The explanation must be subjected to peer review, and published in a reputable journal.
In college hydrology, we empirically derived equations for the flow of water through a pipe at different velocities. Were we finished, and “on to the next problem”? Of course not. The equations represented processes within the pipe with physical meaning. Only after we had observed the flow of liquid with dye tracers in transparent pipes could we assign meaning to the equations. We could assign names to processes we observed, such as laminar flow and turbulent flow. And those explanations give rise to practical new predictions, such as the erosion rate in the production tubing of an oil well, depending upon the velocity of the flow, and the flow regime of the fluid.
- Data must be freely available, for re-calculation and verification by others.
- The process of gathering the data must be clearly identified, so the data may be critiqued as well as the analysis. Data gathering must be replicable by other researchers.
- Sources of funding must be identified. Potential conflicts of interest identified, and if possible, eliminated.
- Results should be subject to formal peer review before general release to the press or public.
- Results should be published in reputable journals to make the information available to other researchers.
- Problems encountered in the research should be clearly revealed.
- Hypotheses should be framed in a way that allows refutation through further work.
- Must define a process which changes some aspect
- The process must be observed in action.
- The process must be measured and quantified.
- The explanation must reconcile theory and observation.
- The work must meet the standards of objectivity listed above
as ancillary elements of the scientific method.
- The explanation must be verified through successful prediction of
experimental results or observations of real-world changes.
- The explanation will often explain other phenomena in areas unrelated to the initial inquiry.
- The explanation must be subjected to peer review, and published in a reputable journal.