The Scientific Method I use has four phases:

  1. Observe the system
  2. Formulate multiple falsifiable hypotheses
  3. Perform experiments to rule out some or all the hypotheses
  4. Repeat

It’s heavily inspired by the principle of Strong Inference, therefore I don’t claim ownership, but for simplicitly I’ll call it “my” Scientific Method. It’s been very effective as a diagnostic tool for me, and it differs from the schoolhouse version I was originally taught in some important ways.

Let’s start by stating the schoolhouse version, which only has three phases:

  1. Form a hypothesis
  2. Perform an experiment to confirm or refute the hypothesis
  3. Draw conclusions

First. The first difference is that my Scientific Method starts with observation not speculation. Observing the system gives you a sound basis for hypothesis formulation, and hones intuition. It also immediately rules out many instinctual but wrong ideas before they have time to take up brain space. In many cases you’ll even skip steps 2 through 4 because detailed observation will already reveal the solution you seek. The important part is to explicitly prioritize observation. It’s easy to skip since it’s human nature to start explaining things before understanding them more deeply. You have to actively resist this tendency.

Second. The second difference is in hypothesis formulation, and there are two parts to the difference that need paying attention to. Here they are:

  • You should form multiple hypotheses (at least two, ideally several)
  • Hypotheses should be falsifiable (rather than confirmable)

I strongly encourage you to read at least the first 2 pages of the Strong Inference article to understand why this is important. Nonetheless, here are a few points to call out:

  • Multiple hypotheses avoid the psychological pattern of attaching to one (usually the first) explantion of things;
  • Having multiple potential explanations embraces the complexity inherent in most systems,
  • And focusing on falsifiable claims produces a stream of concrete truths on which to base further analysis, whereas supporting evidence merely increases the plausibility of something being true (for more on this concept, I recommend Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning)

Third. The third difference is that my Scientific Method formalizes iteration. You will undoubtedly gain knowledge and instincts from the process of executing the phases, and you should keep going until you’re really confident in the knowledge you’ve gained. The only way to do that is to put in the work and keep iterating.