physical entities that can be observed, measured, or sometimes heard. On the other hand, the subject of study might be non-physical, like human behaviour. Anthropology,<fnref n="52" /> for example, examines humankind, exploring aspects such as culture, folklore, and traditions.

<footnote n="52">⁵² Anthropo- is a prefix means pertaining to man or human beings, it is derived from Greek word ἄνθρωπος (Romanised: anthrōpos) which means human.</footnote>
Anthropologists describe intangible elements of human societies, such as political systems, wedding songs, and religious practices.

The term “scientifically” in this context indicates that the description must follow a structured approach, rather than being arbitrary, and should involve analysis of the collected data. Therefore, a descriptive method must possess the following three characteristics:

1. The descriptive method must be objective and encompass all aspects of the phenomenon being studied. The observer should avoid including personal opinions or interpretations in the recorded descriptions. This does not mean that opinions cannot be expressed, but personal reflections, thoughts, and opinions should be entirely separate from the collected data.

2. The data gathered should be organised into predetermined classes. For instance,
information about structure or layout should
be grouped together, as should data
describing behaviour. These classes must be
defined prior to the description process so the
researcher knows exactly what to focus on.

3. Within each class, the data should be sorted in a specific, systematic order that suits the type of information. This could be in ascending or descending order, chronologically, or according to another predefined system.

It is essential to recognise the difference between
classification and sorting. Classification involves
grouping the collected data based on their type, such
as time-related data, length-related data, etc. This
process handles heterogeneous<sup>53</sup> data, meaning data
processed vary in nature or content.

<footnote n="53">⁵³ Hetero- is a prefix that means other or different. It is derived from Greek word ἔτερος (Romanised: héteros) which has the same meaning.</footnote>
In contrast, sorting involves arranging the data within each group in a specific order. Sorting deals with homogeneous<sup>54</sup> data, meaning processed data are similar in kind or nature.

A descriptive method may incorporate inductive steps to generate new knowledge from the collected data; however, the primary process remains descriptive.

The descriptive methods can be also subclassified into two main subclasses, documentary and contemporary.

A documentary descriptive method emphasises the examination of objects from the past and is primarily utilised in historical and religious studies. In contrast, contemporary methods concentrate on current objects. Notable fields where this research approach dominates include cartography, the practice of map-

<footnote n="54"><sup>54</sup> Homo- is a prefix that means same, like or equal. It is derived from Greek word ὁμο (Romanised: homo) which has the same meaning.</footnote>
making, and astronomy, which studies outer space
and the physical universe.

In certain fields of knowledge, both documentary and
contemporary research methods are extensively
employed. Taxonomy serves as an example of such a
field. It is a branch of biology that is not only focusing
on the classification of extinct organisms based on
their fossils but also extend to studying living species.
The following section will discuss three examples of
descriptive methods.

**Example 1: Hadith studies**

The first example to study is closely related to
religion, specifically Islam, and is centred on Hadith<fnref n="55" />
studies. In this context, a hadith refers to the
recorded words, actions, and silent approvals of the
Prophet Muhammad<fnref n="56" />, conveyed through a chain
of narrators.

<footnote n="55">⁵⁵ From Arabic: حديث (Hadīth), literally, it means a conversation or a talk.</footnote>

<footnote n="56">⁵⁶ Muhammad ibn Abdullah (Arabic: مُحَمَّد بن عبد الله) (570 - 632 CE), an Arab religious, social, and political leader and the founder of Islam.</footnote>
The analysis of a specific hadith focuses on its reliability, particularly its level of authenticity. Notably, Muslim scholars developed a systematic and strict system for categorising hadiths. This research method is one of the oldest still in practice today.

Hadith studies method consists of several specific steps to ensure the reliability of the hadith. First, scholars examine the chain of narrators, to verify each person's credibility. This includes looking into their biographies, checking if they were known for honesty and good character, and assessing their memory and accuracy in narration. Next, text of the hadith, is examined carefully for consistency with established Islamic teachings and other authentic sources. Scholars also evaluate the content for any historical context or linguistic characteristics that may affect its interpretation.

In addition to these primary checks, scholars classify hadith into different categories based on their authenticity: authentic, good, weak, and fabricated.
They also consider the context in which the hadith
was reported, including the circumstances
surrounding its transmission and any potential biases
of the narrators.

Some may contend that religious studies rely on a set
of postulates<sup>57</sup> or assumptions<sup>58</sup>, which renders them
invalid. However, this argument itself is invalid.

Religious studies are not unique in incorporating
postulates. For instance, geometry is founded on a
specific set of postulates and operates effectively, at
least from a methodological perspective.

One of the most well-known postulates of all time is
the following (Figure 3-3):

> if a line C intersect with two lines called A and B, and if the angles a and b are equal, then, the lines A and B are parallel

<footnote n="57"><sup>57</sup> It means an argument that is taken for granted without proof.</footnote>

<footnote n="58">⁵⁸ As discussed in Chapter 1, an assumption is a statement that is believed to be true or accepted as it is with no proof.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_38.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3-3. The fifth postulate of Euclid.</figcaption></figure>

This is Euclid's<fnref n="59" /> 5th postulate, which was not confirmed as valid until the mid-19th century. Nevertheless, Euclidean geometry, based on this postulate, developed without any issues.

Therefore, having postulates does not invalidate a method. However, when postulates are established, a set of rules must be followed to avoid developing an invalid method:

* The postulates should be clear from the outset. Introducing postulates during the course of research is a warning sign for

<footnote n="59">⁵⁹ Euclid (Greek: Εὐκλείδης) (?? - 300 BCE) an ancient Greek mathematician, best known for creating a branch of geometry named after him: the Euclidean geometry.</footnote>
corruption and can lead to a compromised research method.

* Postulates are intended to facilitate the generation of new knowledge, not to create it.

* Postulates must not be used to manipulate results or to steer them in a specific direction.

## Example 2: Historical method

The historical method is employed by historians to assess historicity of objects and events. This method does not rely on postulates or preconceived assumptions; its main objective is to uncover the original form and narrative of past events.

Thanks to this approach, history is not merely a collection of stories; each documented event can be validated based on its context and the archaeological record.

The historical method involves three steps to verify the existence of the subject under investigation:
1. Physical remains of the subject are examined. If remains are found, they are considered definitive evidence of the subject's existence.

2. Artefacts used or created by the subject are identified, such as swords, shields, letters, or possibly tombs and statues. It is essential that these objects are traceable directly to the subject. If such artefacts are discovered, they are regarded as strong evidence of the subject's existence.

3. Contemporary sources are reviewed, dated to the period when the subject is believed to have existed, or as close to that period as possible. If the subject is mentioned in these sources, particularly in independent ones to avoid conflicts of interest,<fnref n="60" /> this is seen as a reliable indication of the subject's existence.

<footnote n="60">⁶⁰ A situation arises when there are concerns that someone is involved in multiple activities, one of which might corrupt the motivation of another activity.</footnote>
Here is an example to illustrate how the historical method operates: how can it be determined whether Alexander the Great<fnref n="61" /> and Bilbo Baggins<fnref n="62" /> actually existed?

By applying the three steps of the historical method to both figures:

* **Physical remains:** Neither Alexander the Great nor Bilbo Baggins has any known physical remains.

* **Artefacts:** There are no surviving objects directly associated with either figure. However, coins minted during Alexander the Great's reign have been found (Figure 3-4). The earliest known depiction of him dates

<footnote n="61">⁶¹ Also known as Alexander III of Macedon (Greek: Ἀλέξανδρος, Romanised: Alexandros) (356 - 323 BCE), the king of Macedonia and the conqueror of Achaemenid Persia. He is most famous for his military campaigns in Asia, which played a significant role in bridging the Eastern and Western worlds.</footnote>

<footnote n="62">⁶² A fictional character from J.R.R. Tolkien's legendarium, Bilbo Baggins first appeared in the 1937 novel The Hobbit and later in The Lord of the Rings. He is best known for his bravery and love of adventure.</footnote>
back to around 120 -100 BCE,<fnref n="63" /> approximately two centuries after his death. For Bilbo Baggins, no tangible objects have ever been identified.

* **Contemporary sources:** Alexander the Great's military campaigns are well-documented by historians, with records dating to his lifetime or shortly thereafter.<fnref n="64" /> In contrast, Bilbo Baggins is only mentioned in two fictional works, The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.

Therefore, applying the historical method, it is reasonable to conclude that Bilbo Baggins

<footnote n="63">⁶³ The artwork is titled the “Alexander Mosaic”, also known as the “Battle of Issus Mosaic”. It is a Roman mosaic measuring 2.72 x 5.13 metres, discovered on the floor of the House of the Faun in Pompeii. The mosaic depicts the Battle of Issus and is currently part of the collection at the National Archaeological Museum in Naples. Accession number: Inv. 10020.</footnote>

<footnote n="64">⁶⁴ Alexander the Great had even a historian following his campaign in real time. His name is Callisthenes of Olynthus (Greek: Καλλισθένης) (360 - 327 BCE).</footnote>
did not exist, whereas Alexander the Great is
recognised as a historical figure.

<figure><img src="image_39.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3-4. A coin dated back to the era of Alexander the Great<fnref n="65" /></figcaption></figure>

## Example 3: Taxonomy

The primary goal of taxonomy is to classify life forms
based on their functions and physical characteristics.
Taxonomists must describe organisms using a
complex classification system.

<footnote n="65">⁶⁵ The name "Alexander" (Greek: ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ) can be seen on the reverse of the coin, which was likely struck between 333 and 327 BCE during Alexander the Great's lifetime. The letter "Β" beneath the throne refers to Balakros (Greek: Βάλακρος), one of Alexander's bodyguards (Greek: Σωματοφύλακες, Romanised: somatophylax). The depictions on the coin are often mistakenly attributed to Alexander himself. However, the obverse features Heracles, the legendary ancestor of the Macedonian royal family, while the reverse depicts Zeus Aëtophoros seated on a throne. The image is from the Classical Numismatic Group (CNG). Coin Accession number: 368240, see [WEB02].</footnote>
This process can be challenging and often influenced by misconceptions, such as the “Idols of the Market” discussed in Chapter 1. For example, if a bird is defined as “a flying animal”, this would include all insects. Adding the term “vertebrate” to exclude insects, defining a bird as “a vertebrate flying animal”, is still inaccurate, as bats are vertebrate flying animals but are mammals, not birds. Similarly, whales might be mistaken for fish, and fungi could be wrongly classified as plants.

To resolve these issues, clear and precise definitions are necessary to distinguish between what is classified as a fish, plant, or other organisms.

Therefore, the work of a taxonomist goes beyond merely collecting data and making observations. The information must be carefully classified and organised to transform it into useful knowledge, and this is a key part of the descriptive method employed in taxonomy.
## Deductive methods

The second category of research methods is the deductive method. Deduction refers to moving from the general to the specific. Therefore, a deductive research method involves answering a question or solving a problem by starting with general principles or facts and narrowing down to specific conclusions.

### Example: Court judges

A domain where the deductive research method is applied is in modern courts. A judge's work, for instance, is primarily guided by a set of laws. These laws are general and may not cover every specific case the court encounters. The judge must objectively apply these general laws to reach a judgment that is specific to the case at hand. In this context, the primary goal of the method is to achieve justice.

This example also highlights the issue of conflict of interest. To illustrate this, consider the difference between a judge's role and that of a prosecutor or
lawyer. A judge must remain neutral, with the objective of delivering justice based on existing laws. In contrast, a lawyer or prosecutor does not maintain neutrality, as their aim is to win the case, creating a clear case of conflict of interest.

## Inductive research methods

The final category of research methods is inductive research. Induction refers to the process of moving from specific or simple observations to broader generalisations or laws. An inductive research method involves solving a problem or developing a general principle by starting with specific facts and observations.

Inductive research can be further divided into two subclasses, depending on how new knowledge is acquired. If the knowledge is derived purely through mental effort, without the use of physical tools, it is called mental induction. Examples of fields where mental inductive methods are applied include philosophy, logic, and mathematics. In these areas,
conclusions are reached on an abstract level, with no involvement of physical objects.

Conversely, if the knowledge is gained through physical efforts, such as experiments producing specific data, the method is called sensory induction, often used in applied sciences and engineering. Generally speaking, the common use of the term “research method” tends, if not specified, to refer to the inductive sensory approach.

Next, two examples of the inductive research methods will be discussed.

### Example 1: Mathematics

In mathematics, research methods are entirely mental and inductive. For example:

$$0 + 1 + 2 + \dots + n = \frac{n(n + 1)}{2}$$

This equation reads as follows:
The sum of natural numbers from 0 to n is equal to n multiplied by (n+1), divided by 2

For n=3, the right side of the equation is:

$$0 + 1 + 2 + 3 = 6$$

The left side also is equal to:

$$\frac{3(3 + 1)}{2} = \frac{12}{2} = 6$$

This is a simple fact to start with. Next, an inductive research method will use this fact to show that the equation is valid for all natural numbers, creating a general law that applies to all possible values of n from the set of natural numbers.

It is important to note that the inductive research method used in this example is mental. All concepts involved are abstract, and the efforts required are purely cognitive.

## Example 2: Physics

The second example pertains to physics, focusing on the question of which travels faster: sound or light?
A solid inductive research method will involve the
following three steps:

1. Measure the speed of sound, thereby establishing the first simple fact.

2. Measure the speed of light to create the second simple fact.

3. Compare the two values and draw a conclusion, resulting in new and complex knowledge.

4. Repeat the experiment under different sets of controlled parameters to verify that the complex fact is repeatable and withstands testing.

It is worth to notice, that unlike mathematics, the inductive research method used in this example is based on physical tests in the real world. All concepts involved are tangible, and the efforts required are primarily practical, leading to empirical results. The goal is to establish a universal law that is consistently applicable.
## Approaches

An approach refers to the overall strategy chosen to explore a question, solve a problem, or gain new knowledge. Methods can adopt various approaches, such as literary, promotive, or scientific, each influencing how data is generated or collected, how it is analysed, and the level of credibility it holds. Not all approaches are appropriate for research purposes, so it is crucial for researchers to understand which methods to avoid and the reasons behind those choices.

The literary approach emphasises creativity and imagination, commonly used in artistic fields. This approach is most effective when the content is open-ended or not specific. In literature, for example, ambiguity and the intentional use of words that can be interpreted in different ways are often encouraged. In this case, the writer is free to be subjective and express personal ideas.
The second approach is the promotive or advocacy approach. It combines logic with emotion, aiming to attract or persuade people, whether to buy a product, follow a religion, or support a political cause. However, this approach should be avoided in research, as a scientist must not allow personal bias to influence the study.

Finally, the scientific approach is grounded purely in facts. It is the essential method for conducting rigorous research. Here, the researcher must avoid vague terms like “a lot”, “several” or “many” and subjectivity is not allowed. Instead, objectivity is critical, and the researcher must follow the evidence wherever it leads.

The three approaches will be discussed in the remaining sections of this chapter.

## Literary approach

The first approach to consider is the literary approach, which, as previously mentioned, focuses on creativity and aims to express personal emotions.
This approach is often used to convey moral lessons or to evoke emotional responses in the audience, such as making them laugh or cry. Works of comedy and tragedy typically follow this approach.

