To anyone who is tempted to cut and paste from this site without citing the reference, please bear in mind that  professors, instructors, peers, friends and family can locate this text very easily using current search techniques. The professional and scholastic ramifications of plagiarism can be severe, so why do it? Cite your sources, in this case, the URL from the site and the date you accessed it.

How do we know what we know, and how can we tell that what we know is solid and dependable? Knowledge is information that is valid and reliable, in that the information accurately reflects reality and can be depended on to remain valid. There are generally all kinds of variables to be considered; identifying, sorting through and testing those variables can be a dicey business, but that's science, eh?

Once the most promising variables are laid out, and hypotheses have been crafted, it's time to begin testing. How, though? What tests would be good to use? There are only two options: either use an existing test or create one yourself. Creating your own test isn't rocket science, but it is intricate, delicate work and not for the statistically faint of heart. A more common approach is to select existing instruments that are known to be reliable and valid.

The test is the core of the study; all findings flow from data collected through tests. Once testing is complete, the data is analyzed using statistical software. This is a crucial phase that calls for tremendous concentration and a kind of intuitive understanding of the data. There's a story in there, and it's the researcher's job to find the story.

Once the study is complete, with the findings supporting or refuting the hypotheses, the researcher writes the story of the study in the form of a report. If the report is to be published in a scientific journal, it's scrutinized first by peer reviewers - other researchers in a similar field who have some knowledge of what's going on. A study that has been conducted to the satisfaction of the research community will generate empirical evidence, which is widely considered the gold standard.

However, findings have to be replicated before being considered as "knowledge": one study is not enough. If the phenomenon is tested by others, and those researchers reach the same, or similar, conclusions, then we can be confident that a truth has emerged. We now know something new.

There is another kind of knowledge, referred to as "tacit," or "experiential." This is knowledge gained from experience. When a phenomenon has no empirical evidence to support or refute, humans rely on tacit knowledge, because what else is there?