One thing to know about Chemistry -- and all of science -- is that unless one group of scientists are intentionally trying to experimentally confirm the results of a specific experiment done by another group of scientists, no two scientists typically approach the same question the same way. Even as this may be the case, all scientists are using the same general scientific method. The scientific method is the backbone of all scientific experiments and gathering of all scientific knowledge. In very much the same way all humans look pretty similar (but not exactly the same), the scientific method makes it so the experiments that two different scientists perform on the same concept with look similar, but not exactly the same.





When we run an experiment, we start by collecting information. How do things change if I slowly change this parameter only? How about if I change that parameter only? Now that I have the previous two questions answered, now lets see what happens when I change this and that at the same time in every way possible. Every possible piece of this data gets gathered.





Trends become apparent even before all of the data is collected. These trends become tentative explanations, or hypotheses, which guides further experiments to gather even further information. This further information may either confirm or go against the hypothesis. Either which way, the hypothesis is either modified or rejected, depending on how thoroughly the new information goes against the hypothesis. If it's weak disagreement, the hypothesis is just modified, but if there is strong disagreement, then the hypothesis is rejected outright. So all future experiments are determined by current hypotheses, which are based on past information collected. (Note: This is based entirely in the field of Statistics; see hypothesis testing .)





Eventually, after the hypothesis is molded to fit observation and no longer needs to be modified to fit reality, it becomes scientific law, a concise statements of words and/or mathematical equation(s) derived from a large number of observations. If that hypothesis is sufficiently general and continuously successful in making predictions correctly, it becomes a scientific theory. A theory -- which has oceans worth of data to back it up and support it -- is an explanation for the causes of a natural phenomenon.





Nothing ever starts out as a theory or law, though. For example, evolution was a mere hypothesis when Darwin came up with it after observing the data of fossils seemingly evolving from lower strata to higher strata. Even though he had worked out a few of the kinks in the hypothesis by the time he wrote "On the Origin of Species", it took the discovery of single-celled organisms, DNA, RNA, and Chromosomes to cement it as a predictive law and an explanative theory. After all, even Darwin couldn't predict how or explain why evolution changes things on a biochemical level; all he could do was to observe that it happens.





That's the end of this section. If you have any questions, please leave them is the comments. Like and share this post if you found it helpful, and until next time, stay curious.To help get this lecture series come out with higher frequency, please donate to The Science of Life . This helps keep the information current and allows me to dedicate more time to this project instead of obtaining money through external means.