Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-L] Re: What is Scientific Process?



Hi all-


On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Larry Woolf wrote:

Some references that may be useful:

<http://www.southerncrossreview.org/32/feynman3.htm>

<http://www.msu.edu/user/boswort9/attempt1/cep817web/amasci/scimis.htm#meth>

My perspective, as a working scientist for the past 25 years, including the
ideas of many others:
<http://www.sci-ed-ga.org/pdfs/how-do-science-10-10-04.pdf>

I like it. It is slanted toward an experimentalist's, rather than
a theorist's view. I differ from Larry in one respect: If a problem is
well-defined, then you are not doing science; you are doing engineering.
Regards,
Jack



Larry Woolf
General Atomics
San Diego, CA 92121
<http://www.sci-ed-ga.org>
<http://www.ga.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Craft
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 8:40 PM
Subject: What is Scientific Process?

As Jack alludes below, the question of what is the "scientific
process" looms large in the ID thread. Also as I wrote
earlier that I am required to teach students (quite rightly)
about the way that scientists do their work. Our mandatory
syllabus makes this clear when it says we need to
cover:

5.2 the nature and practice of science
c) apply scientific processes to test the validity of ideas and
theories
d) describe how an idea can gain acceptance in the scientific
community as either theory or law
g) identify that the nature of observations made depends upon the
understanding that the observer brings to the situation

My question still stands, and I really would like some input
in this... What is the scientific process that this syllabus
assumes exists??? Are the distinctions made in the syllabus real?


--
"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley