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] Is the "Scientific Method" the Same as "Positivism"?



****************************************
ABSTRACT: I agree with Dutta & Bork that research on learning is weak, at least in comparison to, say, traditional research in hard-core physics. But I think: (a) this relative weakness derives more from the complexity of human learning and education than from misguided reliance on the "scientific method," as seems to be implied by Dutta, and (b) Dutta's identification of the "scientific method" with "positivism" is somewhat problematic.
****************************************

Some interesting discussions have occurred on the IFETS [International Forum of Educational Technology and Society] list. According to <http://ifets.ieee.org/> IFETS is endorsed by the Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Technical Committee on Learning Technology. Unfortunately the IFETS archives at <http://ifets.ieee.org/archive.html> appear to be dead :-( .

Diptendu Dutta, in an IFETS post of 23 Sep 2006 03:08:54-0600, enigmatically titled "Re: ifets-discussion Digest - 18 Sep 2006 to 19 Sep 2006 (#2006-73)" [but evidently in response to Brent Muirhead's IFETS post of 18 Sep 2006 13:28:35-0400 titled "creative myths" wrote [bracketed by lines "DDDDDDD. . . "; my inserts at ". . .[insert]. . .]:

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
I would like to title my submission as "Positivism Myths". . . [then why didn't you? - all posters not afflicted by the finger-jerk hit-the-reply-button syndrome - bane of discussion lists - are free to select their subject headings]. . . .

We often make statements such as "Scientific studies reveal that children are not as creative as some people have been claiming" and support it by quoting "experts" such as "Sawyer". . .[evidently referring to Muirhead's reference to Sawyer (2006)]. . . This attitude comes from a culture which I think is heavily influenced by the so called "scientific method" (positivism) and is an unfortunate legacy of the natural sciences that appears to have crept into the liberal arts and humanities. . .[and even education research of all places ;-) - see e.g., Shavelson & Towne (2002)].

What bothers me is that even knowing fully well that these so called "scientific studies" are quite weak in almost all their dimensions, we make them sound like well established truths even in areas such as human cognition and creativity.
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Alfred Bork on 25 Sep 2006 05:06:44-0600 responded "I agree that the current research in learning is very weak," but did not elaborate.
I agree with Dutta and Bork that research in learning is weak, at least compared to, say, traditional hard-core research in physics. But I think this relative weakness derives more from the complexity of human learning and education than from misguided reliance on the "scientific method," as seems to be implied by Dutta. Two quotes may be in order:

1. George "Pinky" Nelson [astronaut, astrophysicist, and former director of the AAAS Project 2061 is quoted by Redish (1999)] as saying "Education is not rocket science, it's much harder."

2. Education guru David Berliner (2002) wrote: ". . .the important distinction. . .[between, e.g., education and physics]. . . is really not between the hard and the soft sciences. Rather, it is between the hard and the easy sciences."

On a related matter, Dutta's identification of the "scientific method" with "positivism" is, in my opinion, somewhat problematic. See e.g.:
(a) The careful analysis of philosopher Denis Phillips <http://ed.stanford.edu/suse/faculty/displayRecord.php?suid=dcpphd> in Chapter 9 "Positivism" of "Expanded social scientist's bestiary: a guide to fabled threats to, and defenses of, naturalistic social science" [Phillips (2000)].

(b) Chapter 1 "What is Postpostivism?" in "Postpostivism and Educational Research" [Phillips & Burbules (2000)].

(c) Alex Yu's (2002) paper "Misconceived relationships between logical positivism and quantitative research."

(d) My comments on Yu's paper in "Re: Paper on Logical Positivism and Quantitative Methods" [Hake (2003a,b)].

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
<rrhake@earthlink.net>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi>


REFERENCES [Tiny URL's courtesy <http://tinyurl.com/create.php>.]
Berliner, D. 2002. "Educational research: The hardest science of all," Educational Researcher 31(8): 18-20; online at
<http://www.aera.net/publications/?id=438>.

Hake, R.R. 2003a. "Re: Paper on Logical Positivism and Quantitative Methods," online at <http://tinyurl.com/jt67z>. Post of 21 Apr 2003 12:52:21-0700 to AERA-D, EvalTalk, & PhysLrnR.

Hake, R.R. 2003b. "Re: Paper on Logical Positivism and Quantitative Methods," online at <http://tinyurl.com/z4hy7>. Post of 24 Apr 2003 13:33:16-0700 to AERA-D & PhysLrnR.

Phillips, D.C. 2000. "Expanded social scientist's bestiary: a guide to fabled threats to, and defenses of, naturalistic social science." Rowman & Littlefield.

Redish, E.F. 1999. "Millikan lecture 1998: building a science of teaching physics," Am. J. Phys. 67(7): 562-573; online at
<http://www.physics.umd.edu/rgroups/ripe/perg/cpt.html>.

Sawyer, R. K. (2006). "Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation." Oxford University Press. Amazon.com information at <http://tinyurl.com/eqqrz>. R. Keith Sawyer <http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~educ/edu_sawyer.htm>, is a professor of psychology and education at Washington University in St. Louis. According to information at <http://tinyurl.com/k5y6f> Sawyer is "one of the country's leading scientific experts on creativity and learning."

Shavelson, R.J. & L. Towne. 2002. "Scientific Research in Education," National Academy Press; online at <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10236.html>.

Yu, C.H. 2002. "Misconceived relationships between logical positivism and quantitative research," Research Methods Forum; Univ. of Miami; formerly online at <http://division.aomonline.org/rm/> but the pdf fails to download.