A key feature of the literary approach is its subjectivity. The same piece of work can be interpreted in various ways depending on the reader or viewer. For example, in cinema or novels, it is common to find contrasting reviews of the same work. This diversity in interpretation is not a problem but rather a natural outcome of engaging with literature.

The literary approach connects with human emotions and relies heavily on imagination. Since people have unique life experiences, their reactions to a piece of literature will vary, which explains the differing opinions often seen in reviews, especially in films or books.

The literary approach also relies heavily on indirect or implicit signs. In this case, the audience may miss or
misunderstand certain signs because they are not
obvious. However, this is a natural aspect of the
literary approach, and making everything direct is not
a solution. It is acceptable, even expected, for the
audience to fill in the gaps using their imagination.

The only real challenge occurs when the audience is
completely unfamiliar with the subject or finds it too
ambiguous to understand. Therefore, when using this
approach, it is important to study the audience first.

The ideas should be made clear enough for most
people to grasp but still presented in an indirect way
that requires some imaginative interpretation.

This approach is unsuitable for research methods, as
it can lead to unclear results and subjective
interpretations, which are not appropriate in
scientific studies.

## Promotive approach

The second approach to consider is the promotive
approach. It focuses on both facts and emotions, with
the primary goal of persuading people to adopt a
particular idea, as mentioned previously, it can be
buying a product, subscribing to a service, following a
religion, or supporting a political cause.

Unlike the literary approach, the promotive approach
is grounded in facts. However, these facts are used
strategically to achieve a specific outcome or to
support a particular viewpoint by appealing to
people's reasoning. At the same time, it can also
engage emotions if that is more effective in reaching
the goal. A solid promotive approach may even
incorporate literary techniques. Simply, the end
justifies the means.<fnref n="66" />

<footnote n="66">⁶⁶ This quotation is often attributed to Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince (Latin: De Principatibus), published in 1532. Although it aligns with the book's philosophy, the phrase itself does not appear in the text. A potential source is Heroides (Latin: Epistulae Heroidum), written around 10 BCE by Publius Ovidius Naso (Ovid), a well-known Roman poet. In the second letter, titled “Epistula II (Phyllis to Demophoon)”, the phrase “exitus ācta probat” is used, meaning “The outcome justifies the deeds”. See p. 59 in [BKL01].</footnote>
The primary focus of the promotive approach is not the validity of the idea being promoted, but rather the ability to attract a larger audience.

Methods that utilise the promotive approach tend to be subjective, making them unsuitable for scientific research. In science, it is essential for a researcher to maintain objectivity and to stay independent from the study being conducted.

## Scientific approach

The final approach to discuss is the scientific. As previously outlined in this chapter the scientific approach relies exclusively on empirical evidence.

This approach depends on logic and reasoning to engage the audience, in contrast to the literary approach, which emphasises emotions, and the promotive approach, which combines both elements.

The aim is not to attract followers or customers; rather, the key focus is on the validity of the results, regardless of whether individuals believe them or not.
Scientific approaches can be classified into qualitative or quantitative, depending on the type of data they utilise.

Qualitative approaches may encompass emotions or behaviours, with the primary aim of examining complex concepts, such as social interactions or cultural phenomena. This subclass is typically employed to investigate how, or why, certain events occur and to explain occurrences or describe human actions. It is often linked to descriptive methods and is widely used in the humanities and linguistics.

Conversely, quantitative approaches are of numerical nature, where handled data can be organised, ranked, or measured along a specific scale. The main objective of employing this approach is to identify patterns or relationships between variables, answering questions that begin with terms such as “how many”, “how much”, or “how often”. This approach is generally associated with the inductive
method and is frequently applied in the
natural sciences.

Understanding the distinction between quantitative and qualitative approaches in scientific methods is crucial. The differences become evident when comparing the methods of data collection and the nature of the data obtained (Table 3-1).

The initial focus will be on how to generate data using
both quantitative and qualitative approaches.

In the quantitative approach, surveys are often used.
A survey provides a broad overview of a person or
situation, consisting of closed questions with limited
answer options, typically in numerical form. These
surveys can be distributed to hundreds or thousands
of respondents. In contrast, qualitative approaches
usually involve conducting interviews with specific
individuals. These interviews feature open-ended
questions, allowing for a wide range of possible
answers. In some instances, discussions may also
take place instead of structured interviews.
Both quantitative and qualitative approaches involve observation, but they produce different types of data. For instance, when observing a herd of domesticated animals in their natural environment over a week, the quantitative approach would concentrate on aspects such as the number of animals in the herd, how often they eat, and their sleep patterns. Conversely, the qualitative approach would focus on the social dynamics within the herd, such as identifying the alpha male and documenting his behaviour towards other animals.

The treatment of documents varies depending on whether quantitative or qualitative approaches are employed. For instance, when analysing a series of messages exchanged between two individuals, a quantitative approach seeks numerical data: How many messages were exchanged? When were they sent? How many words are contained in each message? What is the average word count? Conversely, a qualitative approach examines the
nature of the messages, the relationship between the two individuals, the writing style, and other contextual factors.

<table><caption>Table 3-1. Comparison between quantitative and qualitative tools used to obtain data</caption><thead><tr><td>Criteria</td><td>Quantitative</td><td>Qualitative</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Data generation</td><td>Surveys: Closed questions (set of answers) - large number - numeric data</td><td>Interviews: Open questions & discussion - limited group - extract descriptive details</td></tr><tr><td>Use of observation</td><td>obtain numbers, frequencies, statics</td><td>Monitor Behaviour, roles, needs</td></tr><tr><td>Documents treatment</td><td>Screening: in search for numerical data</td><td>Analysis: Focus of the style of the writer</td></tr><tr><td>Tests</td><td>Conducting experiments: physical tests and recording</td><td>Recording life stories: Remembrances, memories and experiences</td></tr></tbody></table>

Finally, from a quantitative standpoint, physical tests can be performed, and results can be documented in numerical format. In contrast, from a qualitative perspective, experiences may be conveyed through personal narratives, such as memories and reflections.
Another example highlighting the differences between the two scientific approaches is the collection of personal data through questioning. Quantitative data could include metrics such as age, weight, height, shoe size, and annual income. Conversely, qualitative data might encompass information such as name, gender, languages spoken, and educational background.

<figure><img src="image_40.png" /></figure>
# Scientific method

## Introduction

In Chapter 3, research methods were defined as the strategies, processes, or techniques used to collect data or evidence for analysis, with the aim of discovering new information or gaining a better understanding of the subject being studied.

Within this context, a method is considered scientific if it is systematic and testable. Systematic means that the method must follows a well-defined ordered set of steps that can be consistently applied without exceptions. And testability means that a subject can always be examined to verify its validity.

Building on that, chapter 4 will focus on the scientific method. The chapter is divided into three main sections. The first will briefly discuss how science is characterised. The second section will introduce the scientific method, detailing its structure, highlighting its importance, and explaining how to apply it
effectively. Finally, the third section will explore the
key properties of the scientific method, which are
crucial for distinguishing science from non-science.

What to consider a science?

## Properties of the science

From a philosophical standpoint, science is far more
complex than simply being defined by systemacity
and testability. To classify a field of knowledge as
science, it must meet six essential criteria:<fnref n="67" />

*   **Well-defined terminology,** it is essential for a science to have a specific term referring to a precise concept and allow only one interpretation of the definition. This is why specialised dictionaries are created for each branch of knowledge.

