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] scientific methods +- hypothesis testing +- Independent Variables



I strongly agree with what Michale E. wrote:
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/archives/2006/10_2006/msg00653.html

I agree that reducing all scientific methods to a narrow, stylized
subtype of hypothesis testing is particularly ghastly. Although the
stuff about "independent" variables is also bad, it is not nearly so
bad as the hypothsis-testing stuff, which is
-- remarkably bad, and
-- remarkably unnecessary.

For more on this, see
http://www.av8n.com/physics/scientific-methods.htm#sec-hypo

I agree that the problem of reducing all scientific methds to stylized
hypothesis testing is particularly noticeable during science fairs.

HOWEVER, in partial defense of the national Science Fair organization,
my investigations indicate that the national organization is not the
source of this problem. I know some of the guys involved at the
national level, and they are real scientists, level-headed no-nonsense
guys who would never put up with this hypothesis-testing nonsense.
They tell me that they do not require, and have never required, any
hypothesis testing as part of the national rules. I have checked the
documents at
http://www.sciserv.org/isef/
and not found anything objectionable.

OTOH there are definitely gross problems in some states and some local
districts, and one could fault the national organization for not doing
enough to stamp out the problems.

================

Tangential note: The recent mention of torches and pitchforks has
reminded me of tar and feathers, and of Skipper Ireson's Ride:
http://www.bartleby.com/248/218.html