document_title: Scientific method

question_text: what must a scientist do prior to generating a hypothesis

question_tokens: what must a scientist do prior to generating a hypothesis

text: Scientific method

text: History

text: Important debates in the history of science concern rationalism, especially as advocated by René Descartes; inductivism and/or empiricism, as argued for by Francis Bacon, and rising to particular prominence with Isaac Newton and his followers; and hypothetico-deductivism, which came to the fore in the early 19th century.

text: The term "scientific method" did not come into wide use until the 19th century, when other modern scientific terminologies began to emerge such as "scientist" and "pseudoscience" and significant transformation of science was taking place.[19] Throughout the 1830s and 1850s, by which time Baconianism was popular, naturalists like William Whewell, John Herschel, John Stewart Mill engaged in debates over "induction" and "facts" and were focused on how to generate knowledge.[19] In the late 19th a debate over realism vs. antirealism was conducted as powerful scientific theories extended beyond the realm of the observable.[20]

text: The term "scientific method" came to be used prominently in the twentieth century, with no scientific authorities over its meaning despite it popping up in textbooks and dictionaries.[19] Though there was a steady growth on the concept into the twentieth century, by the end of that century numerous influential philosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend had questioned the universality of the "scientific method" and in doing so largely replaced the notion of science as a homogeneous and universal method with that of it being a heterogeneous and local practice.[19] In particular, Paul Feyerabend argued against there being any universal rules of science.[21]

text: Overview

text: The scientific method is the process by which science is carried out.[22] As in other areas of inquiry, science (through the scientific method) can build on previous knowledge and develop a more sophisticated understanding of its topics of study over time.[23][24][25][26][27][28] This model can be seen to underlay the scientific revolution.[29]

text: The ubiquitous element in the model of the scientific method is empiricism, or more precisely, epistemologic sensualism. This is in opposition to stringent forms of rationalism: the scientific method embodies that reason alone cannot solve a particular scientific problem. A strong formulation of the scientific method is not always aligned with a form of empiricism in which the empirical data is put forward in the form of experience or other abstracted forms of knowledge; in current scientific practice, however, the use of scientific modelling and reliance on abstract typologies and theories is normally accepted. The scientific method is of necessity also an expression of an opposition to claims that e.g. revelation, political or religious dogma, appeals to tradition, commonly held beliefs, common sense, or, importantly, currently held theories, are the only possible means of demonstrating truth.

text: Different early expressions of empiricism and the scientific method can be found throughout history, for instance with the ancient Stoics, Epicurus,[30] Alhazen,[31] Roger Bacon, and William of Ockham. From the 16th century onwards, experiments were advocated by Francis Bacon, and performed by Giambattista della Porta,[32] Johannes Kepler,[33] and Galileo Galilei.[34]  There was particular development  aided by theoretical works by Francisco Sanches,[35] John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume.

text: The current method is based on a hypothetico-deductive model[36] formulated in the 20th century, although it has undergone significant revision since first proposed (for a more formal discussion, see below).

text: Process

text: The overall process involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions to determine whether the original conjecture was correct.[5] There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, these actions are better considered as general principles.[10] Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (nor to the same degree), and they are not always done in the same order. As noted by scientist and philosopher William Whewell (1794–1866), "invention, sagacity, [and] genius"[11] are required at every step.

text: Formulation of a question

text: The question can refer to the explanation of a specific observation, as in "Why is the sky blue?" but can also be open-ended, as in "How can I design a drug to cure this particular disease?" This stage frequently involves finding and evaluating evidence from previous experiments, personal scientific observations or assertions, as well as the work of other scientists. If the answer is already known, a different question that builds on the evidence can be posed. When applying the scientific method to research, determining a good question can be very difficult and it will affect the outcome of the investigation.[37]

text: Hypothesis

text: A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while formulating the question, that may explain any given behavior. The hypothesis might be very specific; for example, Einstein's equivalence principle or Francis Crick's "DNA makes RNA makes protein",[38] or it might be broad; for example, unknown species of life dwell in the unexplored depths of the oceans. A statistical hypothesis is a conjecture about a given statistical population. For example, the population might be people with a particular disease. The conjecture might be that a new drug will cure the disease in some of those people. Terms commonly associated with statistical hypotheses are null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. A null hypothesis is the conjecture that the statistical hypothesis is false; for example, that the new drug does nothing and that any cure is caused by chance. Researchers normally want to show that the null hypothesis is false. The alternative hypothesis is the desired outcome, that the drug does better than chance. A final point: a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, meaning that one can identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, it cannot be meaningfully tested.

text: Prediction

text: This step involves determining the logical consequences of the hypothesis. One or more predictions are then selected for further testing. The more unlikely that a prediction would be correct simply by coincidence, then the more convincing it would be if the prediction were fulfilled; evidence is also stronger if the answer to the prediction is not already known, due to the effects of hindsight bias (see also postdiction). Ideally, the prediction must also distinguish the hypothesis from likely alternatives; if two hypotheses make the same prediction, observing the prediction to be correct is not evidence for either one over the other. (These statements about the relative strength of evidence can be mathematically derived using Bayes' Theorem).[39]

text: Testing

text: This is an investigation of whether the real world behaves as predicted by the hypothesis. Scientists (and other people) test hypotheses by conducting experiments. The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations of the real world agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from a hypothesis. If they agree, confidence in the hypothesis increases; otherwise, it decreases. Agreement does not assure that the hypothesis is true; future experiments may reveal problems. Karl Popper advised scientists to try to falsify hypotheses, i.e., to search for and test those experiments that seem most doubtful. Large numbers of successful confirmations are not convincing if they arise from experiments that avoid risk.[8] Experiments should be designed to minimize possible errors, especially through the use of appropriate scientific controls. For example, tests of medical treatments are commonly run as double-blind tests. Test personnel, who might unwittingly reveal to test subjects which samples are the desired test drugs and which are placebos, are kept ignorant of which are which. Such hints can bias the responses of the test subjects. Furthermore, failure of an experiment does not necessarily mean the hypothesis is false. Experiments always depend on several hypotheses, e.g., that the test equipment is working properly, and a failure may be a failure of one of the auxiliary hypotheses. (See the Duhem–Quine thesis.) Experiments can be conducted in a college lab, on a kitchen table, at CERN's Large Hadron Collider, at the bottom of an ocean, on Mars (using one of the working rovers), and so on. Astronomers do experiments, searching for planets around distant stars. Finally, most individual experiments address highly specific topics for reasons of practicality. As a result, evidence about broader topics is usually accumulated gradually.

text: Analysis

text: This involves determining what the results of the experiment show and deciding on the next actions to take. The predictions of the hypothesis are compared to those of the null hypothesis, to determine which is better able to explain the data. In cases where an experiment is repeated many times, a statistical analysis such as a chi-squared test may be required. If the evidence has falsified the hypothesis, a new hypothesis is required; if the experiment supports the hypothesis but the evidence is not strong enough for high confidence, other predictions from the hypothesis must be tested. Once a hypothesis is strongly supported by evidence, a new question can be asked to provide further insight on the same topic. Evidence from other scientists and experience are frequently incorporated at any stage in the process. Depending on the complexity of the experiment, many iterations may be required to gather sufficient evidence to answer a question with confidence, or to build up many answers to highly specific questions in order to answer a single broader question.

text: DNA example

text: The basic elements of the scientific method are illustrated by the following example from the discovery of the structure of DNA:

text:
Question: Previous investigation of DNA had determined its chemical composition (the four nucleotides), the structure of each individual nucleotide, and other properties. It had been identified as the carrier of genetic information by the Avery–MacLeod–McCarty experiment in 1944,[40] but the mechanism of how genetic information was stored in DNA was unclear.
Hypothesis: Linus Pauling, Francis Crick and James D. Watson hypothesized that DNA had a helical structure.[41]
Prediction: If DNA had a helical structure, its X-ray diffraction pattern would be X-shaped.[42][43] This prediction was determined using the mathematics of the helix transform, which had been derived by Cochran, Crick and Vand[44] (and independently by Stokes). This prediction was a mathematical construct, completely independent from the biological problem at hand.
Experiment: Rosalind Franklin crystallized pure DNA and performed X-ray diffraction to produce photo 51. The results showed an X-shape.
Analysis: When Watson saw the detailed diffraction pattern, he immediately recognized it as a helix.[45][46] He and Crick then produced their model, using this information along with the previously known information about DNA's composition and about molecular interactions such as hydrogen bonds.[47]

text: The discovery became the starting point for many further studies involving the genetic material, such as the field of molecular genetics, and it was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1962. Each step of the example is examined in more detail later in the article.

text: Other components

text: The scientific method also includes other components required even when all the iterations of the steps above have been completed:[48]

text: Replication

text: If an experiment cannot be repeated to produce the same results, this implies that the original results might have been in error. As a result, it is common for a single experiment to be performed multiple times, especially when there are uncontrolled variables or other indications of experimental error. For significant or surprising results, other scientists may also attempt to replicate the results for themselves, especially if those results would be important to their own work.[49]

text: External review

text: The process of peer review involves evaluation of the experiment by experts, who typically give their opinions anonymously. Some journals request that the experimenter provide lists of possible peer reviewers, especially if the field is highly specialized. Peer review does not certify correctness of the results, only that, in the opinion of the reviewer, the experiments themselves were sound (based on the description supplied by the experimenter). If the work passes peer review, which occasionally may require new experiments requested by the reviewers, it will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The specific journal that publishes the results indicates the perceived quality of the work.[50]

text: Data recording and sharing

text: Scientists typically are careful in recording their data, a requirement promoted by Ludwik Fleck (1896–1961) and others.[51] Though not typically required, they might be requested to supply this data to other scientists who wish to replicate their original results (or parts of their original results), extending to the sharing of any experimental samples that may be difficult to obtain.[52]

text: Scientific inquiry

text:
Scientific inquiry generally aims to obtain knowledge in the form of testable explanations that scientists can use to
predict the results of future experiments. This allows scientists to gain a better understanding of the topic under study, and later to use that understanding to intervene in its causal mechanisms (such as to cure disease). The better an explanation is at making predictions, the more useful it frequently can be, and the more likely it will continue to explain a body of evidence better than its alternatives. The most successful explanations – those which explain and make accurate predictions in a wide range of circumstances – are often called scientific theories.