<footnote n="67">⁶⁷ More on this subject in [WEB03], an article published in 2013 in the Scientific American Journal, written by Ashutosh Jogalekar, titled: “Is psychology a “real” science? Does it really matter?”.</footnote>
*   **Quantifiability,** A science must deal with measurable quantities, requiring a clear standard system of defined units. This is why scientific fields always focus on quantities and measurement units. For example, psychology examines human behaviours and instincts, such as fear, which are not quantifiable. As a result, psychology is often debated as not being considered a science. Referring to [WEB3], an article written specifically to address whether psychology qualifies as a science. While this topic remains debated, the prevailing view among most scientists today is that psychology is not a science.

*   **Highly controlled experimental conditions,** Science must be grounded in expertise, and that expertise needs to be carefully regulated. This requirement means that fields relying primarily on descriptive methods are not considered scientific. This is why disciplines
like social sciences, history, and religious studies face challenges when it comes to determining whether they can be classified as sciences.<fnref n="68" />

Another example is geography and geology. While geography, as a field of study, primarily employs descriptive research methods to examine the Earth, geology utilises inductive methods. Consequently, geology qualifies as a scientific discipline that investigates the composition and structure of the Earth.

* **Reproducibility**, it means that anyone following the same method or steps should achieve the exact same results. While this may seem straightforward, it is actually one of the most difficult criterion to meet. For instance, many argue that economics lacks

<footnote n="68">⁶⁸ These branches of knowledge could meet this criterion if the knowledge acquired is based on empirical observations and can be verified by other researchers operating under the same conditions. “Empirical” refers to knowledge derived solely from sensory experiences.</footnote>
reproducibility because it involves human
factors, which cannot be predicted with
complete certainty. This is why some theorists
and philosophers do not consider economics
a science.<fnref n="69" />

In this context, it is essential to distinguish
between reproducibility and replicability.<fnref n="70" />
Reproducibility refers to the ability to repeat
a particular study or experiment under the
same conditions and consistently achieve the
same results. This ensures the research
method's reliability and validity. Replicability,
on the other hand, allows other researchers
to replicate a study or experiment using the

<footnote n="69">⁶⁹ Regarding the issue of reproducibility, refer to [ARE02] and [ARE03] for further details. Economics, in particular, has faced ongoing criticism for not being considered a science. This is due to several factors, including challenges with verifiability and the reliance on overly simplified assumptions. For more information, see p. 30 in [BKE11], [ARE04] and [ARE05].</footnote>

<footnote n="70">⁷⁰ For further information on the distinction between the two concepts, refer to the article published by the Leibniz Information Centre for Economics [WEB04] and [BKE12].</footnote>
same research method but in different circumstances. This tests the validity of the findings.

In short, reproducibility relies on the original data, materials, and protocols, whereas replicability verifies the results under varied conditions using the same method.

* **Predictability**, it means that a science must be able to forecast future data based on current and past data or calculations.

It is crucial to understand that this is not fortune-telling, as all predictions must be testable. For example, astronomy<sup>71</sup> can accurately determine the exact position of the moon as seen from any location on Earth at midnight. The prediction will always work because it is based on precise calculations, not chance or luck.

<footnote n="71"><sup>71</sup> Astronomy is the scientific study of celestial bodies, and it should not be confused with astrology, a pseudoscience that makes predictions based on the observation of these bodies.</footnote>
* **Testability**, this means that all claims or hypotheses in science must be verifiable, at least from a theoretical standpoint. In some cases, it may not be possible to test these claims empirically due to a lack of necessary technologies, leaving them untested for decades.

For example, in Chapter 2, Albert Einstein's prediction that massive objects can distort time was highlighted. This was a testable claim, at least theoretically, but when it was proposed, there were no tools available to measure and verify it. As a result, the claim remained untested for nearly a century.
A field of knowledge must meet all the criteria outlined above to be classified as a science by definition.<fnref n="72" />

## Modern classification of sciences

The term “science” is often associated with inductive research methods, particularly in applied fields like physics, chemistry, and engineering, where observations from controlled experiments are more feasible. However, science is not restricted to applied disciplines.

<footnote n="72">⁷² This is not the only way to define science. There are other approaches. For example, criteria, known as the Mertonian norms, were proposed by Robert K. Merton (1910-2003) in his 1942 essay titled “The Normative Structure of Science”. According to Merton, science is guided by four key principles, often summarised by the acronym CUDOS: (1) Communism, referring to the shared ownership of scientific discoveries; (2) Universalism, meaning scientific claims should be evaluated based on universal principles, not personal biases; (3) Disinterestedness, which expects scientists to prioritise objectivity over self-interest; and (4) Organised Skepticism, meaning that all ideas must undergo rigorous testing and critical evaluation.</footnote>
In this regard and broadly speaking, modern consensus divides science into two main categories: formal sciences and empirical sciences.<fnref n="73" />

Formal science deals with abstract structures like algorithms, shapes, solids, and both formal and natural languages. Since it is non-empirical, new knowledge is acquired through reasoning rather than observation. Formal science can be further divided into two classes: foundational and applied. Foundational formal science focuses purely on theoretical aspects, such as logic and pure mathematics. In contrast, applied formal science involves the practical application of these theories, covering areas like computer science and applied mathematics.

Empirical sciences rely on sensory experiences or experimental methods. They are classified into natural and social sciences, depending on the field of

<footnote n="73">⁷³ Refer to p. 14-41 in [BKE13].</footnote>
application. Natural sciences aim to describe physical systems, while social sciences focus on human societies, cultures, and the relationships between individuals within those societies.

As with the Formal sciences, both natural and social empirical sciences are divided into foundational and applied based on the same criteria discussed before. examples regarding the four subclasses of Empirical sciences can be found in Table 4-1.

<table><caption>Table 4-1: Classification of modern sciences</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2">Formal</th><th colspan="2">Empirical</th></tr><tr><th>Natural</th><th>Social</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Foundational</th><td>Logic</td><td>Physics, chemistry & biology</td><td>Economics & sociology</td></tr><tr><th>Applied</th><td>Computer science</td><td>Engineering & medicine</td><td>Anthropology & archaeology</td></tr></tbody></table>
## Non-Scientific paradigms

With all the criteria discussed so far, the distinction between what qualifies as science, and what is not, becomes evident. Any process or discipline that fails to meet these conditions is classified as pseudoscience.<fnref n="74" />

According to the National Science Foundation (USA), pseudoscience is defined as:<fnref n="75" />

> *“Claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility”*

However, the range of pseudoscience is quite broad. It includes practices that are widely regarded as

<footnote n="74">⁷⁴ Pronounced /'s(j)u:dəʊ, sʌɪəns/, with a silent P. Pseudo- is a suffix from a Greek origin, it means false, erroneous or in appearance only.</footnote>

<footnote n="75">⁷⁵ This definition can be accessed on the Foundation's webpage [WEB05] and was originally stated on p. 17 in [BKE14].</footnote>
invalid, such as Phrenology,<fnref n="76" /> as well as those often
associated with conspiracy theories, like Ufology.<fnref n="77" />
Additionally, most practices involving religious
beliefs, such as Creationism,<fnref n="78" /> are also classified
under pseudoscience.

