top of page


01 - How Science Works


There is a very real misconception that science is just the decision of scientists, who go away and make their best guess on subjects, and when proven wrong they change their minds. The other one you hear a lot is "it's just a theory."

This stems from a misunderstanding of what theory actually means. In science, a theory has a different meaning compared to everywhere else. In normal life, a theory is your general idea of what you think is right. In science, this is the hypothesis.

In science, all of the verified experiments and results accumulate to become the body of evidence that proves a fact, and the theory is the explanation of how that fact works.

Here's a little reference table to help:

Hypothesis - Your initial assumption or idea

Evidence - The results of experimentation that points towards a factual mechanism

Peer-review - When other scientists review your findings and test their validity

Fact - When evidence and results have been so thoroughly tested over multiple studies all confirming a hypothesis, they are a fact

Theory - The explanation of how that fact works

For example, Gravity is a tested and scientific fact that has been tested over and over again to be proven correct every time. Gravitational theory is the explanation of how gravity works.

The process of how science works. You can find a good reading source from Encyclopedia Britannica.


​Firstly, I want to help you dispel the confusion and seemingly mixed messages you get from science. The issue as I see it, is that news companies will publish a story with the headline, "Scientists say that something causes something." You have to consider that from that point, you're reading a usually sensational headline to grab attention, which links to an article written by someone who translates scientific studies to you. You have to realise that sometimes they just don't understand what it says, or they deliberately misread it because they're looking at it through a biased lens. Either way, science isn't as science is portrayed in the media. They also don't tell people that a single study or testimony from one scientist isn't enough to create a scientific theory or establish a fact.



Firstly, you start with your hypothesis, which is your general idea or what you intend to test. It could be something as simple as "Do Hamsters have long term memory?"


From there, you design an experiment to test this hypothesis. You say what your expected outcome is if you have one, and take it from there. In a scientific study when testing something, you will test one group which are your test subject, and you will monitor a control group. The idea is to create a set of results in your control group that you can use to put your test group into context, so changes in behaviour or outcome can be measured against something.

For instance, in the hamster example, you might have two groups of hamsters: A group with access to the same maze every day with food at the end, and a set of hamsters who never touch the maze. Your experiment might be to see after a long time to learn the maze if the control group does equally well at completing the maze.

You examine your findings and if they don't support your hypothesis, you can refine your hypothesis to be in line with the data you collected. If your results are in line with your hypothesis, you can collate your results.

Publishing the study

Once you have formed a hypothesis, set out to investigate with an experiment and outlined your methodology, collected your results and recorded your findings, then you can submit your study. This isn't where it ends. The study will be published in a scientific journal, which is a place for scientific papers, equivalent to what a news website is to published articles.

From there it enters the peer-review stage. This is where your peers (other scientists) will test your entire publication. Every word, every claim, every result and every single part of your methodology will be cross-examined and scrutinized. Results will be replicated with independent testing. Take a look at the peer-review for the 2G rat study I keep mentioning. You'll see just the sheer magnitude of scrutiny studies are put through.

The US National Library of Medicine holds a study/article that explains peer-review as this:

"Peer Review is defined as “a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field”. Peer review is intended to serve two primary purposes. Firstly, it acts as a filter to ensure that only high-quality research is published, especially in reputable journals, by determining the validity, significance and originality of the study."

"Peer review has become the foundation of the scholarly publication system because it effectively subjects an author’s work to the scrutiny of other experts in the field. Thus, it encourages authors to strive to produce high-quality research that will advance the field. Peer review also supports and maintains integrity and authenticity in the advancement of science. A scientific hypothesis or statement is generally not accepted by the academic community unless it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal"

From this, you can already see why peer-reviewed studies

are considered in such high regard. They've gone through

as much scrutiny as possible, and come out the other end.

This is the level of evidence and type of evidence needed

to support an argument on subjects that are provable

such as how radio waves work, what does and doesn't

cause cancer, if vaccines are safe, and so on.

This is why there is always a huge problem with the

standard of proof used to support conspiracies.

YouTube videos of people claiming they saw or heard

something, claiming to know the science or saying they

are educated or have the authority to speak on subjects isn't

good evidence.

Additionally, this peer-review process highlights why "this

doctor says this", or "this scientist says this" is also a very

poor argument. One single person or group of people do

not override the entire body of peer-reviewed scientific

evidence that has come from decades of tested and proven


After peer-review, and all of the evidence is collected across

multiple studies. This all works to support the hypothesis

and eventually points towards a fact, a proven

scientific certainty. That's not to say that facts are absolute.


Evolution is a fact, and so is gravity. Then comes gravitational theory, and evolutionary theory, which is the best explanation of the body of evidence we have that outlines how these things work, not whether they work or not. Them being facts have already been established.

In the next page, I will go over the limitations with the very concept of facts, and more into the wonderful world of science, and how the very principles of science aid us to be better people, while simultaneously being taken advantage of by those with ulterior motives.

Next Page: Science - Limitations, deception and openness.

How Science Works Narratedby Bobby
00:00 / 07:42
bottom of page