text: Most experimental results do not produce large changes in human understanding; improvements in theoretical scientific understanding typically result from a gradual process of development over time, sometimes across different domains of science.[53] Scientific models vary in the extent to which they have been experimentally tested and for how long, and in their acceptance in the scientific community. In general, explanations become accepted over time as evidence accumulates on a given topic, and the explanation in question proves more powerful than its alternatives at explaining the evidence. Often subsequent researchers re-formulate the explanations over time, or combined explanations to produce new explanations.

text: Tow sees the scientific method in terms of an evolutionary algorithm applied to science and technology.[54]

text: Properties of scientific inquiry

text: Scientific knowledge is closely tied to empirical findings, and can remain subject to falsification if new experimental observation incompatible with it is found. That is, no theory can ever be considered final, since new problematic evidence might be discovered. If such evidence is found, a new theory may be proposed, or (more commonly) it is found that modifications to the previous theory are sufficient to explain the new evidence. The strength of a theory can be argued[by whom?] to relate to how long it has persisted without major alteration to its core principles.

text: Theories can also become subsumed by other theories. For example, Newton's laws explained thousands of years of scientific observations of the planets   almost perfectly. However, these laws were then determined to be special cases of a more general theory (relativity), which explained both the (previously unexplained) exceptions to Newton's laws and predicted and explained other observations such as the deflection of light by gravity. Thus, in certain cases independent, unconnected, scientific observations can be connected to each other, unified by principles of increasing explanatory power.[55][56]

text: Since new theories might be more comprehensive than what preceded them, and thus be able to explain more than previous ones, successor theories might be able to meet a higher standard by explaining a larger body of observations than their predecessors.[55] For example, the theory of evolution explains the diversity of life on Earth, how species adapt to their environments, and many other patterns observed in the natural world;[57][58] its most recent major modification was unification with genetics to form the modern evolutionary synthesis. In subsequent modifications, it has also subsumed aspects of many other fields such as biochemistry and molecular biology.

text: Beliefs and biases

text: Scientific methodology often directs that hypotheses be tested in controlled conditions wherever possible. This is frequently possible in certain areas, such as in the biological sciences, and more difficult in other areas, such as in astronomy.

text: The practice of experimental control and reproducibility can have the effect of diminishing the potentially harmful effects of circumstance, and to a degree, personal bias. For example, pre-existing beliefs can alter the interpretation of results, as in confirmation bias; this is a heuristic that leads a person with a particular belief to see things as reinforcing their belief, even if another observer might disagree (in other words, people tend to observe what they expect to observe).

text: A historical example is the belief that the legs of a galloping horse are splayed at the point when none of the horse's legs touches the ground, to the point of this image being included in paintings by its supporters. However, the first stop-action pictures of a horse's gallop by Eadweard Muybridge showed this to be false, and that the legs are instead gathered together.[59]

text: Another important human bias that plays a role is a preference for new, surprising statements (see appeal to novelty), which can result in a search for evidence that the new is true. [60]  Poorly attested beliefs can be believed and acted upon via a less rigorous heuristic.[61]

text: Goldhaber and Nieto published in 2010 the observation that if theoretical structures with "many closely neighboring subjects are described by connecting theoretical concepts then the theoretical structure .. becomes increasingly hard to overturn".[56] When a narrative is constructed its elements become easier to believe.[62] For more on the narrative fallacy, see also Fleck 1979, p. 27: "Words and ideas are originally phonetic and mental equivalences of the experiences coinciding with them. ... Such proto-ideas are at first always too broad and insufficiently specialized. ... Once a structurally complete and closed system of opinions consisting of many details and relations has been formed, it offers enduring resistance to anything that contradicts it." Sometimes, these have their elements assumed a priori, or contain some other logical or methodological flaw in the process that ultimately produced them. Donald M. MacKay has analyzed these elements in terms of limits to the accuracy of measurement and has related them to instrumental elements in a category of measurement.[63]

text: Elements of the scientific method

text: There are different ways of outlining the basic method used for scientific inquiry. The scientific community and philosophers of science generally agree on the following classification of method components. These methodological elements and organization of procedures tend to be more characteristic of natural sciences than social sciences. Nonetheless, the cycle of formulating hypotheses, testing and analyzing the results, and formulating new hypotheses, will resemble the cycle described below.

text: The scientific method is an iterative, cyclical process through which information is continually revised.[64][65] It is generally recognized to develop advances in knowledge through the following elements, in varying combinations or contributions:[66][67]

text:
Characterizations (observations, definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)
Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)
Predictions (inductive and deductive reasoning from the hypothesis or theory)
Experiments (tests of all of the above)

text: Each element of the scientific method is subject to peer review for possible mistakes. These activities do not describe all that scientists do (see below) but apply mostly to experimental sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry, and biology). The elements above are often taught in the educational system as "the scientific method".[68]

text:
The scientific method is not a single recipe: it requires intelligence, imagination, and creativity.[69] In this sense, it is not a mindless set of standards and procedures to follow,
but is rather an ongoing cycle, constantly developing more useful, accurate and comprehensive models and methods. For example, when Einstein developed the Special and General Theories of Relativity, he did not in any way refute or discount Newton's Principia. On the contrary, if the astronomically large, the vanishingly small, and the extremely fast are removed from Einstein's theories – all phenomena Newton could not have observed – Newton's equations are what remain. Einstein's theories are expansions and refinements of Newton's theories and, thus, increase confidence in Newton's work.

text: A linearized, pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes offered as a guideline for proceeding:[70]

text:
Define a question
Gather information and resources (observe)
Form an explanatory hypothesis
Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
Analyze the data
Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
Publish results
Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

tag: ol

text: The iterative cycle inherent in this step-by-step method goes from point 3 to 6 back to 3 again.

text: While this schema outlines a typical hypothesis/testing method,[71] it should also be noted that a number of philosophers, historians, and sociologists of science, including Paul Feyerabend, claim that such descriptions of scientific method have little relation to the ways that science is actually practiced.

text: Characterizations

text: The scientific method depends upon increasingly sophisticated characterizations of the subjects of investigation. (The subjects can also be called unsolved problems or the unknowns.) For example, Benjamin Franklin conjectured, correctly, that St. Elmo's fire was electrical in nature, but it has taken a long series of experiments and theoretical changes to establish this. While seeking the pertinent properties of the subjects, careful thought may also entail some definitions and observations; the observations often demand careful measurements and/or counting.

text: The systematic, careful collection of measurements or counts of relevant quantities is often the critical difference between pseudo-sciences, such as alchemy, and science, such as chemistry or biology. Scientific measurements are usually tabulated, graphed, or mapped, and statistical manipulations, such as correlation and regression, performed on them. The measurements might be made in a controlled setting, such as a laboratory, or made on more or less inaccessible or unmanipulatable objects such as stars or human populations. The measurements often require specialized scientific instruments such as thermometers, spectroscopes, particle accelerators, or voltmeters, and the progress of a scientific field is usually intimately tied to their invention and improvement.

text: I am not accustomed to saying anything with certainty after only one or two observations.

text: Uncertainty

text: Measurements in scientific work are also usually accompanied by estimates of their uncertainty. The uncertainty is often estimated by making repeated measurements of the desired quantity. Uncertainties may also be calculated by consideration of the uncertainties of the individual underlying quantities used. Counts of things, such as the number of people in a nation at a particular time, may also have an uncertainty due to data collection limitations. Or counts may represent a sample of desired quantities, with an uncertainty that depends upon the sampling method used and the number of samples taken.

text: Definition

text: Measurements demand the use of operational definitions of relevant quantities. That is, a scientific quantity is described or defined by how it is measured, as opposed to some more vague, inexact or "idealized" definition. For example, electric current, measured in amperes, may be operationally defined in terms of the mass of silver deposited in a certain time on an electrode in an electrochemical device that is described in some detail. The operational definition of a thing often relies on comparisons with standards: the operational definition of "mass" ultimately relies on the use of an artifact, such as a particular kilogram of platinum-iridium kept in a laboratory in France.

text: The scientific definition of a term sometimes differs substantially from its natural language usage. For example, mass and weight overlap in meaning in common discourse, but have distinct meanings in mechanics. Scientific quantities are often characterized by their units of measure which can later be described in terms of conventional physical units when communicating the work.

text: New theories are sometimes developed after realizing certain terms have not previously been sufficiently clearly defined. For example, Albert Einstein's first paper on relativity begins by defining simultaneity and the means for determining length. These ideas were skipped over by Isaac Newton with, "I do not define time, space, place and motion, as being well known to all." Einstein's paper then demonstrates that they (viz., absolute time and length independent of motion) were approximations. Francis Crick cautions us that when characterizing a subject, however, it can be premature to define something when it remains ill-understood.[73] In Crick's study of consciousness, he actually found it easier to study awareness in the visual system, rather than to study free will, for example. His cautionary example was the gene; the gene was much more poorly understood before Watson and Crick's pioneering discovery of the structure of DNA; it would have been counterproductive to spend much time on the definition of the gene, before them.