Another category of claims that falls outside the
realm of science is known as fringe theories. They can
vary in their levels of academic acceptance. However,
they share a common characteristic of being outside
the mainstream academic consensus on the subject
in question. Typically, fringe theories do not adhere

<footnote n="76">⁷⁶ Derived from the Greek “φρήν” (Romanised: phrēn), meaning “mind”, and “λόγος” (Romanised: logos), meaning “study”. Phrenology is a set of measurements claiming to predict mental traits based on physical characteristics, particularly the shape and bumps of the skull. It is considered pseudoscience due to its lack of a clear and coherent methodological framework.</footnote>

<footnote n="77">⁷⁷ UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object, and Ufology is the study of these phenomena, often conducted by individuals who believe extraterrestrial beings frequently visit Earth. It is considered pseudoscience due to the absence of supporting evidence and its lack of falsifiability.</footnote>

<footnote n="78">⁷⁸ Creationism is a religious belief that attributes the origin of the universe to a supernatural or divine act of creation. It is classified as pseudoscience due to its reliance on religious texts and the absence of empirical evidence to support its claims.</footnote>
to valid methodological standards and are often built
on exaggerated assumptions. Examples of fringe
theories include conspiracy theories related to
vaccinations during the COVID-19 pandemic<fnref n="79" /> and
pseudohistorical narratives.<fnref n="80" />

In this context, it is essential to distinguish between
alternative theories and fringe theories. An
alternative theory is a concept or claim that is
developed using a solid methodological foundation
but remains theoretical, with no known means to test
or verify its validity. One example of this type of claim
is the theory of continental drift. The idea that

<footnote n="79">⁷⁹ The claims regarding the side effects of vaccinations during the COVID-19 pandemic were never broadly accepted within the academic community due to a lack of supporting evidence. It was also difficult to disprove these claims for the lack of evidence as well. Nevertheless, the prevailing academic consensus has always supported the use of vaccinations.</footnote>

<footnote n="80">⁸⁰ Pseudohistory refers to a collection of practices aimed at distorting the historical record. It encompasses a wide range of claims, including the assertion that Islam was not founded in the Arabian Peninsula but in the Levant, as well as the claim that Adolf Hitler did not commit suicide at the end of World War II, but instead escaped Berlin and lived for decades afterwards.</footnote>
continents have moved over time dates back to the late 16th century, but it was refined and fully articulated by Alfred Wegener<sup>81</sup> in his 1915 booklet titled: "The Origin of Continents and Oceans".<sup>82</sup>

When the theory of continental drift was first proposed, it was not widely accepted within the scientific community. The issue did not lie in the method Wegener employed to develop his claims, his approach was valid. However, there was no identified mechanism to explain the force driving the movement of continents. Furthermore, Wegener estimated the rate of drift to be 250 cm per year, which was later found to be an overestimation by a factor of 100, as the actual average rate is

<footnote n="81"><sup>81</sup> Alfred Lothar Wegener (1880-1930), a German geophysicist well-known for his polar research and for reformulating and promoting the theory of continental drift within the field of geology.</footnote>

<footnote n="82"><sup>82</sup> The book was published in German at Braunschweig. The original title was (German: Die Entstehung der Kontinente und Ozeane), See [BKG01].</footnote>
about 2.5 cm per year. In summary, the theory remained unaccepted for 40 years.

By 1950, increased research in oceanography<sup>83</sup> led to the discovery of new evidence that strongly supported Wegener's claims. Consequently, twenty years after his death, the theory of continental drift began to gain acceptance and eventually became the dominant perspective in geology by the late 1960s.

In conclusion, Table 4-2 presents a comparison of alternative theories, fringe theories, and pseudoscience based on their respective characteristics.

<footnote n="83"><sup>83</sup> For further information on the discoveries made on the ocean floor, refer to [ARE06] and [ARE07].</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 4-2. Comparison of non-scientific paradigms</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Alternative theories</th><th>Fringe theories</th><th>Pseudo-science</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Properties</th><td>(1) Solid method<br>(2) Cannot be tested</td><td>(1) Problems with method<br>(2) Not accepted widely</td><td>(1) Invalid method<br>(2) Lack of empirical evidence</td></tr><tr><th>Examples</th><td>Continental drift</td><td>Pseudohistory</td><td>Astrology</td></tr></tbody></table>

# Understanding the scientific method

## Structure

Since the establishment of modern science, the understanding of the scientific method within various fields has evolved significantly, producing a quite sophisticated process.

Unfortunately, there is no single, universally accepted definition of the scientific method. However, across different scientific disciplines, most methods that meet scientific standards share common steps and a cyclical process (Figure 4-1).
<figure><img src="image_41.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4-1. The scientific method</figcaption></figure>

To provide an overview of the scientific method, this section will briefly outline an eight-step research process, followed by a more detailed exploration of each step.

1. The first step involves defining the problem. Identifying a specific problem or unanswered question is crucial, as the research, guided by the scientific method, seeks to address or resolve it.
2. The second step, often referred to as the "state-of-the-art", involves reviewing the current knowledge and developments related to the problem. This step requires examining available sources to build an understanding of the problem being addressed.

3. In the third step, a hypothesis is formulated based on the insights gathered in the second step. A hypothesis is a proposed solution or explanation for the problem, but at this stage, it is still an unverified claim that requires further testing.

4. The fourth step involves testing the hypothesis. At this stage, the researcher designs an experiment or way to assess the validity of the hypothesis. Before conducting the test, the type of data to be gathered must be clearly defined. The experiment is then carried out, and data is collected accordingly.
5. The fifth step starts once the test is completed, the collected data undergoes analysis. This involves organising the data to identify any patterns or trends and understand why they appear.

6. In the sixth step, the analysis results provide the researcher with a broader understanding of the case being studied. This understanding aids in drawing a clear conclusion:

a. If the problem is solved or the results are well-supported, the researcher may proceed to publish the findings.

b. If the problem remains unsolved, the researcher returns to Step 3 to develop a new hypothesis.

7. Publishing, the seventh step, is crucial yet often undervalued. Sharing results through publication allows other researchers to access and review the findings. It serves as the means of communication, and the more
openly accessible publications are, the larger
the audience is, and the faster human
knowledge can advance.

8. Finally, the retesting phase occurs in Step 8. This step is typically carried out by other researchers who re-examine the hypothesis and verify the original results to ensure their accuracy and validity.

Before exploring each step in detail, two key insights
can be drawn from the previous overview:

1. The scientific method is an ongoing process, reflecting the continuous evolution of scientific knowledge.

2. The method follows a circular structure, meaning there is no definitive starting point.

In the next section, each step will be discussed in
greater depth.
Defining the research problem<sup>84</sup>

The first step of the scientific method focuses on defining the research problem in the form of a question, which the research aims to answer. The research question should be as clear and specific as possible. It is essential for researchers to understand that solving all problems within a field is not achievable in a single study. Instead, the aim should be to focus on a narrow, well-defined issue and attempt to address it.

The research question can be either open or closed. It is important not to confuse “narrow” with “open”. In this context, “open” refers to a wide range of possible answers, while “narrow” pertains to the specificity of the question itself.

For example, when studying dark matter or extraterrestrial life, the limited available data may justify using an open-ended question. In contrast,

<footnote n="84"><sup>84</sup> This subject will be focusing the of Chapter 5, refer there for more details.</footnote>
research on a specific property of a chemical element usually involves a more restricted set of possible answers, given the extensive existing knowledge in the field.

A key aspect of this step is that the research question must build upon the work of others, as starting from scratch is not a recommended option. Instead, the research should begin where previous studies have left off. This highlights the cyclical nature of the scientific method. In fact, the starting point could even originate from Step 8: the retest, or from Step 2: the state-of-the-art, where the research question may be significantly refined based on new findings.

Defining a research question is often the most challenging step in the scientific method and has a significant impact on all subsequent steps. Therefore, it is vital for early-career researchers to seek guidance from more experienced colleagues.
## Conducting a state-of-the-art<sup>85</sup>

The second step is known as the state-of-the-art, a technical term referring to the most advanced or leading developments in a particular field. This stage involves understanding the current state of human knowledge concerning the research problem at hand.

It is essential for researchers to be aware of the latest advancements in their area to ensure they do not tackle a problem that has already been solved. Avoiding the duplication of existing research is vital for conserving effort, time, and resources.

