In a way. In house they make hypotheses (ideas) about what might be causing a disease based on the symptoms. They then conduct tests to check whether the predictions they make from their hypotheses are correct. Sometimes they press ahead with a treatment and find that the problem is not resolved, so they have to form new hypotheses based on the new evidence.
Whilst not all science is involved in medicine, the basic approach is similar – we look at the evidence, form a hypothesis that explains what we see, and if that hypothesis is true, we should be able to make predictions about what we would see if we changed particular things. If we change things and unexpected results are seen, we have to return to our hypothesis and revise it.
yeh kinda. You have some phenomenon (In House’s case the patient) then you make observations about what could be going on (House records the symptoms) then we make a hypothesis as to what could be causing the phenomenon (House makes a diagnosis) we then try to test our hypothesis with experiments (House also experiments on the patient). In the end we try to figure out what’s going on just like House does. Excellent comparison!
Like Jim and Liz have both said science is like House in the way that House is presented with a problem he needs to solve, he has an idea and then he tests that idea. If he’s wrong then he has to think again.
House also works with a team. Each member of the team has a slightly different area they are good at. This is like science, no one person can know everything so you have to work with a few people, each will give you different input. Then it’s up to you to piece the ideas together to solve the puzzle.