Hi, I have a somewhat strange request (hence did not knew which section to use for this post). I have no formal training in sciences (have a degree in philosophy, and no matter how much my peers disagreed with my opinion, that is not a science:), but I fell in love with science while studying philosophy. Watched all I could find on the internet, but that does not constitute as a science degree does it. I have written this article how just understanding scientific method transformed me from a science believer/parotter to a science enthusiast. And how understanding it, understanding the steps involved and the terminology might help non scientific people making informed decisions, or simply while reading various hype stories in the media. However before publishing it (no grandioze plans for that, plan to post to internal newsletter of my company) I want to fact check is my understanding of the scientific method based on reality :) As this is actual representation how I analyzed it in my head. If you could read the following text (I will not bother you with my whole article, only the part where I speak about scientific method) and point out where I'm wrong, or not factually correct. Oh, and I'm not a native speaker, so please excuse my use of language and possible mistakes, I will edit this much more before posting. Thanks in advance! Quick note - original text has hyperlinks to sources where I quote Feynman and definitions are hyperlinked to http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=2 First let me start with how scientific method actually works. When you have an ‘Idea’ of how something yet unknown or in question works, first line of defence is self censorship (not an actual term, I named this for my own better understanding). It’s a process where you try to disprove it yourself. Start by thinking about every possibility how this could not be true, try find logic holes in your idea, then try to think of any known Scientific Facts (an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow) that would violate your idea.Then if your guess is correct, could it violate some known Facts. If yes what would the testable outcomes be. If you are unable to disprove this guess yourself, then you move to second phase (thus making your idea a ‘hypothesis’) - if this mechanism/guess is correct, what else is correct, how could I test this (create predictions).Write them down (my people, philosophers like Karl Popper, suggested that this step needs one additional step - falsifiability, one has to have to imagine an outcome of the experiment, that could prove your initial hypothesis wrong). Then you actually go (or convince someone else) and create experiments to gather the data. Then you do the experiment and log everything, and I mean everything! When experimental data comes in, if it does not align with your predictions - your hypothesis is wrong. Or as Richard Feynman put this “If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it”. If it is correct though, you are far from done, then you publish your hypothesis, explain in detail how you did the experiment, share all the results. Then the third line of defence kicks in, a well known phrase called ‘Peer Review’. And do not confuse it with peer review we do here - your paper is sent to anonymous colleagues of yours, who do their best, to find holes in your reasoning (you get scientific ‘brownie points’ for doing that.) and in your proposed experiment. Then if it goes through this process successfully, you are still not done. Then, your peers have to recreate your experiment and check, have the data they get, match the data you said it did (a fourth line of defence). And this is repeated many times to be more certain. In fact science can not prove anything right, they can say that we are certain this is correct, but this certainty is never 100% - a gold standard in particle physics for example is 5 sigma (a 99.9999% chance something to be correct). The process I described above is just an example, usually, these days there is much more collaboration that that - if you have a good hypothesis (best if it’s described not only in words, as they are too vague for science, but in maths. Maths is truly a universal language of science). You collaborate with your colleagues, or students in trying to create a best possible experiment. In physics for example, there are even different flavours of physicists, theorists, who basically run through the first steps of the process, then you need experimentalists, who do the experiments, and more often than not - engineers who help create experimental protocols and actual apparatuses.