This step relies entirely on reliable sources. The researcher might begin with a research question in Step 1, and then, seeks out published works in trustworthy sources. Typically, this stage involves exploring the details, leading to a refinement and

<footnote n="85"><sup>85</sup> Chapter 6 address this subject in detail, check there for more details.</footnote>
reformulation of the research question to
incorporate the newly acquired insights.

At this step, it should be expected to handle a large
amount of information that need to be organised and
analysed to maximise its value. The findings from this
phase generally form the first chapter or section of
the final report or thesis.

The outcome of this step is a revised version of the
research question picked up in Step 1.

Formulating a hypothesis

The third step in the scientific method involves
formulating a hypothesis<fnref n="86" />, which is a proposed
explanation to be tested. In essence, any problem
presents potential solutions or answers. However,
due to constraints of time and cost, it is often
impractical to test all possible answers. A reasonable

<footnote n="86">⁸⁶ Hypotheses were discussed in detail in Chapter 2, refer to that chapter for further information</footnote>
approach is to select one solution or combine two
into a more general hypothesis for testing.

The selection of answers to be tested is not arbitrary.
An experienced researcher can eliminate corrupted
answers or those that lead to dead ends based on
prior knowledge and experience. This underscores
the importance of having a mentor or supervisor for
early-career researchers, who can guide, support,
and validate the research process at every stage.

In earlier chapters, when comparing hypotheses to
theories, emphasis was placed on the notion that a
hypothesis is closely aligned with physical reality,
focusing on measurable objects. This distinction is
significant because physical objects can be tested,
whereas abstract concepts cannot be easily
evaluated. Therefore, a hypothesis should avoid
dealing with abstract concepts, as this is crucial for
the subsequent step: the testing phase.
## Building a test

The fourth step involves designing a test or constructing an inquiry to gather data regarding the proposed hypothesis. At this stage, it is crucial to identify which parameters need to be measured, how they will be measured, and to predict the expected range of results. These expected values are often derived from existing theories.

Once the test is performed and data is gathered, several outcomes are possible:

* The results may match the expected values exactly, which is quite rare, particularly for a first-time test. In such cases, it is strongly recommended to repeat the earlier steps to rule out any biases or manipulation. Occasionally, researchers may unknowingly influence the test to produce results that align with their expectations. If this happens, the findings are invalid, and the process cannot be considered genuine research. It is vital for the
researcher to remain completely objective and avoid manipulating the results in any way.

* Alternatively, the results might deviate from the expected values but still fall within an acceptable range. This can actually be promising. It suggests that something may have been overlooked, or perhaps one or more parameters were not properly calibrated. In this case, the researcher should analyse the results, make necessary adjustments to the method or test, and then repeat the process.

* In some cases, the results may be entirely corrupted, with values that fall completely outside the expected range and do not fit within the scope of the research. This usually indicates that the method or test is unreliable, requiring a significant revision.

Regardless of the outcome, researchers must proceed to the analysis and conclusion stages (Step 5
and Step 6). These steps are needed for learning from
any mistakes, identifying the problems, and refining
the test for future iterations.

At this stage, it is important to remember that science
is as much about the process as the outcomes. In
some cases, it can be valuable for researchers to
publish invalid results, explaining why the results are
not reliable and offering suggestions for
improvements. This practice helps other researchers
avoid making the same errors, ultimately saving time,
cost, and effort by eliminating dead-end methods.
Unfortunately, not all researchers follow
this approach.

Analysing of the collected data

This is the fifth step of the scientific method. First, the gathered data needs to be classified and sorted. As discussed in Chapter 3, classifying refers to grouping data into different categories, such as dates, names, or links. Sorting then involves arranging the data within each group, either in ascending or descending
order, or chronologically. Additionally, it may be
necessary to remove duplicate or corrupted data to
ensure validity.

Secondly, the tools used for analysis will depend on
the type of data collected. If the data is quantitative,
statistical approaches will be applied. For qualitative
data, it should be organised using scales to identify
patterns or notable behaviours.

Before beginning data analysis, the researcher must
remain objective and avoid steering the results in any
particular direction. Instead, the researcher should
maintain a neutral stance towards their
own research.

The primary aim of analysis is not merely to compare
the collected data to the expected values but to
understand why it aligns, deviates, or matches
exactly. If the results are identical to expectations,
the researcher should approach this with caution and
seek to understand the reasons behind it. If there are
differences, it may indicate something was overlooked or a parameter that needs adjusting.

These questions should be addressed during the analysis step. It is vital that the researcher works methodically, avoiding hasty conclusions. Analysis should be grounded in facts, data, and evidence, proceeding step by step with an inductive method.

## Drawing conclusions

The sixth step of the scientific method involves drawing conclusions. The researcher must remain objective during this stage and avoid manipulating the results to fit expectations. If the results differ significantly from what was anticipated, it should not be seen as a personal failure. Instead, the researcher must maintain a neutral perspective throughout the process, focusing on the findings rather than personal expectations.

Once conclusions are reached, the researcher must decide on the next step, considering factors such as
available time and budget. There are two
possible directions:

* Return to Step 2 or Step 3 to refine the research question or explore new potential answers to test.

* Move on to Step 7, where the results will be prepared for publication.

As mentioned earlier, there is no problem with publishing findings based on an invalid hypothesis. This can be valuable for other researchers. The key is to present the results accurately, explaining that the hypothesis was tested but did not succeed for specific reasons. It is also important to propose improvements or alternative approaches to refine the hypothesis. This way, those who wish to build on the work have a well-structured starting point.

## Publishing

If the results are suitable for publication, the next step is Step 7 of the scientific method. There are
several important factors to consider before proceeding with publication:<fnref n="87" />

* Scientific publishing involves a process known as peer review, where other experts in the same field evaluate the research and verify its validity. This process results in one of three possible outcomes:

a. The work is accepted and published without changes.

b. The work is accepted, but the author is asked to make revisions or corrections.

c. The work is rejected.

If the work is rejected, the researcher should not take it as a personal failure. Rejection indicates that there is an issue with the research. Usually, the rejection comes with

<footnote n="87">⁸⁷ In this context, publishing refers specifically to peer-reviewed journal articles. However, other forms of publication also exist, such as reports and books. For more information on these, refer to Chapter 8.</footnote>
feedback from the reviewers, allowing the
researcher to identify the problem and
make improvements.

* To publish the results, they must be documented in a structured and organised manner:

a. General context of the research

b. Description of the problem

c. State-of-the-art

d. Proposed solution

e. How to test the proposed solution

f. Obtained results.

g. Analysis

h. Conclusion and future work.

Almost all scientific research follows this
specific structure, and to successfully publish,
this structure must be adhered to.<fnref n="88" />

<footnote n="88">⁸⁸ Further details on the structure of academic articles will be discussed in the next chapter and in Chapter 8.</footnote>
* The next step is to decide the appropriate medium for publication. Will it be presented at a workshop, a meeting focused on the topic, a conference related to the subject, or submitted to a scientific journal? Each of these options has its own specific requirements that must be followed.

## Retesting

Finally, the last step in the scientific method, Step 8, is retesting. Once the work is published, other scientists have the opportunity to retest and validate the findings. This can serve as a foundation for additional research. Building on the published study, these researchers may identify new problems and initiate their own investigations.

When individuals read published research, it serves as an indirect form of communication between the authors and the readers. In many instances, this communication can become direct, as scientists often reach out to one another via email, typically found at
the top of the published work. Such correspondence
usually involves the exchange of ideas
or consultations.

## Properties

The scientific method is characterised by several key
properties, which collectively render it a distinctive
approach to generating reliable knowledge.

As this research method is termed “scientific”, it is
not surprising that many of its characteristics are
derived from established scientific principles, which
were discussed earlier in this chapter. In the
upcoming sections, the following properties will be
explored: reproducibility, predictability,
systematicity, skepticism, objectivity, and reliability.

