{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0308411214953271, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010280373831775701, 'mean_word_length': 5.570552147239264, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Distorting the Process of Scientific Inquiry

Standards are expected to emerge from the Framework for K–12 Science Education (National Research Council 2012). The general nature of the scientific method is well described. Even its Wikipedia entry nicely summarizes that scientists “propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them” (http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method). The process of scientific inquiry is a logical procedure that involves the following four steps: (1) Find something interesting to talk about by using statistical hypothesis testing to expose an observation or pattern that is unlikely to have arisen from chance alone; (2) suggest alternative explanations (research hypotheses) for why the nonrandom pattern exists; (3) use if–then logic to generate a series of predictions that follow logically and necessarily from each hypothesis; and (4) distinguish among the alternatives by testing the predictions that were generated in step 3.