Scientific Method When Pasteur said, "Chance favors the prepared mind," he was pointing out that the discovery he made would never have been possible had he not already been prepared to identify and understand what was happening when he saw it. This shows that by teaching ourselves the basic principles of natural science, of cause and effect, of the relationship between factors and variables, we will be better prepared to see connections between points that were previously unknown or that were simply missed. It is like planting the seed of investigation within the mind by first tilling the ground and fertilizing the soil with knowledge and understanding. Pasteur did this and he was able to make his breakthrough in science as a result.

For us, we can take what we have learned about scientific inquiry throughout the course and use it to make headway in our own lives in the real world. The scientific inquiry is a common sense approach to real world problem solving: it begins by assessing a situation and asking a question, framing the problem in specific terms that can lead us on our way to a solution or to a better idea of what exactly is happening. We then collect information, make a hypothesis, test it, examine the results, communicate them and see if the answer has been found, or if the question needs to be reposed or the hypothesis reformed. This can be applied in every aspect of life, I feel -- from choosing one's major college, to figuring out why the thermostat is not working in the house you live in. The scientific inquiry is a good tool to use but preparing the mind first by informing it through education, as Pasteur said, is the first step.

Discussion 1: Red Rash

The first step of the scientific method is to ask a question: in this case, the question would be "What is happening in my body that would be related to the red rash on my leg, my fever, and my walk through the brush?" The question is based on the fact that I can think of no reason why I would have a rash because the long walk through the brush is all I have done differently in my day over the past few days. Something must have occurred during that walk that has made me feel ill. What do I know about the brush that I think could have caused this?

The second step would be to do background research. This means I would have to start to investigate the evidence that is presented and see if there are any clues available about what the correlation might mean. In this case, I would begin my search by using the Internet to try to see if any combination of the keywords "rash, fever, poison ivy" bring any results. I use poison ivy because I have a suspicion that I might have walked through poison ivy or poison sumac during my walk. However, I don't recall seeing any of those plants, so I also try a search for "round red rash" and "round red rash" on leg. The results are promising. After reading about the results, I suspect that I might have valley fever or Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever. Thus I form my hypothesis that I have a fever of some sort that I have gotten from a tick bite or from a fungus that I have breathed in.

The third step of the scientific method is to test my hypothesis by performing an experiment. The experiment I will perform is to take a blood test and check for the presence of antibodies the body would produce to fight valley fever. My hypothesis is that I have valley fever, as I do recall kicking up quite a bit of dirt and brush while with the dog during the walk, and I have not seen any ticks on the dog or on myself or in the house that we might have brought in. Thus, I will test for valley fever and perform an experiment to see if that is what I have.

The fourth step of the scientific method is to analyze the data and draw a conclusion. The data to be analyzed would be found in the blood sample and I would need to know which antibodies to look for in the blood, which would require more research; or I could have the blood sample sent to a lab and allow the lab to tell me what is found. If the antibodies are found, I can conclude...

Rest is the simplest treatment, as the fever will go away on its own (Mayo Clinic, 2015). However, there are antifungal medications that I could take. If, on the other hand, no antibodies are found, I must conclude that my hypothesis was wrong. Then I will have to revisit my research and test a new hypothesis.
The final step of the scientific process is to communicate the results. In this case, if the hypothesis is proven correct, I would communicate the results by taking rest and allowing the fever to run its course. If the hypothesis is incorrect, I would communicate the results by going back to the drawing board and developing a new hypothesis to test -- perhaps going back to look at the brush that I walked through for any signs of poisonous plants or inspecting the house for any sign of ticks that might have gotten in.

Discussion 2: Hot House

Step one of this situation is to ask a question -- and in the case of the hot house that I experienced (the house was not cooling down even though I had set the thermostat), I asked, "Why is the house so hot?" I wanted to find out the cause for the hot house and needed to examine the evidence as it appeared to me. That took me to the second step of the scientific method.

The second step of the method is to do background research. In this case, I examined the possible reasons for why the house might be hot: I checked the windows, made sure the doors were shut, pulled the blinds, checked the thermostat. I had set the thermostat at 72 degrees, but it was showing 80 degrees for room temperature. The A/C should have kicked on unless there was something wrong with the unit. However, something might be wrong with thermostat as well. I turned the thermostat down to 60 degrees and suddenly the A/C came on and cold air came out of the vent. Apparently the A/C was working. I hypothesized that the problem with the hot house was located in the thermostat.

To test my hypothesis I performed an experiment. I opened the thermostat cover and inspected the coil inside. If it was calibrated correctly, the temperature gauge measured by the mercury inside the glass tube attached to the coil would match the room temperature. I measured the gauge set by the coil: it was off by 10 degrees. It appeared that the coil had been stretched out of shape and was therefore not calibrated correctly. I wondered if this was indeed the case and looked for more information. Below the thermostat on the floor was a small child's chair and on the wall were small handprints of a child. Also, on the cover was a sticky residue that looked like jam, something that is constantly on the boy's hands in the house. It appeared that the small boy in the house had climbed up and fiddled with the thermostat. I suspected that this was what had happened and that he had stretched out the coil inside and thrown it out of calibration. I went to ask the small boy if this was so and he indeed showed me how he did it by stacking a box on top of the small chair and climbing up.

The fourth step is to analyze the data and draw a conclusion and the data supported my hypothesis: the thermostat was to blame for the hot house; the boy had stretched out the calibrated coil and thrown off the gauge; thus the thermostat was not reading the room temperature correctly and that is why it was not allowing the A/C to kick on correctly when I set the temperature.

The final step of the scientific method is to communicate the results. I did this in two ways: first, I told the boy that he was not supposed to climb up and play with the thermostat as that was off limits; second, I went to the hardware store to buy a replacement coil for the thermostat so that we could have a calibrated coil for the thermostat in the house and therefore fix the problem of the hot house, without having to set the temperature on the gauge all the way down to 60 degrees.

In…