text: DNA-characterizations

text: The history of the discovery of the structure of DNA is a classic example of the elements of the scientific method: in 1950 it was known that genetic inheritance had a mathematical description, starting with the studies of Gregor Mendel, and that DNA contained genetic information (Oswald Avery's transforming principle).[40] But the mechanism of storing genetic information (i.e., genes) in DNA was unclear. Researchers in Bragg's laboratory at Cambridge University made X-ray diffraction pictures of various molecules, starting with crystals of salt, and proceeding to more complicated substances. Using clues painstakingly assembled over decades, beginning with its chemical composition, it was determined that it should be possible to characterize the physical structure of DNA, and the X-ray images would be the vehicle.[74] ..2. DNA-hypotheses

text: Another example: precession of Mercury

text: The characterization element can require extended and extensive study, even centuries. It took thousands of years of measurements, from the Chaldean, Indian, Persian, Greek, Arabic and European astronomers, to fully record the motion of planet Earth. Newton was able to include those measurements into consequences of his laws of motion. But the perihelion of the planet Mercury's orbit exhibits a precession that cannot be fully explained by Newton's laws of motion (see diagram to the right), as Leverrier pointed out in 1859. The observed difference for Mercury's precession between Newtonian theory and observation was one of the things that occurred to Albert Einstein as a possible early test of his theory of General relativity. His relativistic calculations matched observation much more closely than did Newtonian theory. The difference is approximately 43 arc-seconds per century.

text: Hypothesis development

text: A hypothesis is a suggested explanation of a phenomenon, or alternately a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between or among a set of phenomena.

text: Normally hypotheses have the form of a mathematical model. Sometimes, but not always, they can also be formulated as existential statements, stating that some particular instance of the phenomenon being studied has some characteristic and causal explanations, which have the general form of universal statements, stating that every instance of the phenomenon has a particular characteristic.

text: Scientists are free to use whatever resources they have – their own creativity, ideas from other fields, inductive reasoning, Bayesian inference, and so on – to imagine possible explanations for a phenomenon under study. Charles Sanders Peirce, borrowing a page from Aristotle (Prior Analytics, 2.25) described the incipient stages of inquiry, instigated by the "irritation of doubt" to venture a plausible guess, as abductive reasoning. The history of science is filled with stories of scientists claiming a "flash of inspiration", or a hunch, which then motivated them to look for evidence to support or refute their idea. Michael Polanyi made such creativity the centerpiece of his discussion of methodology.

text: William Glen observes that[75]

text: the success of a hypothesis, or its service to science, lies not simply in its perceived "truth", or power to displace, subsume or reduce a predecessor idea, but perhaps more in its ability to stimulate the research that will illuminate ... bald suppositions and areas of vagueness.

text: In general scientists tend to look for theories that are "elegant" or "beautiful". In contrast to the usual English use of these terms, they here refer to a theory in accordance with the known facts, which is nevertheless relatively simple and easy to handle. Occam's Razor serves as a rule of thumb for choosing the most desirable amongst a group of equally explanatory hypotheses.

text: To minimize the confirmation bias which results from entertaining a single hypothesis, strong inference emphasizes the need for entertaining multiple alternative hypotheses.[76]

text: DNA-hypotheses

text: Linus Pauling proposed that DNA might be a triple helix.[77] This hypothesis was also considered by Francis Crick and James D. Watson but discarded. When Watson and Crick learned of Pauling's hypothesis, they understood from existing data that Pauling was wrong[78] and that Pauling would soon admit his difficulties with that structure. So, the race was on to figure out the correct structure (except that Pauling did not realize at the time that he was in a race) ..3. DNA-predictions

text: Predictions from the hypothesis

text: Any useful hypothesis will enable predictions, by reasoning including deductive reasoning. It might predict the outcome of an experiment in a laboratory setting or the observation of a phenomenon in nature. The prediction can also be statistical and deal only with probabilities.

text: It is essential that the outcome of testing such a prediction be currently unknown. Only in this case does a successful outcome increase the probability that the hypothesis is true. If the outcome is already known, it is called a consequence and should have already been considered while formulating the hypothesis.

text: If the predictions are not accessible by observation or experience, the hypothesis is not yet testable and so will remain to that extent unscientific in a strict sense. A new technology or theory might make the necessary experiments feasible. For example, while a hypothesis on the existence of other intelligent species may be convincing with scientifically based speculation, there is no known experiment that can test this hypothesis. Therefore, science itself can have little to say about the possibility. In future, a new technique may allow for an experimental test and the speculation would then become part of accepted science.

text: DNA-predictions

text: James D. Watson, Francis Crick, and others hypothesized that DNA had a helical structure. This implied that DNA's X-ray diffraction pattern would be 'x shaped'.[43][79] This prediction followed from the work of Cochran, Crick and Vand[44] (and independently by Stokes). The Cochran-Crick-Vand-Stokes theorem provided a mathematical explanation for the empirical observation that diffraction from helical structures produces x shaped patterns.

text: In their first paper, Watson and Crick also noted that the double helix structure they proposed provided a simple mechanism for DNA replication, writing, "It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material".[80]  ..4. DNA-experiments

text: Another example: general relativity

text: Einstein's theory of General Relativity makes several specific predictions about the observable structure of space-time, such as that light bends in a gravitational field, and that the amount of bending depends in a precise way on the strength of that gravitational field. Arthur Eddington's observations made during a 1919 solar eclipse supported General Relativity rather than Newtonian gravitation.[81]

text: Experiments

text: Once predictions are made, they can be sought by experiments. If the test results contradict the predictions, the hypotheses which entailed them are called into question and become less tenable. Sometimes the experiments are conducted incorrectly or are not very well designed, when compared to a crucial experiment. If the experimental results confirm the predictions, then the hypotheses are considered more likely to be correct, but might still be wrong and continue to be subject to further testing. The experimental control is a technique for dealing with observational error. This technique uses the contrast between multiple samples (or observations) under differing conditions to see what varies or what remains the same. We vary the conditions for each measurement, to help isolate what has changed. Mill's canons can then help us figure out what the important factor is.[82] Factor analysis is one technique for discovering the important factor in an effect.

text: Depending on the predictions, the experiments can have different shapes. It could be a classical experiment in a laboratory setting, a double-blind study or an archaeological excavation. Even taking a plane from New York to Paris is an experiment which tests the aerodynamical hypotheses used for constructing the plane.

text: Scientists assume an attitude of openness and accountability on the part of those conducting an experiment. Detailed record keeping is essential, to aid in recording and reporting on the experimental results, and supports the effectiveness and integrity of the procedure. They will also assist in reproducing the experimental results, likely by others. Traces of this approach can be seen in the work of Hipparchus (190–120 BCE), when determining a value for the precession of the Earth, while controlled experiments can be seen in the works of Jābir ibn Hayyān (721–815 CE), al-Battani (853–929) and Alhazen (965–1039).[83]

text: DNA-experiments

text: Watson and Crick showed an initial (and incorrect) proposal for the structure of DNA to a team from Kings College – Rosalind Franklin, Maurice Wilkins, and Raymond Gosling. Franklin immediately spotted the flaws which concerned the water content. Later Watson saw Franklin's detailed X-ray diffraction images which showed an X-shape and was able to confirm the structure was helical.[45][46] This rekindled Watson and Crick's model building and led to the correct structure. ..1. DNA-characterizations

text: Evaluation and improvement

text: The scientific method is iterative. At any stage it is possible to refine its accuracy and precision, so that some consideration will lead the scientist to repeat an earlier part of the process. Failure to develop an interesting hypothesis may lead a scientist to re-define the subject under consideration. Failure of a hypothesis to produce interesting and testable predictions may lead to reconsideration of the hypothesis or of the definition of the subject. Failure of an experiment to produce interesting results may lead a scientist to reconsider the experimental method, the hypothesis, or the definition of the subject.

text: Other scientists may start their own research and enter the process at any stage. They might adopt the characterization and formulate their own hypothesis, or they might adopt the hypothesis and deduce their own predictions. Often the experiment is not done by the person who made the prediction, and the characterization is based on experiments done by someone else. Published results of experiments can also serve as a hypothesis predicting their own reproducibility.

text: DNA-iterations

text: After considerable fruitless experimentation, being discouraged by their superior from continuing, and numerous false starts,[84][85][86] Watson and Crick were able to infer the essential structure of DNA by concrete modeling of the physical shapes of the nucleotides which comprise it.[47][87] They were guided by the bond lengths which had been deduced by Linus Pauling and by Rosalind Franklin's X-ray diffraction images. ..DNA Example

text: Confirmation

text: Science is a social enterprise, and scientific work tends to be accepted by the scientific community when it has been confirmed. Crucially, experimental and theoretical results must be reproduced by others within the scientific community. Researchers have given their lives for this vision; Georg Wilhelm Richmann was killed by ball lightning (1753) when attempting to replicate the 1752 kite-flying experiment of Benjamin Franklin.[88]

text: To protect against bad science and fraudulent data, government research-granting agencies such as the National Science Foundation, and science journals, including Nature and Science, have a policy that researchers must archive their data and methods so that other researchers can test the data and methods and build on the research that has gone before. Scientific data archiving can be done at a number of national archives in the U.S. or in the World Data Center.

text: Models of scientific inquiry

text: Classical model

text: The classical model of scientific inquiry derives from Aristotle,[89] who distinguished the forms of approximate and exact reasoning, set out the threefold scheme of abductive, deductive, and inductive inference, and also treated the compound forms such as reasoning by analogy.

text: Hypothetico-deductive model

text: The hypothetico-deductive model or method is a proposed description of scientific method. Here, predictions from the hypothesis are central: if you assume the hypothesis to be true, what consequences follow?

text: If subsequent empirical investigation does not demonstrate that these consequences or predictions correspond to the observable world, the hypothesis can be concluded to be false.

