The Process of Science

This is something I'm writing about because I keep seeing people ignoring the scientific process in the news, intentionally or not.

Step 1: Actual science
This is where everything is usually fine and well. See what effect gravity has on a watermelon at 10 meters, whatever hypothesis you feel like testing. Then you repeat the tests, and make sure everything is actually correct

Step 2: Have others arrive at the same result
This is where a lot of people mess up. The idea is that your study has little to no credibility if the results aren't reproducable. The other scientists that want to do what you did also want to make sure you're right before you push your study to the general public.

Step 3: Publish
This is where you put your results into a journal and have them commend you for you excellent study on the splash patterns of various size watermelons dropped from various heights. Then you let the people use your findings to do other studies, or even have your study used as a basis for a revolutionary watermelon delivery system.

In step 3, there starts the news cycle on particuarly interesting articles. Or at least, those that can be intentionally misunderstood. This only applies to less-than-credible news sources *cough* Fox *cough* that aren't much based in scientific thinking.

Step 3.1: See the article, misunderstand it
"Woah, this study says that watermelons have a 73% chance of injuring those it falls on to!"

Step 3.2: Report on the article
"Scientists determine watermelons have a 73% chance of killing you! Cont. on page A3"

Step 3.3: Inspire grassroots movements
"Let's protest the White House! Ban Watermelons! They kill adults and give children brain damage!"

Ideally, the next step is that people tell those who believe this stuff why they're wrong, and then they realize they're wrong and then use the rest of the day to work in a soup kitchen or help build an animal shelter.
Ideally.