Question

before scientist come up with a scientific question, what do they have to do first?
a. check what other scientist have said
b. devise a hypothesis
c. do an expiriment
d. make an observation
would it be b?

Answer 1

I guess my help doesn't get you nowhere. But the answer is .. more than likely B.

Answer 2

a scientific question, is a hypothesis. So, it would be hard for them to come up with a question, before they come up with a question.

The answer is d. They must observe something, so they can then try to find a question that answers a why? for it occuring.

Answer 3

They probably want you to pick B, but I would prefer an "All of the above" option. Scientists build on each other's work, so A would make sense... and, as far as I know, there are often preliminary experiments and observations done to see if it's worth proceeding.

Answer 4

Scientists would observe when its time to test in a scientific procedure, therefore invalidating you statement "agreene"

Answer 5

The scientific method is based around the idea that observation precedes questions.

This is because of the a posteriori nature of science.

Answer 6

so what do you think the answer is guys lol

Answer 7

it is certainly d. the answer b makes no sense, because it is reciprocal.

Answer 8

pshh, the prosteriori probability? and I go with B "Katlin95"

Answer 9

I think the question is whether they mean "observation" in the sense of generally looking at things and coming up with ideas, or if they mean it in the sense of let's-test-the-hypothesis-now, which is often the context in which "Observations" are mentioned in high school.

Answer 10

the reciprocal of a hypothesis is the first step in a scientific procedure.. therefore meaning the answer B. "agreene"

Answer 11

i think im gonna go with b

Answer 12

thus hypothesis is the initial step in a scientific procedure whether or not you would like to regard it as a reciprocal & I'd do the same thing "katlin95"

Answer 13

Define a question
Gather information and resources (observe)
Form an explanatory hypothesis
Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
Analyze the data
Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
Publish results
Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

is generally, the way the scientific method is written, clearly observation precedes hypothesis making.

@Drddave, "a posteriori" is an epistemologic term:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

Answer 14

Epistemology, is so broad to be considered to categorize "posteriori" within itself.

Answer 15

You do make a good point, agreene, although... wouldn't A also fit? That certainly falls under gathering information, and I would think that in the real world, it is generally one of the first things scientists do. There's no point wasting your time doing research that someone else published years ago.

Answer 16

You would hope that would be the case. But, 1, it doesnt always happen (ive had manuscripts returned telling me that something similar was already published that i missed). and 2, from a philosophic standpoint, that wouldn't be considered observation.

Answer 17

But if you missed something, that implies that you did SOME research into what had already been published.

I'm just a couple of semesters into a bachelor's degree myself and still have my bachelor's thesis looming in the future. My plan is to at least make sure I know what my professors have published on whatever I choose to study ;)