text: Pragmatic model

text: In 1877,[23] Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) characterized inquiry in general not as the pursuit of truth per se but as the struggle to move from irritating, inhibitory doubts born of surprises, disagreements, and the like, and to reach a secure belief, belief being that on which one is prepared to act. He framed scientific inquiry as part of a broader spectrum and as spurred, like inquiry generally, by actual doubt, not mere verbal or hyperbolic doubt, which he held to be fruitless.[90] He outlined four methods of settling opinion, ordered from least to most successful:

text:
The method of tenacity (policy of sticking to initial belief) – which brings comforts and decisiveness but leads to trying to ignore contrary information and others' views as if truth were intrinsically private, not public. It goes against the social impulse and easily falters since one may well notice when another's opinion is as good as one's own initial opinion. Its successes can shine but tend to be transitory.[91]
The method of authority – which overcomes disagreements but sometimes brutally. Its successes can be majestic and long-lived, but it cannot operate thoroughly enough to suppress doubts indefinitely, especially when people learn of other societies present and past.
The method of the a priori – which promotes conformity less brutally but fosters opinions as something like tastes, arising in conversation and comparisons of perspectives in terms of "what is agreeable to reason." Thereby it depends on fashion in paradigms and goes in circles over time. It is more intellectual and respectable but, like the first two methods, sustains accidental and capricious beliefs, destining some minds to doubt it.
The scientific method – the method wherein inquiry regards itself as fallible and purposely tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and improves itself.

text: Peirce held that slow, stumbling ratiocination can be dangerously inferior to instinct and traditional sentiment in practical matters, and that the scientific method is best suited to theoretical research,[92] which in turn should not be trammeled by the other methods and practical ends; reason's "first rule" is that, in order to learn, one must desire to learn and, as a corollary, must not block the way of inquiry.[93] The scientific method excels the others by being deliberately designed to arrive – eventually – at the most secure beliefs, upon which the most successful practices can be based. Starting from the idea that people seek not truth per se but instead to subdue irritating, inhibitory doubt, Peirce showed how, through the struggle, some can come to submit to truth for the sake of belief's integrity, seek as truth the guidance of potential practice correctly to its given goal, and wed themselves to the scientific method.[23][26]

text: For Peirce, rational inquiry implies presuppositions about truth and the real; to reason is to presuppose (and at least to hope), as a principle of the reasoner's self-regulation, that the real is discoverable and independent of our vagaries of opinion. In that vein he defined truth as the correspondence of a sign (in particular, a proposition) to its object and, pragmatically, not as actual consensus of some definite, finite community (such that to inquire would be to poll the experts), but instead as that final opinion which all investigators would reach sooner or later but still inevitably, if they were to push investigation far enough, even when they start from different points.[94] In tandem he defined the real as a true sign's object (be that object a possibility or quality, or an actuality or brute fact, or a necessity or norm or law), which is what it is independently of any finite community's opinion and, pragmatically, depends only on the final opinion destined in a sufficient investigation. That is a destination as far, or near, as the truth itself to you or me or the given finite community. Thus, his theory of inquiry boils down to "Do the science." Those conceptions of truth and the real involve the idea of a community both without definite limits (and thus potentially self-correcting as far as needed) and capable of definite increase of knowledge.[95] As inference, "logic is rooted in the social principle" since it depends on a standpoint that is, in a sense, unlimited.[96]

text: Paying special attention to the generation of explanations, Peirce outlined the scientific method as a coordination of three kinds of inference in a purposeful cycle aimed at settling doubts, as follows (in §III–IV in "A Neglected Argument"[5] except as otherwise noted):

text:
Abduction (or retroduction). Guessing, inference to explanatory hypotheses for selection of those best worth trying. From abduction, Peirce distinguishes induction as inferring, on the basis of tests, the proportion of truth in the hypothesis. Every inquiry, whether into ideas, brute facts, or norms and laws, arises from surprising observations in one or more of those realms (and for example at any stage of an inquiry already underway). All explanatory content of theories comes from abduction, which guesses a new or outside idea so as to account in a simple, economical way for a surprising or complicative phenomenon. Oftenest, even a well-prepared mind guesses wrong. But the modicum of success of our guesses far exceeds that of sheer luck and seems born of attunement to nature by instincts developed or inherent, especially insofar as best guesses are optimally plausible and simple in the sense, said Peirce, of the "facile and natural", as by Galileo's natural light of reason and as distinct from "logical simplicity". Abduction is the most fertile but least secure mode of inference. Its general rationale is inductive: it succeeds often enough and, without it, there is no hope of sufficiently expediting inquiry (often multi-generational) toward new truths.[97] Coordinative method leads from abducing a plausible hypothesis to judging it for its testability[98] and for how its trial would economize inquiry itself.[99] Peirce calls his pragmatism "the logic of abduction".[100] His pragmatic maxim is: "Consider what effects that might conceivably have practical bearings you conceive the objects of your conception to have. Then, your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the object".[94] His pragmatism is a method of reducing conceptual confusions fruitfully by equating the meaning of any conception with the conceivable practical implications of its object's conceived effects – a method of experimentational mental reflection hospitable to forming hypotheses and conducive to testing them. It favors efficiency. The hypothesis, being insecure, needs to have practical implications leading at least to mental tests and, in science, lending themselves to scientific tests. A simple but unlikely guess, if uncostly to test for falsity, may belong first in line for testing. A guess is intrinsically worth testing if it has instinctive plausibility or reasoned objective probability, while subjective likelihood, though reasoned, can be misleadingly seductive. Guesses can be chosen for trial strategically, for their caution (for which Peirce gave as example the game of Twenty Questions), breadth, and incomplexity.[101] One can hope to discover only that which time would reveal through a learner's sufficient experience anyway, so the point is to expedite it; the economy of research is what demands the leap, so to speak, of abduction and governs its art.[99]
Deduction. Two stages:

Explication. Unclearly premissed, but deductive, analysis of the hypothesis in order to render its parts as clear as possible.
Demonstration: Deductive Argumentation, Euclidean in procedure. Explicit deduction of hypothesis's consequences as predictions, for induction to test, about evidence to be found. Corollarial or, if needed, theorematic.

Induction. The long-run validity of the rule of induction is deducible from the principle (presuppositional to reasoning in general[94]) that the real is only the object of the final opinion to which adequate investigation would lead;[102] anything to which no such process would ever lead would not be real. Induction involving ongoing tests or observations follows a method which, sufficiently persisted in, will diminish its error below any predesignate degree. Three stages:

Classification. Unclearly premissed, but inductive, classing of objects of experience under general ideas.
Probation: direct inductive argumentation. Crude (the enumeration of instances) or gradual (new estimate of proportion of truth in the hypothesis after each test). Gradual induction is qualitative or quantitative; if qualitative, then dependent on weightings of qualities or characters;[103] if quantitative, then dependent on measurements, or on statistics, or on countings.
Sentential Induction. "...which, by inductive reasonings, appraises the different probations singly, then their combinations, then makes self-appraisal of these very appraisals themselves, and passes final judgment on the whole result".

text: Science of complex systems

text: Science applied to complex systems can involve elements such as transdisciplinarity, systems theory and scientific modelling. The Santa Fe Institute studies such systems;[104] Murray Gell-Mann interconnects these topics with message passing.[105]

text: In general, the scientific method may be difficult to apply stringently to diverse, interconnected systems and large data sets. In particular, practices used within Big data, such as predictive analytics, may be considered to be at odds with the scientific method.[106]

text: Communication and community

text: Frequently the scientific method is employed not only by a single person, but also by several people cooperating directly or indirectly. Such cooperation can be regarded as an important element of a scientific community. Various standards of scientific methodology are used within such an environment.

text: Peer review evaluation

text: Scientific journals use a process of peer review, in which scientists' manuscripts are submitted by editors of scientific journals to (usually one to three, and usually anonymous) fellow scientists familiar with the field for evaluation. In certain journals, the journal itself selects the referees; while in others (especially journals that are extremely specialized), the manuscript author might recommend referees. The referees may or may not recommend publication, or they might recommend publication with suggested modifications, or sometimes, publication in another journal. This standard is practiced to various degrees by different journals, and can have the effect of keeping the literature free of obvious errors and to generally improve the quality of the material, especially in the journals who use the standard most rigorously. The peer review process can have limitations when considering research outside the conventional scientific paradigm: problems of "groupthink" can interfere with open and fair deliberation of some new research.[107]

text: Documentation and replication

text: Sometimes experimenters may make systematic errors during their experiments, veer from standard methods and practices (Pathological science) for various reasons, or, in rare cases, deliberately report false results. Occasionally because of this then, other scientists might attempt to repeat the experiments in order to duplicate the results.

text: Archiving

text: Researchers sometimes practice scientific data archiving, such as in compliance with the policies of government funding agencies and scientific journals. In these cases, detailed records of their experimental procedures, raw data, statistical analyses and source code can be preserved in order to provide evidence of the methodology and practice of the procedure and assist in any potential future attempts to reproduce the result. These procedural records may also assist in the conception of new experiments to test the hypothesis, and may prove useful to engineers who might examine the potential practical applications of a discovery.

text: Data sharing

text: When additional information is needed before a study can be reproduced, the author of the study might be asked to provide it. They might provide it, or if the author refuses to share data, appeals can be made to the journal editors who published the study or to the institution which funded the research.

text: Limitations

text: Since it is impossible for a scientist to record everything that took place in an experiment, facts selected for their apparent relevance are reported. This may lead, unavoidably, to problems later if some supposedly irrelevant feature is questioned. For example, Heinrich Hertz did not report the size of the room used to test Maxwell's equations, which later turned out to account for a small deviation in the results. The problem is that parts of the theory itself need to be assumed in order to select and report the experimental conditions. The observations are hence sometimes described as being 'theory-laden'.

text: Dimensions of practice

text: The primary constraints on contemporary science are:

text:
Publication, i.e. Peer review
Resources (mostly funding)

text: It has not always been like this: in the old days of the "gentleman scientist" funding (and to a lesser extent publication) were far weaker constraints.

text: Both of these constraints indirectly require scientific method – work that violates the constraints will be difficult to publish and difficult to get funded. Journals require submitted papers to conform to "good scientific practice" and to a degree this can be enforced by peer review. Originality, importance and interest are more important – see for example the author guidelines for Nature.

