Re: possibly OT: NYT article on GA creationism/evolution debate

[Joe Heafner <heafnerj@VNET.NET>]

> From: John Clement <clement@HAL-PC.ORG>
>
> Well the textbooks are certainly no help.  They still
teach "the scientific
> method" which has been thoroughly discredited.  See
the latest issue of Jour
> of Res of Sci. Teaching.
Okay THIS got my attention. The scientific method has
been discredited? While I know that different authors
define the scientific method with different numbers of
steps, I didn't know the process had been discredited.
Could someone elaborate?

> Maybe we should use the work model instead of
theory.  After all a theory is
> just a model we have constructed which reflects
reality as we perceive it.
> As such a model is subject to revision, but does not
have the baggage of
> being just a theory.  The word model also implies
craftsmanship.
>
I've used the model concept for a long time in my
classes. I agree that it's a more accurate reflection of
the process of science.


Cheers,
Joe Heafner - Instructional Astronomy and Physics
Home Page http://users.vnet.net/heafnerj/index.html
I'll never be able to afford a Lexus, but I do have a Mac. Same thing.
DO NOT USE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ANYWHERE ON THE WEB!