On Scientific Method by Robert PirsigSummaryIn this article, Pirsig describes scientific method as an interweaving of inductive and deductive inferences. Inductive inferences starts with observations to arrive at general conclusions while deductive is the opposite, it starts with general conclusions to predict a specific observation. Pirsig has laid his ideas on scientific method in a very lucid, understandable way that even non-science people could grasp what he relayed. He starts with definition and then gives a concrete example. He sees scientific method as a juggernaut a huge bulldozer, slow, tedious, lumbering, laborious, but invincible. It takes long time compared to an informal mechanics techniques, but in the end you will definitely get it.To keep track of everything when doing scientific method, Pirsig claims to write every observation and information in a notebook, so that whenever one is lost he/she can immediately look through where to start. He breaks down into six categories al the logical statements entered into the notebook: (1) statement of the problem, (2) hypotheses as to the cause of the problem, (3) experiments designed to test each hypothesis, (4) predicted results of the experiments, (5) observed results of the experiment, and (6) conclusions from the results of the experiments. The sole purpose of this is precise guidance of thought that will fail if they are not accurate.In the first step of the scientific method, it is an important skill to state absolutely no more than you are positive you know. After that, think of many hypotheses as you can to test them to see which are true and which are not. Next, test all the hypotheses experimentation, Pirsig differentiated experimentation from demonstration. He says that experimentation is done because you dont know the results, while demonstration is done when you already know the results of what you do. In this step, it is important to test only the hypotheses, nothing less and nothing more. Lastly, is conclusion based on the results of the experiments that were proven, nothing less and nothing more.The Scientific Method by Robert Hazen and James TrefilThis article describes the steps of scientific method very technically. However, it provides vast information in understanding what scientific method is. The authors summarize the steps into four parts: (1) observation, (2) identifying patterns and regularities, 3) hypothesis and theory, and (4) prediction and testing.In observation, we can use both abstract reasoning and pure observation. However, in pure observation we can observe the object either with or without manipulating them. They gave examples on astronomy and chemistry, we can study stars without touching them and also we can study chemicals while mixing them together.In identifying patterns and regularities, we get a sense of how nature behaves. After identifying patterns and regularities, we may summarize our observations in three ways in words, equation form, or in symbols. If data is presented in mathematical form, one should know how to translate it in English sentence.In hypothesis and theory, we can form an educated guess or hypothesis about how the world works. For an instance, they gave an example on falling objects, one can hypothesize that when you drop something, it falls. One can form as many hypothesis. They described theory as a description of the world that covers a relatively large number of phenomena and has met many observational and experimental tests.Lastly, in prediction and testing, all the hypotheses made is to be tested. However, tests do not necessarily prove or disprove a hypothesis, instead they serve to define the range of situation under which the hypothesis is valid. For example in free fall, in earth when something is dropped it falls, but in outer space when you drop an object it doesnt move at all. In case of a balloon filled with helium gas, when you drop it, it doesnt fall instead it rises up.The authors also said that from the steps presented, one can start at any steps, because they argue that scientific method is a cycle where one doesnt know where the is start or the end.

II. Comparison and ContrastBoth articles described scientific method, but in different manners. Pirsig described it in laymans term, while the other two authors described it very technically. Pirsig laid his information with practical examples, while the other described it where science people could easily get it. Though, these two articles complement and supplement each other, the information lacking in the other is explained in the other, and vice versa. If these two articles would be combined and revised, they would perfectly describe what scientific method is.Pirsig implied in his article that scientific method has a start while in the other directly stated that scientific method is a cycle where one cannot know where the start is.III. ReflectionI would prefer to read the article of Pirsig rather than the two authors article. I can easily understand Pirsigs article, while in the other in took some time for me to get it, however, I understood both articles. Generally, scientific method is described as the science itself, id est, when we do scientific method we are already doing science.I only disagree on one thing, it is on Hazens and Trefils argument that we cannot know where to start in scientific method. I believe that scientific method starts on observation. However, we may discover something in a fluke, that is, you are doing something but discovered another. In the case of Oersted, he accidentally discovered the effect of electric current on magnetism. In that case, he was doing an experiment and has observed another thing.