## Reproducibility

Reproducibility, often referred to as repeatability, is
a fundamental characteristic of the scientific method.
Both terms share the prefix “re-”, which indicates
that the action associated with the root word will
occur again.

This is essential for the scientific method. When the
same method is applied under identical conditions,
the results should consistently be the same. Whether
it involves an experimental observational study or a
statistical analysis, achieving the same outcomes
every time is essential. If the results vary, then the
method used to reproduce the findings cannot be
considered scientific.

Power posing<sup>89</sup> serves as an example of how the inability to achieve reproducibility can undermine a method's validity. About a decade ago, a claim was made suggesting that anyone could enhance their mental state by standing in front of a superhero poster while giving a speech. Although this may seem naive, it was taken seriously. Numerous studies were

<footnote n="89">89 The original claim was published by Dana R. Carney, Amy Cuddy, and Andy Yap in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in 2010, see [ART08].</footnote>
conducted in an attempt to scientifically validate this
technique, but the results varied largely with no
evidence of an impact.<fnref n="90" />

<figure><img src="image_42.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2. Amy Cuddy presenting power posing at PopTech Conference 2011 (Camden, Maine)</figcaption></figure>

As a result, this technique did not yield consistent
findings when carefully tested, indicating that it failed
the reproducibility test. Consequently, it is regarded
as a non-scientific claim.

<footnote n="90">⁹⁰ Check for examples [ARE09], and [ARE10].</footnote>
Predictability

It means the ability to forecast outcomes using both
current and past data.

For example, when Dimitri Mendeleev<fnref n="91" /> discovered
the periodic trends<fnref n="92" /> of the chemical elements
formulating the periodic table in chemistry, he
predicted the existence of yet-to-be-discovered
elements to fill many gaps he had in the table. He also
anticipated some properties of these elements based
on the trends and known elements.

This is not astrology or fortune-telling. Mendeleev's
predictions were grounded in scientific evidence. He
did not foresee undiscovered elements based on
personal beliefs or spiritual experiences. Instead,
Mendeleev thoroughly studied the known chemical

<footnote n="91">⁹¹ Dmitri Ivanovich Mendeleev (Russian: Дмитрий Иванович Менделеев) (1834 - 1907) a Russian chemist, renowned for his development of the periodic table of chemical elements.</footnote>

<footnote n="92">⁹² These are specific patterns of chemical elements that vary systematically according to their atomic properties. The key trends include atomic radius, ionisation energy, and electronegativity.</footnote>
elements and observed that they could be arranged
in a periodic manner, allowing the properties of
elements to be predicted based on their position in
the table.

<figure><img src="image_43.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4-3. The first version of the periodic table of chemical elements (1869) by Mendeleev, with '?' indicating predicted elements<fnref n="93" /></figcaption></figure>

In every case, a scientific prediction or hypothesis
must be tested and verified. For instance, in

<footnote n="93">⁹³ This image is a scan from Mendeleev original work, as it
appeared in the May 1869 edition of the Journal of the Russian
Chemical Society.</footnote>
Mendeleev's case, scientists began searching for chemical elements with the properties he predicted, and they eventually confirmed his claim. However, verifying certain predictions can be challenging due to technological limitations. Albert Einstein's prediction about gravity, previously discussed in Chapter 2, is an example of such a challenge.

## Systemacity

It refers to being methodical, meaning following a clear, organised approach with well-defined, detailed steps, leaving no room for ambiguity.

In scientific research, an ordered process must be established logically, with justifications for every decision made. This ensures that the researcher can explain why a particular method was chosen over another. This also implies that choices should not be random or based on chance, which is why the phrase “well-defined steps” has been frequently emphasised. The researcher must carefully define the concepts, processes, and units used to measure
quantities. Without a systematic approach, reproduction and prediction cannot occur, as both require a structured system to function effectively

An example of the systematic nature of the scientific method can be seen in the classical three impossible constructions of Euclidean geometry.<fnref n="94" /> These are:

1. Trisecting an angle, which means dividing an angle into three equal parts.

2. Squaring the circle, or drawing a square with the same area as a given circle.

3. Doubling the cube, which involves constructing a cube with twice the volume of a known cube.

With current mathematical knowledge, it has been proven that these problems cannot be solved using Euclidean geometry alone. Since geometry adheres

<footnote n="94">⁹⁴ In geometric constructions, only a compass and a ruler are permitted. The compass is used to draw circles, while the ruler is used to draw straight lines, but it cannot be used to measure distances.</footnote>
to a structured and well-defined scientific method, ancient mathematicians could not find solutions or bypass the challenges. It is important to emphasise that the rules governing the method must not be altered when obstacles arise, which is why these problems, first posed by the Greeks centuries before Christ, remained unsolved until the mid-19th century.

## Skepticism

It means examining all claims and theories at least once before accepting them.

Skeptics, or those who practice skepticism, have formed an association and defined it as:<fnref n="95" />

> *"The application of reason to any and all ideas"*

<footnote n="95">⁹⁵ The group is known as The Skeptics Society, more information can be found on their website: https://www.skeptic.com/. The definition provided comes from their official page: https://www.skeptic.com/about_us/.</footnote>
In this context, skepticism involves evaluating ideas based on whether they can be verified and falsified. For an idea to be accepted, it must first be proven valid, with no consideration given to personal beliefs or unreliable sources or evidence.

Descartes, introduced in Chapter 1, emphasised doubt as a foundation of the scientific method. As a result, this approach became known as Cartesian doubt, named after him. In the first step of his method, Descartes advised never to accept anything as true unless it is proven to be so. He also urged researchers to avoid precipitancy and prejudice<fnref n="96" />, which directly reflects the principles of skepticism.

## Objectivity

This means that results obtained through the scientific method are based solely on solid scientific

<footnote n="96">⁹⁶ The original text reads (French: Le premier étoit de ne recevoir jamais aucune chose pour vraie que je ne la connusse évidemment être telle), see p.141 in [BKF01].</footnote>
facts, not influenced by the researcher's personal opinions, emotions, or cultural biases.

Bias is a natural part of human behaviour and can find ways to any step of the scientific process: whether in formulating the research question, creating the hypothesis, designing the experiment, collecting or analysing data, or publishing the results. To minimise bias at each stage, there are specific guidelines that must be followed. This adds complexity to the method, which is why each step must be defined in detail.

For example, in clinical studies, a technique called “double-blind” is used to avoid bias and ensure objectivity. In this method, patients are divided into groups, and treatments are administered randomly. Neither the patients nor the doctors know who is receiving the actual treatment, hence the term “double-blind.” However, the researcher overseeing the study is aware of the treatment allocation. This approach prevents any potential influence from
patients' expectations or doctors' biases on the
study's results.

Reliability

In this context, reliability refers to the
trustworthiness of scientific work, meaning how
much it can be depended upon as valid. The scientific
method ensures reliability through a process known
as peer review. This involves the review of the
research by an independent body, separate from the
scientists who conducted it.

The peer review process includes three key
participants (Figure 4-4):

* The author or researcher.

* The entity responsible for reviewing the work.

* The audience, typically other scientists, who will read the final published results.
<figure><img src="image_44.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4-4. The peer-review process</figcaption></figure>

The process begins with the author, who prepares and submits his findings in the form of an article to a reviewing entity. Initially, technical editors evaluate the submission for validity. If the article does not meet the necessary criteria, it is rejected. However, if it passes this stage, it proceeds to a second review, where peers: fellow scientists in the same field, examine the work and provide feedback:

* If the work is deemed valid, it moves directly to publication.

* Often, reviewers may accept the work but request modifications or corrections, which are sent back to the author.

