I think not. It has some of the hallmarks of science but somehow it isn’t interesting, there isn’t a point to it. This is one thing missing from most discussions of scientific method; we make decisions about content before we even start looking at methods.
That doesn't prove the hypothesis that people BUY more umbrellas when the weather is bad. It shows that people USE more umbrellas when the weather is bad. To test the original hypothesis you need to have your researchers stand around in the umbrella department of a store (Target, WalMart, etc) when he weather is good and when the weather is bad, and also when the weather is terrible (clear and sunny, cloudy but no rain, drizzly, stormy) Record sales during an hour or so (same time period for each)
You could test the other hypothesis as well by stationing people on street corners and count umbrellas for same time period, and same set of weather conditions. etc.
On Sep 18, 2015, at 4:15 PM, Forinash III, Kyle wrote:
The following is empirical, has a hypothesis, is about the physical world, involves research. Why isn?t it science?
-Hypothesis: people tend to buy more umbrellas when the weather is bad
-Method to verify hypothesis: position observers on street corners to count umbrellas and record weather conditions