text: Smaldino and McElreath 2016 have noted that our need to reward scientific understanding is being nullified by poor research design and poor data analysis, which is leading to false-positive findings.[108]

text: Philosophy and sociology of science

text: Philosophy of science looks at the underpinning logic of the scientific method, at what separates science from non-science, and the ethic that is implicit in science. There are basic assumptions, derived from philosophy by at least one prominent scientist, that form the base of the scientific method – namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world.[109] These assumptions from methodological naturalism form a basis on which science may be grounded. Logical Positivist, empiricist, falsificationist, and other theories have criticized these assumptions and given alternative accounts of the logic of science, but each has also itself been criticized. More generally, the scientific method can be recognized as an idealization.[110]

text: Thomas Kuhn examined the history of science in his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and found that the actual method used by scientists differed dramatically from the then-espoused method. His observations of science practice are essentially sociological and do not speak to how science is or can be practiced in other times and other cultures.

text: Norwood Russell Hanson, Imre Lakatos and Thomas Kuhn have done extensive work on the "theory laden" character of observation. Hanson (1958) first coined the term for the idea that all observation is dependent on the conceptual framework of the observer, using the concept of gestalt to show how preconceptions can affect both observation and description.[111] He opens Chapter 1 with a discussion of the Golgi bodies and their initial rejection as an artefact of staining technique, and a discussion of Brahe and Kepler observing the dawn and seeing a "different" sun rise despite the same physiological phenomenon. Kuhn[112] and Feyerabend[113] acknowledge the pioneering significance of his work.

text: Kuhn (1961) said the scientist generally has a theory in mind before designing and undertaking experiments so as to make empirical observations, and that the "route from theory to measurement can almost never be traveled backward". This implies that the way in which theory is tested is dictated by the nature of the theory itself, which led Kuhn (1961, p. 166) to argue that "once it has been adopted by a profession ... no theory is recognized to be testable by any quantitative tests that it has not already passed".[114]

text: Paul Feyerabend similarly examined the history of science, and was led to deny that science is genuinely a methodological process. In his book Against Method he argues that scientific progress is not the result of applying any particular method. In essence, he says that for any specific method or norm of science, one can find a historic episode where violating it has contributed to the progress of science. Thus, if believers in scientific method wish to express a single universally valid rule, Feyerabend jokingly suggests, it should be 'anything goes'.[115] Criticisms such as his led to the strong programme, a radical approach to the sociology of science.

text: The postmodernist critiques of science have themselves been the subject of intense controversy. This ongoing debate, known as the science wars, is the result of conflicting values and assumptions between the postmodernist and realist camps. Whereas postmodernists assert that scientific knowledge is simply another discourse (note that this term has special meaning in this context) and not representative of any form of fundamental truth, realists in the scientific community maintain that scientific knowledge does reveal real and fundamental truths about reality. Many books have been written by scientists which take on this problem and challenge the assertions of the postmodernists while defending science as a legitimate method of deriving truth.[116]

text: Role of chance in discovery

text: Somewhere between 33% and 50% of all scientific discoveries are estimated to have been stumbled upon, rather than sought out. This may explain why scientists so often express that they were lucky.[117] Louis Pasteur is credited with the famous saying that "Luck favours the prepared mind", but some psychologists have begun to study what it means to be 'prepared for luck' in the scientific context. Research is showing that scientists are taught various heuristics that tend to harness chance and the unexpected.[117][118] This is what Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls "Anti-fragility"; while some systems of investigation are fragile in the face of human error, human bias, and randomness, the scientific method is more than resistant or tough – it actually benefits from such randomness in many ways (it is anti-fragile). Taleb believes that the more anti-fragile the system, the more it will flourish in the real world.[27]

text: Psychologist Kevin Dunbar says the process of discovery often starts with researchers finding bugs in their experiments. These unexpected results lead researchers to try to fix what they think is an error in their method. Eventually, the researcher decides the error is too persistent and systematic to be a coincidence. The highly controlled, cautious and curious aspects of the scientific method are thus what make it well suited for identifying such persistent systematic errors. At this point, the researcher will begin to think of theoretical explanations for the error, often seeking the help of colleagues across different domains of expertise.[117][118]

text: Relationship with mathematics

text: Science is the process of gathering, comparing, and evaluating proposed models against observables. A model can be a simulation, mathematical or chemical formula, or set of proposed steps. Science is like mathematics in that researchers in both disciplines try to distinguish what is known from what is unknown at each stage of discovery. Models, in both science and mathematics, need to be internally consistent and also ought to be falsifiable (capable of disproof). In mathematics, a statement need not yet be proven; at such a stage, that statement would be called a conjecture. But when a statement has attained mathematical proof, that statement gains a kind of immortality which is highly prized by mathematicians, and for which some mathematicians devote their lives.[119]

text: Mathematical work and scientific work can inspire each other.[120] For example, the technical concept of time arose in science, and timelessness was a hallmark of a mathematical topic. But today, the Poincaré conjecture has been proven using time as a mathematical concept in which objects can flow (see Ricci flow).

text: Nevertheless, the connection between mathematics and reality (and so science to the extent it describes reality) remains obscure. Eugene Wigner's paper, The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences, is a very well known account of the issue from a Nobel Prize-winning physicist. In fact, some observers (including some well known mathematicians such as Gregory Chaitin, and others such as Lakoff and Núñez) have suggested that mathematics is the result of practitioner bias and human limitation (including cultural ones), somewhat like the post-modernist view of science.

text: George Pólya's work on problem solving,[121] the construction of mathematical proofs, and heuristic[122][123] show that the mathematical method and the scientific method differ in detail, while nevertheless resembling each other in using iterative or recursive steps.

text:
Mathematical method

Scientific method

1

Understanding

Characterization from experience and observation

2

Analysis

Hypothesis: a proposed explanation

3

Synthesis

Deduction: prediction from the hypothesis

4

Review/Extend

Test and experiment

text: In Pólya's view, understanding involves restating unfamiliar definitions in your own words, resorting to geometrical figures, and questioning what we know and do not know already; analysis, which Pólya takes from Pappus,[124] involves free and heuristic construction of plausible arguments, working backward from the goal, and devising a plan for constructing the proof; synthesis is the strict Euclidean exposition of step-by-step details[125] of the proof; review involves reconsidering and re-examining the result and the path taken to it.

text: Gauss, when asked how he came about his theorems, once replied "durch planmässiges Tattonieren" (through systematic palpable experimentation).[126]

text: Imre Lakatos argued that mathematicians actually use contradiction, criticism and revision as principles for improving their work.[127] In like manner to science, where truth is sought, but certainty is not found, in Proofs and refutations (1976), what Lakatos tried to establish was that no theorem of informal mathematics is final or perfect. This means that we should not think that a theorem is ultimately true, only that no counterexample has yet been found. Once a counterexample, i.e. an entity contradicting/not explained by the theorem is found, we adjust the theorem, possibly extending the domain of its validity. This is a continuous way our knowledge accumulates, through the logic and process of proofs and refutations. (If axioms are given for a branch of mathematics, however, Lakatos claimed that proofs from those axioms were tautological, i.e. logically true, by rewriting them, as did Poincaré (Proofs and Refutations, 1976).)

text: Lakatos proposed an account of mathematical knowledge based on Polya's idea of heuristics. In Proofs and Refutations, Lakatos gave several basic rules for finding proofs and counterexamples to conjectures. He thought that mathematical 'thought experiments' are a valid way to discover mathematical conjectures and proofs.[128]

text: Relationship with statistics

text: The scientific method has been extremely successful in bringing the world out of medieval thinking, especially once it was combined with industrial processes.[129] However, when the scientific method employs statistics as part of its arsenal, there are mathematical and practical issues that can have a deleterious effect on the reliability of the output of scientific methods. This is described in a popular 2005 scientific paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" by John Ioannidis.[130]

text: The particular points raised are statistical ("The smaller the studies conducted in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true" and "The greater the flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.") and economical ("The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true" and "The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true.") Hence: "Most research findings are false for most research designs and for most fields" and "As shown, the majority of modern biomedical research is operating in areas with very low pre- and poststudy probability for true findings." However: "Nevertheless, most new discoveries will continue to stem from hypothesis-generating research with low or very low pre-study odds," which means that *new* discoveries will come from research that, when that research started, had low or very low odds (a low or very low chance) of succeeding. Hence, if the scientific method is used to expand the frontiers of knowledge, research into areas that are outside the mainstream will yield most new discoveries.


document_title: Jacobs School of Music

question_text: who is the jacobs school of music named after

root

text: Jacobs School of Music

text: History[edit]

text: In 1907, Charles Campbell arranged for a recital of the Schellschmidt Quartet of Indianapolis, the proceeds of which established a music fund, "to lead ultimately to the equipment of a school of music in the university." In 1909, he offered a series of noncredit lectures on the history of music, which eventually led to a full-fledged music department. In 1919 Barzille Merrill took the position of department head and worked to create a separate school of music. He campaigned for a new music building as well, which was dedicated in 1937, and renamed Merril Hall in 1989. In 1921 the Department of Music officially became the School of Music.

tag: p

text: In 1938 Robert L. Sanders was appointed Dean and remains the school's youngest-ever dean. Through his efforts, the school gained membership in the National Association of Schools of Music and built the Hall of Music (now known as the Indiana University Auditorium). In 1941 the Indiana University Auditorium was dedicated and offered 15 events including appearances by the Ballet Russe de Monte Carlo and the San Carlo Opera Company.

text: In 1942 the school staged its first full opera. Cavalleria Rusticana. That year the Metropolitan Opera Company visited IU for the first time, performing Aida, and would return again for the next 15 years, presenting two operas each visit.