* In some cases, if the work is found invalid, it will be rejected.
If the article is returned to the author with requests for modifications or corrections, the author must incorporate the feedback into their work and resubmit the revised version to the reviewers. An editorial board will then evaluate the author's response to the suggested changes:

* If the response meets the required modifications, the article will be accepted and move on to the publication stage.

* If the response is unsatisfactory, the article will be rejected.

Once the article reaches the publication stage, it becomes available to the public.

The peer-review process, which relies on a well-organised and skilled entity, ensures that published work is trustworthy and reliable.

The peer review process is lengthy, typically taking between three to nine months from submission to publication, depending on the article's review path. It
is also costly, with authors usually paying the publishing entity only if their paper is accepted. The expenses arise due to the complexity of the system, which requires funding to operate efficiently.

However, peer-review model has sparked significant debate, as it does not offer equal opportunities to all countries or research institutions. The high cost can present a major barrier. While there have been efforts to develop alternative models, none have been successful enough to replace the current system.

With the widespread availability of the Internet, a new threat to the reliability of the scientific method has emerged: predatory journals.<fnref n="97" />

These are publications run by entities that claim to follow the standard peer-review process but, in

<footnote n="97">⁹⁷ Also known as predatory publishing, this term was introduced by Jeffrey Beall (196? -) in 2012 [ARE11]. It is estimated that thousands of scientific articles are currently being published without undergoing a proper peer-review process. For more information, see [ARE12].</footnote>
reality, do not. Their primary concern is collecting
fees, and they often publish nearly any submission,
regardless of its validity.<fnref n="98" />

<figure><img src="image_45.png" /></figure>

<footnote n="98">⁹⁸ There are several up-to-date databases that track predatory journals worldwide, most famously Cabells' Predatory Reports and Kscien's list, See [WEB06]. However, the lists themselves were criticised for using statistical data only and lacking evidence when classifying. See [ARE14] and [ART15].</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_46.png" /></figure>
PART II: On the scientific method

Ch. 5 On the research problem

Ch. 6 On the sources

Ch. 7 On the ethics of research

Ch. 8 On writing and publishing
<figure><img src="image_47.png" /></figure>
# On the research problem

## Introduction

Researchers are pioneers in their fields, taking the initial steps on behalf of humanity to advance knowledge. This is why working in the early stages of research, where problems, boundaries, and possibilities are defined, is always a complex and demanding task.

In Chapter 4, the scientific method was outlined as an eight-step process. While the method follows a circular pattern, the starting point typically centres around the research problem. The researcher may either focus on identifying a new problem or work on one that has already been described.

This chapter focuses on exploring the research problem and guiding researchers in identifying one. First, essential skills for tackling research challenges will be introduced, including selective reading and effective reference management. The chapter will
then address how to define the research problem in
terms of its context and structure. Finally, the key
characteristics of a well-defined research problem
will be outlined.

Basic skills

There are some essential skills that when applied,
help define the research problem more effectively.
While these skills are not strictly required for
achieving solid results, they can significantly
accelerate the process, saving both time and effort.

This section begins by examining the structure of
research studies. Then, it introduces selective
reading, a method for quickly extracting the key
information from scientific works relevant to the
research. Finally, the reference management will be
presented to help organising the information
gathered from these readings.
## Identify the structure of the scientific work

In this context, the term “work” may refer to a Ph.D. thesis, an academic article,<fnref n="99" /> or a research report. Although these three types of work differ in size, purpose, and the process of creation, they share a key similarity: adhering strictly to the scientific method results in a similar structure across all of them.

Figure 5-1 illustrates the structure of an academic article. This section focuses solely on presenting the structure of articles, which are the most common

<footnote n="99">⁹⁹ Academic articles can be divided into four types, most notably: conference articles and journal articles. A conference article is typically around 10 pages long and presents new research findings to the scientific community attending a conference focused on the relevant field of study. In contrast, a journal article is a more substantial piece of research, generally about 20 pages in length, though it can be longer. Journal articles are considered more credible as they undergo a solid peer review process. Further details on this topic are provided in Chapter 8.</footnote>
type encountered when searching through scientific literature.<fnref n="100" />

<figure><img src="image_48.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5-1. Structure of an academic article of two pages</figcaption></figure>

An academic article typically includes the following components:

A. **Title**, it is usually one or two lines long, containing key terms or topics covered in the

<footnote n="100">¹⁰⁰ The structure of a Ph.D. thesis and a research report differ slightly, particularly in terms of length. However, they generally contain similar sections to those found in academic articles. Additionally, a Ph.D. thesis may include special sections, such as appendices, which are typically not present in shorter works like journal articles, which are usually 10 to 20 pages long. For further details, refer to Chapter 8.</footnote>
article. It is typically centred at the top of the
first page.

B. **Author(s) Information**, This includes the names of the authors, their institutions, and email addresses. Occasionally, some authors may use pseudonyms instead of their real names.<fnref n="101" />

C. **Abstract**, a brief paragraph at the start of the article summarising the entire work. It often mirrors the structure of the article, with one or two sentences summarising each section.

D. **Keywords**, typically, four to five words that define the article's main topics. Not all articles include keywords, as some journals consider

<footnote n="101">¹⁰¹ The author's name can pose a significant challenge, as there are often multiple ways or styles of writing it. This can be critical when determining if a particular work is attributed to the correct individual. A robust authority control system, such as the Virtual International Authority File (VIAF), accessible at https://viaf.org, and the International Standard Name Identifier (ISNI), available at https://isni.org, provides a solution by assigning numerical identifiers to individuals instead of relying solely on names.</footnote>
them subjective and may choose to exclude them.<fnref n="102" />

E. **Body**, the main content of the article, which may be presented in one or two columns depending on the journal's formatting style. The body generally follows the steps of the scientific method, as outlined in the previous chapter, and includes:

1. A general introduction providing the context.

2. A brief description of the research problem.

3. An overview of the research method used to achieve the results.

<footnote n="102">¹⁰² In some cases, a conflict of interest declaration may also appear as footnote, such as (G) in Figure 5-1. This is where the author discloses any personal or financial interests that could potentially influence the objectivity of the research. Acknowledgements, which is a short section following the conclusion where the author expresses gratitude to those who contributed to the research, might appear there or at the end of the body section.</footnote>
4. The results, often presented with tables and figures.

5. An analysis explaining the significance of the results and how they compare to expected outcomes.

6. A conclusion summarising the findings and suggesting future research directions.

F. **References**: A numbered list of all sources cited in the article. The number of references can vary greatly depending on the type of article, with some containing more than 100 references, particularly in literature reviews or surveys.<fnref n="103" />

<footnote n="103">¹⁰³ A survey is a type of journal article that summarises the development of a specific technology, tracing its progress from the initial mention of the problem to the current advancements at the time the survey was conducted. Surveys usually focus on technical details, often outlining the history of discoveries related to a particular topic. A survey is not a literature review, which is another type of academic article. A literature review presents all relevant works on the subject, offering comparisons between different studies and highlighting their strengths and weaknesses, see Chapter 8 for more details.</footnote>
## Selective reading algorithm

When investigating a specific problem, it is common to encounter hundreds of works related to the subject. However, it is unrealistic for a researcher to read all these works due to their sheer volume and the time constraints.

Therefore, the researcher must focus on selecting only those works closely related to the research problem. This is called a selective reading, and Figure 5-2 provides a step-by-step algorithm for it:

1. Begin by searching in a specialised search engine, such as Google Scholar,<fnref n="104" /> using keywords relevant to the research problem. This will generate a list of articles, which may range from dozens to hundreds. The more specific the keywords, the narrower the search results.

<footnote n="104">¹⁰⁴ Available at https://scholar.google.com/.</footnote>