Scientific method is a method of doing research that includes the steps of identifying a

problem, gathering data, forming a hypothesis, testing a hypothesis, data analysis and drawing a
conclusion. Stephen Carey divided this scientific method into three steps which are (1) observation
of a problem or an anomaly, (2) explaining the phenomenon by creating a theory, and (3) testing
the theory.

Observation. This step states that when we are looking for an answer to a problem, and we are
observing the problem to find out more about it, therefore we must follow the following steps: (1)
Keep a written record of our observations that we can refer back to. (2) Ask someone else to look
over our observations to see if they see flaws in them. (3) Try to be aware of the assumptions we
may be making about how we observe our data. (4) Look at the problem or the anomaly with a
healthy dose of skepticism. Is it just a coincidence? (5) Be aware of how much our expectations
and assumptions affect how we observe things. Observations should be couched in purely
descriptive language that tells what occurred-no more, no less

Explain. Explanations in science are sometimes called hypotheses or theories. Hypotheses are
more tentative and narrow in scope, while theories are broader and have a more developed body
of evidence, and a law is something well established and almost universal. A theory May be well
developed, well confirmed body of explanatory material but mainly subjective while a hypothesis
notes that there is something tentative and unproven about the claim. According to Carey, there
are different types of explanations: (1) explanations for the cause of things, and (2) explanations
for a correlation or relationship between things.

Ockham’s Razor is the principle to use when there are competing explanations, each of
which can explain a problem, then we should choose the explanation that contains the least number
of puzzling notions. The only point here is to provide a plausible explanation.

Test. A scientific test needs to be (1) verifiable, (2) falsifiable, and have a (3) clear distinction
between success and failure. Verifiability means that if the test succeeds, then nothing else but our
theory could have explained the success. Falsifiability means that if the test fails, then we can
know that our theory was false. Every test needs to have a clear distinction between success and
failure. We can’t allow our biased observations decide this.
Stephen Carey also states that there are three types of causal studies:

• Randomized studies-a group of subjects are divided at random into experimental and
control groups and the suspected cause is administered to members of the experimental
group only.
• Prospective studies--subjects are selected for the experimental group who have already
been exposed to the suspected causal agent; control subjects are selected who have not
been exposed to the suspected cause.
• Retrospective studies-a group of subjects are selected, all of whom have the effect. These
subjects are compared to another group none of whom have the effect in an attempt to
discover possible causal factors.

On the last part of the article There are several fallacies presented that lead to pseudoscience, these
are the following:

1. False Anomalies – Intentionally omitting facts that would show how something isn’t as
strange as it seems. This is often used in UFO books.
2. Questionable Arguments from Elimination – If we do a test to see if people have telepathy,
and the results appear to show that people do receive messages that can’t be explained by
pure luck, then does telepathy exist? This uses an ‘Either, Or’ argument. All we can
conclude is that something odd is happening. Telepathy isn’t necessarily the answer. There
are other explanations just as viable as telepathy, including the possible existence of little
imps who whisper in people’s ears.
3. Illicit Casual Inferences – Saying that one thing caused another, when there is only a
correlation, or post hoc ergo propter hoc. This fallacy ignores that everything could very
well be a coincidence.
4. Unsupported Analogies and Similarities – Showing the similarities between one very
speculative theory and a different well-established theory in science. This fallacy often
ignores many differences between the two things being compared and only emphasizes the
similarities.
 5. Untestable Explanations – Presenting a theory that, by definition, cannot be tested. The
theory may explain every type of evidence in a way that cannot be falsified. Conspiracy
theories often use this fallacy.
6. Redundant Predictions – If I am trying to explain some strange event (a UFO sighting),
and I offer a theory, and then I use the very event I’m trying to explain (the UFO sighting)
as proof that my theory is correct, then my thinking is going in a circle. I have to present
some independent evidence.
7. Ad Hoc Rescues – Imaginative people can always keep inventing new ideas for explaining
away contrary evidence. Every time someone comes forward with a problem for their
theory, they invent a new exception to their theory that explains the problem.

In conclusion Stephen Carey had presented the scientific method at a basic level, explanations
were clear and relevant. This book implies that on occasion, scientists make extraordinary claims
but they find ways to test that claim. They would devise an experiment that will give them decisive
evidence one way or the other to satisfy two criteria’s which are; The subject or subjects in question
will actually be able to do the extraordinary thing they claim to be able to do and the subject or
subjects will not be able to perform if they do not have the ability they claim to have. Carey
provides an introduction to the scientific method of inquiry as well as detailed coverage of the
many misapplications of scientific method that define pseudoscience.