text: In 1982 Leonard Bernstein spent six weeks at the school to work on his final opera, A Quiet Place. In 1980, the School of Music launched a weekly radio chamber music series produced by WFIU. In its first year, the series featured student and faculty performers and was broadcast on six Indiana stations. By 1981 (and through 1984), "Music from Indiana" had achieved national syndication on American Public Radio, and in 1983, the number of stations carrying the program had jumped to 54.

text: In 2005 the school announced it had received a gift of $40.6 million from Barbara and David H. Jacobs for the school of music. [1] At the time, it was the largest single gift for a school of music at a public university and it is also the largest single gift ever given by individuals to IU. The school will use $20 million of the gift to endow graduate student fellowships and $10 million to endow undergraduate scholarships. The gift also establishes endowed faculty positions, including the Dean Charles H. Webb Chair in Music, the Henry A. Upper Chair in Music and the David H. Jacobs Chair in Music..

text: In 2009, the school received a gift from the family of Leonard Bernstein that included the entire contents of Bernstein's conducting studio. [2]

text: Academics and programs[edit]

text: Admissions[edit]

text: Admission to the Jacobs School of Music is done by a live or recorded audition only. [3] The overall acceptance rate is generally about 25 percent for undergraduate students and about 30 percent for graduate students [4]. However, acceptance rates vary greatly between programs. Each freshman class contains about 200 new students.

text: Ensembles[edit]

text: Students in most degree programs at the school are required to participate in an ensemble during every semester spent at the school. Depending on the student's degree program, he or she may be required to participate in specific ensembles. The majority of ensembles are auditioned.

text: Owing to the large size of the school, there are thirteen choirs, eight bands and seven orchestras at the school [5]. They encompass a broad range size and musical styles and include the Singing Hoosiers, Opera Chorus, Wind Ensemble, Marching Hundred, Chamber Orchestra and the Philharmonic Orchestra.

text: Contemporary[edit]

text: The school is home to two of the nation's premier contemporary music ensembles. [6]:

text:
New Music Ensemble, founded by former Prof. Frederick A. Fox in 1975, and currently directed by Prof. David Dzubay: Composed of the top musicians from the school of music, this group contains; 1 flute, 1 oboe, 1 clarinet, 1 bassoon, 1 saxophone, 1 horn, 1 trumpet, 1 trombone, 1 tuba, 2 pianists, 1 harp, 2-3 percussionists, 2 violins, 1 viola, 1 cello and 1 bass
NOTUS, formerly known as the Contemporary Vocal Ensemble, a 24-voice choir that specializes in contemporary choral repertoire and especially the works of living composers. Directed by Dominick DiOrio, the ensemble frequently premieres works by students, faculty, and emerging professional composers and frequently tours nationally. NOTUS: IU Contemporary Vocal Ensemble

tag: ul

text: Programs of study[edit]

text: The school offers Bachelor of Music (B.M.) degrees, Master of Arts (M.A.) degrees, Master of Music (M.M.) degrees, Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degrees, and Doctor of Music (D.M.) degrees, among others, in a large and diverse number of musical fields. The school also awards a "Performer's Certificate" or "Artist's Diploma" to students who demonstrate exceptionally outstanding performance ability. Additionally, it is possible for students to enroll in a unique degree program available at Indiana University known as the B.S.O.F. or Bachelor of Science in an Outside Field in some select areas of study so that students may diversify their education outside of the standard prescribed curriculum.

text: Awards and honors for the Jacobs School of Music[edit]

text: Honors for the school include being ranked first in the nation by Change magazine, The Chronicle of Higher Education, and U.S. News & World Report. The IU School of Music as a whole was recently listed first among the "Top Ten Voice Schools in America" by Classical Singer. IU School of Music voice students are frequent winners in the Metropolitan Opera National Council Auditions in New York City each spring. The school has had five grand winners in the last five years and 33 grand winners overall. An unparalleled twenty students and alumni have received BMI Student Composer Awards. In April 1981, the opera program became the first non-professional company to stage an opera at the Metropolitan Opera in New York City,

text: Faculty[edit]

text: The school has more than 170 full-time faculty members that include performers, scholars, and teachers of international renown. In addition, many top musicians and scholars come to the school each year to give master classes and guest lectures or to serve as visiting artistic directors, conductors, and faculty. Over the last few years the school has hired pianists André Watts and Arnaldo Cohen, violinist Jaime Laredo, and sopranos Sylvia McNair and Carol Vaness as faculty members. Violinist Joshua Bell and conductor Leonard Slatkin recently joined the faculty.

text: Other notable faculty members include:

text:
Atar Arad, viola
Martina Arroyo, soprano
David Baker, jazz cello and educator
Edmund Battersby, piano
Joshua Bell, violin
Bruce Bransby, double bass
Wolfgang Brendel, Baritone
James Campbell, clarinet
Walter Cassel, baritone
Dale Clevenger, french horn
Ray Cramer, conductor and Emeritus Director of Bands
Alan de Veritch, viola
Eli Eban, clarinet
David Effron, conductor
Eileen Farrell, Soprano
Sidney Foster, piano
Josef Gingold, violin
Margaret Harshaw, opera singer
Howard Klug, clarinet
Tibor Kozma, conductor
Martha Lipton, Soprano
Kathryn Lukas, flute
Virginia MacWatters, soprano
Elizabeth Mannion, mezzo soprano
Susann McDonald, harp
Sylvia McNair, soprano
Otis Murphy, classical saxophone
Emile Naoumoff, piano
Jeff Nelsen, horn
Nokuthula Ngwenyama, viola
Eugene O'Brien, composition
John Ogdon, piano
Harvey Phillips, tuba
Menahem Pressler, piano and commander in Order of Arts and Letters
William Primrose, violist
John Rommel, trumpet
György Sebők, piano
Abbey Simon, piano
Leonard Slatkin, conductor
János Starker, cello
Carol Vaness, soprano
Violette Verdy, ballet
Iannis Xenakis, composition

text: Facilities[edit]

text: The school's facilities, including five buildings located in the heart of the IU Bloomington campus, comprise recital halls, more than 170 practice rooms, choral and instrumental rehearsal rooms, and more than 100 offices and studios.

text: Musical Arts Center[edit]

text: The Musical Arts Center, known as the MAC, is the school's largest performance facility and was built in 1972. It is equipped with an opera theater with European-style seating for 1,460 and room for a 100-piece orchestra, as well as studios, classrooms, and rehearsal facilities for music and ballet, with the backstage area occupying more than half of the building. The 90x60 foot stage is often compared to that of the Metropolitan Opera House in New York, while the unsegmented seating design in the orchestral seats is based on the seating arrangement of the Bayreuth Festspielhaus.

text: Peau Rouge Indiana, a large sculpture by Alexander Calder, sits on the lawn in front of the MAC. It was renovated over the course of two months during the Fall 2007 semester. [7]

text: Simon Music Center[edit]

text: The Simon Music Center (pictured at the top of the page) opened after an extensive renovation in 1995 and houses the William and Gayle Cook Music Library, Auer Hall, Ford-Crawford Hall, Sweeney Lecture Hall, the Latin American Music Center, classrooms, and administrative and faculty offices.

text: Notable alumni[edit]

text:
Jamey Aebersold, jazz educator
Kenny Aronoff, drumset
David Baker, jazz composer
Noah Bendix-Balgley, violinist, 1st concertmaster of Berlin Philharmonic
Joshua Bell, violinist
Jonathan Biss, pianist, professor at Curtis Institute of Music
Chris Botti, jazz trumpeter
Michael Brecker, jazz saxophonist
Carl Broemel, lead guitarist/vocalist/saxophone for My Morning Jacket
Angela Brown, soprano
Lawrence Brownlee, tenor
Frederic Chiu, pianist
John Clayton, jazz and classical bassist, composer and arranger
Richard Cowan, opera singer
Jeremy Denk, pianist
Alexandra du Bois, composer
Peter Erskine, jazz drummer and educator
Jack Everly, conductor
Miriam Fried, violinist and pedagogue, winner of Queen Elisabeth Music Competition
Vivica Genaux, mezzo soprano
Tom Gullion, jazz saxophonist
Jeff Hamilton, jazz drummer
Hu Nai-yuan, violinist, winner of Queen Elisabeth Music Competition
Bruce Hubbard, Broadway, Metropolitan Opera baritone and recording artist
Jacques Israelievitch, violinist, former concertmaster of the Toronto Symphony
Booker T. Jones, songwriter, producer, frontman for Booker T. and the MGs
Karen Kamensek, conductor, general music director Staatsoper Hannover
Paul Katz, cellist, founding member of the Cleveland Quartet
Kate Lindsey, mezzo soprano
Sylvia McNair, soprano
Edgar Meyer, bassist and pedagogue, MacArthur Fellow, professor at Curtis Institute
Fatma Ceren Necipoğlu, Turkish harpist
Michael Palmer, conductor
Shawn Pelton, session drummer
Behzad Ranjbaran, composer, professor at Juilliard School
Larry Ridley, jazz bassist and music educator
Miguel Roig-Francolí, composer and music theorist
Byron Schenkman, harpsichordist, pianist
Leonard Slatkin, conductor, music director of Detroit Symphony Orchestra
Michael Sweeney, composer of Concert Band literature
Gwen Thompson, violinist
Doron Toister, composer and cellist
Michael Weiss, jazz pianist and composer
Pharez Whitted, jazz trumpet


document_title: Fernando Tatís

question_text: who did fernando tatis hit 2 grand slams off of

text: Fernando Tatís

text: Playing career[edit]

text: At the age of 17, Tatís was signed as an amateur free agent by Omar Minaya and the Texas Rangers on August 25, 1992. He played his first game in Major League Baseball with the Rangers, at third base, almost five years later on July 26, 1997, and went on to play 60 games with the Rangers in his rookie season. At the trade deadline on July 31, 1998, the Rangers traded Tatís along with Darren Oliver and Mark Little to the St. Louis Cardinals for Royce Clayton and Todd Stottlemyre.

