Re: science-fairs and scientific method

[William Beaty <billb@ESKIMO.COM>]

On Mon, 4 Oct 1999, Jerry DiMarco wrote:

>     I am a little curious why the teaching of the scientific method is
> being criticized.  What is the problem, and what would you teach in its
> place?


Not being a professional scientist, my opinion lacks weight, but even so,
I side with the people who insist that "THE" Scientific Method does not
exist.  It is a myth.  Scientists don't work like that.

Here's one example: what if I observe something which is not easily
explained by conventional theory, and my observation leads to a great
discovery?  Pitchblende fogs film-plates.  High-voltage vacuum tubes cause
platinocyanate to fluoresce.  Drop an apple and a grape, and the apple
does not outrace the grape.

If grade-school textbooks teach that the first stage in science must
always be "form a hypothesis", then they are wrong.  They are teaching a
stereotyped caricature of science.  In many cases, great discoveries occur
because we've learned to notice the details in our surroundings; from
being on the lookout for descrepant phenomena.  This sort of thing is
somewhat suppressed in science fairs when educators respond with "What's
your Hypothesis?!"  Suppose science progresses actually like this:

    Have fun mess around with interesting equipment.
    Notice something odd.
    Try to explain it, but fail.
    Originate a brand new theory.
    They fly you to Sweden for a big party...

In that case, science fairs should concentrate on "unguided play," and
upon "notice something odd", not upon "form an hypothesis."  Ah, but
Science is supposed to be deadly serious stuff which has nothing to do
with play, or with looking for weird things.  Scientists aren't supposed
to have "fun" (and science teachers all know that, in order to attract
kids to study science, "fun" must be artificially injected into it.
Right?)

:)

Below is a snip from an article which goes into these issues (the rest of
the article is at http://www.coe.drexel.edu/CAE/AED2_954/TenMyths.html)

Science fairs cover up another method used by many scientists: intuitive
creativity. Recently on PHYS-L we discussed this:  to solve a tough
problem, work on it into the wee hours, fall asleep, then hours later
suddenly wake up with a shock, because the entire solution to the problem
has suddenly appeared in your mind.

My point is that the hypothesis/experiment/conclusion "scientific method"
which is taught by science fairs is not just simplified, it is misguided.
People who believe in "hypothesis/experiment/conclusion" are harboring a
misconception, and they do not know how science is done in the real world.

((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb@eskimo.com                                  http://www.amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA   206-781-3320          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L



   http://www.coe.drexel.edu/CAE/AED2_954/TenMyths.html
   McComas, William, Ten myths of science: Reexamining what we think we
   know...., Vol. 96, School Science & Mathematics, 01-01-1996, pp 10.

   TEN MYTHS OF SCIENCE: REEXAMINING WHAT WE THINK WE KNOW...
   Myth 1: Hypotheses Become Theories Which Become Laws
   Myth 2: A Hypothesis is an Educated Guess
   Myth 3: A General and Universal Scientific Method Exists
   Myth 4: Evidence Accumulated Carefully Will Result in Sure Knowledge
   Myth 5: Science and its Methods Provide Absolute Proof
   Myth 6: Science Is Procedural More Than Creative
   Myth 7: Science and its Methods Can Answer All Questions.
   Myth 8. Scientists are Particularly Objective
   Myth 9: Experiments are the Principle Route to Scientific Knowledge
   Myth 10: All Work in Science is Reviewed to Keep the Process Honest.