text: Tatís had the best season of his career in 1999 with the St. Louis Cardinals. He hit 34 home runs with 107 RBIs and 21 stolen bases, with a .298 batting average. On April 23, 1999, Tatís made baseball history when he hit two grand slams in one inning. As of 2017, he is still the only batter in MLB history to accomplish this. Tatís hit both of his grand slams against the pitcher Chan Ho Park of the Los Angeles Dodgers. With his home run feat, Tatís also set a Major League record with eight runs batted in during a single inning.

text: After playing in only 96 games for the Cardinals in 2000 because of an injury, Tatís was traded to the Montreal Expos along with Britt Reames for Dustin Hermanson and Steve Kline. Tatís played in just 208 games out of a possible 486 over three seasons with the Expos because of an assortment of physical injuries.

text: The Tampa Bay Devil Rays invited Tatís to spring training in 2004, but he did not make the team and was released. Tatís next did not play professional baseball for two seasons and resided in the Dominican Republic.

text: The Baltimore Orioles signed Tatís to a minor-league contract on November 25, 2005. Tatís returned to baseball in order to raise money to build a church.[1] He played most of the season for the AAA baseball, the Ottawa Lynx, eventually playing in 28 games for the Orioles after being called up on July 21, 2006.[2]

text: In 2007, Tatís was invited to spring training with the Los Angeles Dodgers. After being assigned to minor-league baseball camp, Tatís was granted his request to be released from his contract on March 14. Just nine days later, he signed a minor-league contract with the New York Mets, and spent the 2007 season with its AAA affiliate, the New Orleans Zephyrs.

text: On May 11, 2008, Tatís was called up from the Zephyrs to replace Ángel Pagán. Tatís had started to play the outfield in the minor leagues in order to become a more diversified player.[3]

text: On May 28, Tatís hit a "walk-off" double against Justin Miller to defeat the Florida Marlins in the bottom of the 12th inning. This was Tatís's first career "walk-off" hit. Tatís played most of his time with the Mets in left field and right field because of injuries to the usual starters Moisés Alou and Ryan Church.[4]

text: On September 16, 2008, Tatís separated his shoulder after diving for a fly ball in a game against the Washington Nationals. The Mets team physician diagnosed the injury as being a Grade III separation, but Tatís missed the rest of the 2008 regular season. Despite missing the end of the season, on October 23, 2008, Tatís received the Sporting News Comeback Player of the Year Award for the National League.

text: Tatís was named to the Dominican Republic national baseball team for the 2009 World Baseball Classic as a replacement for Alex Rodriguez, who was injured.

text: Tatís played intermittently for the Mets in 2009 and 2010. His last Major League game was on July 4, 2010. He was also the latest New York Met to wear uniform number 17, which was then taken out of circulation for Keith Hernandez due to public outcry.

text: For his career, he batted .265 with 113 home runs and 448 RBIs.

text: On October 5, 2014, Tatís announced his retirement from professional baseball.

text: Personal life[edit]

text: Fernando, Jr.'s father, Fernando, Sr., was also a professional baseball player. He reached as high as Class AA in the Houston Astros system before retiring in 1978 and moving on to coaching and scouting Houston's minor leaguers. The elder Tatís disappeared from Fernando's life when he was four years old. The two were not reunited until 1997 when Tatís, Jr. was a rookie with the Texas Rangers. Rangers scout Omar Minaya, who Tatís described as a father figure, helped to discover Tatís, Sr. residing in Sarasota, Florida.[5]

text: Tatís's son, Fernando Tatís Jr., is a shortstop prospect.[6]


document_title: Hell on Wheels (season 5)

question_text: how many episodes of season 5 hell on wheels

text: Hell on Wheels (season 5)

text: Cast[edit]

text: Main cast[edit]

text: The fifth season features 13 series regulars; with Tim Guinee, Byron Mann, Reg Rogers, Angela Zhou, and Chelah Horsdal added to the main cast.

text:
Anson Mount as Cullen Bohannon, a former Confederate soldier, who worked with the Union Pacific Railroad but switched to the Central Pacific, upon Collis Huntington's promise to help find Cullen's family (13 episodes)
Colm Meaney as Thomas C. Durant, whose Union Pacific railroad is in a race to lay more track than the rival Central Pacific (10 episodes)
Christopher Heyerdahl as Thor "The Swede" Gundersen, who works for both Cullen and the Mormons and, yet, still maintains a hidden agenda (8 episodes)
Robin McLeavy as Eva, a former Indian captive and prostitute, turned madam for Mickey McGinnes (9 episodes)
Jennifer Ferrin as Louise Ellison, a journalist and editor of The Cheyenne Leader newspaper, who investigates the swindling of the railroad (7 episodes)
Phil Burke as Mickey McGinnes, the owner of a casino and whorehouse, and Mayor of Cheyenne (8 episodes)
Dohn Norwood as Psalms, head of a skeleton crew of Freedmen who are pressured to beat the Union Pacific's rivals (5 episodes)
Tim Guinee as Collis Huntington, developer of the Central Pacific Railroad and Cullen's new employer (10 episodes)
Byron Mann as Chang, labor contractor for the Central Pacific Railroad (9 episodes)
Reg Rogers as James Strobridge, construction superintendent for the Central Pacific Railroad (8 episodes)
MacKenzie Porter as Naomi Hatch Bohannon, Cullen Bohannon's wife, who struggles to build a new life, family, and home and is awakening her own desire to experience adventures beyond the Mormon fort (4 episodes)
Angela Zhou as Fong/Mei, a Chinese worker for the Central Pacific Railroad. Originally disguised as Tao's son, Fong, she is discovered by Cullen to be a woman named Mei. (9 episodes)
Chelah Horsdal as Maggie Palmer, the richest woman in Cheyenne and owner of the Palmer Hotel, who is often at odds with Durant (5 episodes)

text: Recurring cast[edit]

text:
Josh Caras as Phineas Howe Young, Brigham Young's son, who leads the Mormon work crew under the influence of Thor Gundersen (7 episodes)
Tzi Ma as Tao, head of the Chinese crew for the Central Pacific Railroad (6 episodes)
Andrew Howard as Johnny Shea, Mickey's Irish cousin from New York, who is made railroad foreman (3 episodes)
Jennifer Lim as Wai-Ling, Chang's enslaved wife who works in his brothel (3 episodes)
Amber Chardae Robinson as Mary Fields, stagecoach driver (3 episodes)
Victor Slezak as President Ulysses S. Grant (3 episodes)
Jake Weber as John Allen Campbell, a former Brigadier General for the Union Army, appointed provisional governor of Wyoming by Ulysses S. Grant. Campbell is determined to civilize the West and seize control of the city from railroad mogul Durant. (3 episodes)
Gregg Henry as Brigham Young, the leader of the Mormons (2 episodes)
Toby Hemingway as Isaac Vinson, a farmhand for the Hatches. In Cullen's absence, Naomi has fallen in love with him. (2 episodes)
Andy Yu as Hoi, a Chinese worker who was the first to give his life for the railroad after Cullen's decision to switch from traditional gunpowder to nitroglycerin. (2 episodes)

text: Production[edit]

text: On November 7, 2014, AMC renewed Hell On Wheels for a fifth and final season, consisting of 14 episodes, which premiered July 18, 2015. AMC also announced the season would be split into two parts, with half the episodes to air in 2015 and the other half beginning July 2016.[2] About the season, showrunner John Wirth stated: "The end of the story is written down in history, so we know how the story would end for the railroad." He added: "What we didn't know is how the story would end for each of our characters, especially the ones that we created. It's been really challenging to wrap up people's stories in a satisfying way [...] We've gone down a lot of blind alleys and we've taken a lot of wrong turns and we've lost our way. Now, we've kind of clawed our way back to what I think is going to be a pretty good wrap up for the series."[4]

text: The fifth season's production filming took place on the CL Ranch, west of Calgary, for the Truckee, California, and Laramie, Wyoming, locations. The Kananaskis Country park system, 40 miles west of the ranch, serves as the Sierra Nevada mountains the Central Pacific Railroad must cross.[5]

text: Episodes[edit]

text:
No.
overall
No. in
season
Title
Directed by
Written by
Original air date
Prod.
code
U.S. viewers
(millions)

Part 1

44
1
"Chinatown"
David Straiton
Jami O'Brien
July 18, 2015 (2015-07-18)
501
2.07[6]

Cullen visits Collis Huntington in Truckee, California, to lay out a plan for the Central Pacific Railroad to traverse into Nevada and Utah to meet the Union Pacific. Huntington pays him to start tracking down "fresh Chinamen" for hire. Cullen enlists help from restaurant owner Chang (Byron Mann), Tao, and his son, Fong. Huntington later shows Cullen a telegram that Naomi and family have been banned from all Mormon settlements. The Swede arrives to tell Cullen that Brigham Young was a "false prophet" and that Cullen is a devil sent to test him. Regardless of their history, Cullen hires the Swede to work for the Central Pacific.

45
2
"Mei Mei"
Billy Gierhart
John Wirth & Thomas Brady
July 25, 2015 (2015-07-25)
502
1.55[7]

Cullen and Fong have difficulty working in the Sierra Nevadas, where Cullen discovers Fong is actually a woman named Mei. The Swede works for both the Central Pacific and the Mormons to get boots for the California workers. Cullen returns Mei back to her father, but keeps her secret safe.

46
3
"White Justice"
David Straiton
John Romano
August 1, 2015 (2015-08-01)
503
1.67[8]

After Cullen and Tao save Chang from some slighted American workers who attempt to hang him, Chang seeks justice but must abide by American law. He is later told the men will not stand trial. Mei heals from her injuries and seeks to return to work on the railroad, as she is hiding as Fong from a promised marriage in China. The Swede points out some errors in the Mormon financial ledgers, causing Brigham Young's son Phineas and the California workers to ponder rebellion.

47
4
"Struck"
Clark Johnson
Max Hurwitz
August 8, 2015 (2015-08-08)
504
2.00[9]

Chang succeeds in organizing a strike among the Chinese workers, as the men who attempted to hang him are taken by wagon out of town. Cullen is able to negotiate for some but not all of the Chinese demands. In Laramie, Wyoming, Thomas Durant notes the Central Pacific's progress has increased with Cullen's help. Durant assigns Mickey's cousin, Shea, as his new foreman.

48
5
"Elixir of Life"
Karen Gaviola
Michael Saltzman
August 15, 2015 (2015-08-15)
505
1.90[10]

Chang and Cullen arrive in Truckee with more Chinamen to employ and items for a festival. It is then that Cullen informs Chang that Tao is taking over the payroll. In Laramie, Louise Ellison enlists Eva's help with her abortion. Maggie Palmer arrives, furious with Durant proclaiming Laramie, rather than Cheyenne, to be the hub. Durant promises to revert his decision. In Truckee, Cullen investigates the Swede's receiving rifles in rice crates as Chang allows Tao to be shot dead.

49
6
"Hungry Ghosts"
Neil LaBute
Jami O'Brien & Miki Johnson
August 22, 2015 (2015-08-22)
506
1.59[11]

Cullen travels with Mei who intends to take Tao's body home. Their train gets delayed on the tracks so they set off on a different path, only to face danger at a river. Brigham Young arrives in Laramie, insisting that Durant pays him for the Mormon workers. As Durant and Maggie hatch a plan, Young speaks with Eva, who reveals her Mormon upbringing. Louise is determined to interview Young, who stated that Salt Lake City will be the hub for both railroads. Upon learning of Durant's shady dealings with Young, she writes an article calling the railroads the "greatest swindle" of the time.

50
7
"False Prophets"
Rod Lurie
John Romano & Thomas Brady
August 29, 2015 (2015-08-29)
507
1.85[12]

All interested railroad parties arrive in Salt Lake City to meet with President Grant, who believes the Transcontinental Railroad program is in chaos. The Swede and Phineas arrive to speak with Young, who is short with them. Cullen promises Young to push for the hub to be in the city if Young tells him where Cullen's family is. At a meeting, it's suggested that Promontory, Utah, be the terminus. Cullen states that there shouldn't be one and that the race should be for Ogden. Meanwhile, The Swede and Phineas plot to assassinate Young, which is subterfuge for The Swede to learn the location of Cullen's family.

Part 2

51
8
"Two Soldiers"
Michael Nankin
John Wirth & Thomas Brady
June 11, 2016 (2016-06-11)
508
1.78[13]

In 1863, Confederate soldiers raid a Union camp, and Thor "The Swede" Gundersen, among others, is captured and taken to Andersonville Prison. The conditions there cause Thor's friend to start chewing on him. In an attempt to save himself, Thor drowns his friend in a mud puddle. Years later, The Swede finds his way to the Hatch farm, kills Naomi's father and sister, and stalks her and baby William into the woods. Cullen, though, is not far behind. However, The Swede shoots him in the leg and they struggle in a river. Cullen has the opportunity to drown him but doesn't, after seeing him smile from underwater. Against Naomi's wishes, he takes him on a two-day journey to Fort Douglas, a military garrison, for trial. The perilous trek weakens Cullen, and the two men fight before reaching the fort. Cullen manages to shoot The Swede in the side and fire shots in the air to bring soldiers. Four days later, The Swede has been found guilty of the Hatch deaths and is scheduled to hang. He pleads instead for justice and forgiveness from Cullen but is led to his gallows death as Cullen watches.

52
9
"Return to the Garden"
Marvin V. Rush
Jami O'Brien
June 18, 2016 (2016-06-18)
509
1.49[14]

Cullen returns to the Hatch farm to be with his family, only to realize that, in the time he has been away, Naomi has fallen in love with farmhand Isaac Vinson (Toby Hemingway). Isaac informs him that he, Naomi, and William will be moving to Zion (Salt Lake Valley), if Brigham Young will welcome them. Cullen promises to escort them and speak with Young. Upon arrival, Young considers Cullen an apostate for returning the "gifts" God has given him to die "a lonely, wretched thing". Cullen manages to get Young agree on blessing Naomi and Isaac's wedding, then leaves Naomi and William. In Laramie, the residents are upset at Durant over the news of Cheyenne's being made a railroad hub. He blames the railroad board and agrees to buy their land back at 10 cents an acre above the going rate. He also asks Mickey for more Irish workers, but Mickey wants railroad shares in return. Durant initially refuses, but Maggie later assures him that he needs Mickey. Meanwhile, Mei returns to Truckee, despondent over the loss of her father and news that Cullen is with his family. However, Cullen returns, and they share a passionate kiss.

53
10
"61 Degrees"
Michael Nankin
Max Hurwitz
June 25, 2016 (2016-06-25)
510
1.51[15]

After spending the night together, Cullen and Mei (as Fong) return to work on the railroad. There is tunnel work to be done, and Cullen suggests using nitroglycerin to do the blasting. James Strobridge teaches the Chinese how to make blasting caps. In Laramie, Durant proposes marriage to Maggie, who says she'll never remarry but will stay with him, if Durant promises no more schemes. They must then deal with an angry mob wanting payment. Durant and Mickey later plot a fake kidnapping to get $250,000 ransom money from the railroad board; Durant will pay Mickey $25,000 for organizing it. Mickey has Shea lead the kidnapping, which goes awry when Shea kills the chief engineer, and then nearly kills Louise, until Durant speaks up. Following the death of a tunnel worker mishandling the nitroglycerine, Cullen suggests they continue to use the explosive, but that he and James will clear future blasts. James refuses to participate and is fired from the railroad. The tunnel is later completed, and Chang becomes suspicious when he catches Cullen exiting Fong's tent.

54
11
"Gambit"
Adam Davidson
John Romano & Miki Johnson
July 2, 2016 (2016-07-02)
511
1.43[16]

A flash-forward to 1885 shows Durant dying a lonely, poor, and forgotten man. In the present, Mickey and Durant's kidnapping plot hits a snag, when Governor Campbell arrives with cavalry to bring the men responsible to justice. Mickey mentions to Eva his concern that Shea is unstable; she suggests killing him, despite his being family. Mickey and Shea give Campbell an ultimatum in the form of a booby trap: pay the money, or Durant dies. Campbell wires for the money but later balks when he suspects Durant is part of the plot. Maggie puts her own money together and rides to find Durant. She is shot and killed when Shea is dissatisfied with the amount. He turns to shoot Durant, but Mickey shoots his cousin, killing him. Back in town, Shea is considered escaped, Campbell must absolve Durant without proof, and Eva consoles a forlorn Mickey.

55
12
"Any Sum Within Reason"
Tim Southam
Thomas Brady
July 9, 2016 (2016-07-09)
512
1.72[17]

Fearful that Chang knows Mei's secret, Cullen sends her to Cheyenne. Cullen then suggests Huntington remove the Chinese from the railroad construction and hire Irishmen to finish. Huntington counters by saying China is the future, and Cullen should think beyond completing the railroad. Cullen then tries to buy Mei's contract from Chang, who refuses, stating Cullen rejected his previous offer to own a share of the railroad. Cullen gets a telegraph from Mei, who is in Washoe City, Nevada. However, Chang arrives before he does, and Cullen must kill him and the group who came with him. Mei tells Cullen that she will still be hunted and doesn't want that life for him. While he manages to dissuade a Chinese general from looking for her, she leaves to return to China but writes him a note in Chinese.

56
13
"Railroad Men"
Jeremy Webb
John Wirth & Thomas Brady
July 16, 2016 (2016-07-16)
513
1.60[18]

Louise narrates each railroad's historical accomplishments and challenges as both now race toward Ogden. The Union Pacific has ten miles left, while the Central Pacific has only six, and Strobridge has taken both the Irish and Chinese workers in as miners. Mickey manages to convince his countrymen to return to railroad work, while Cullen fails to convince the Chinese. Huntington tries to swindle Governor Campbell into proclaiming him the victor, but Campbell states that Grant's presidency will be "free from corruption". Within the last few miles, the Chinese return to help Cullen, while Durant's urgings cause Psalms and the freedmen to switch teams. The Central Pacific reaches the end marker first. Durant and Huntington bicker over who owns Ogden's hub, and Huntington cedes, upon the promise that the coming ceremony will be held on the CP side. After evading Louise's questions about his future, Cullen drunkenly collapses in his train car, reflecting on all that he has lost.

57
14
"Done"
David Von Ancken
Jami O'Brien & Thomas Brady
July 23, 2016 (2016-07-23)
514
1.65[19]

Following the golden spike ceremony, both Durant and Cullen are given summonses to appear before Congress in Washington, D.C. Durant has been charged with bribery, fraud, and corruption. Cullen asks a Chinese worker to translate Mei's note: it's an address in China. Eva declines Louise's book deal offer, her "survivor story", saying that she is "done whoring". In Washington, President Grant offers Cullen a position as army colonel and undersecretary for the western territories. Cullen states that he is a railroad man, to which Grant counters that he is a soldier "without a war to fight". Dressed in his Union Army uniform before Congressmen, Cullen refuses to implicate Durant, repeating that their railroad could not have been built without Durant. Cullen then goes to the church where he killed a man in the first episode, and a priest asks if he seeks salvation. Cullen breaks down, thanks him, and leaves. Despite Durant's lawyer's invoking the Fifth Amendment, his client defiantly describes the future that he has wrought for them. As Durant speaks, Mickey departs for San Francisco, Eva rides her horse into the sunset, and Cullen boards a train, leaving his uniform behind. He disembarks in San Francisco and boards a ship for China.

tag: table

text: The finale was followed by two additional bonus specials, on July 24, 2016, on AMC, titled "Series Wrap-Up" and "Inside the Final Episode".[citation needed]