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]

Re: [Phys-l] hypothesis testing +- real science



The hypothesis test is taught intensively in schools and is in the
textbooks. At one time they taught in school:
1. Hypotheses when verified become theories.
2. Theories when proven become laws.

At least it has improved because the texts usually no longer say that
theories become laws when they are proven, but some still say that laws are
always true, and that hypotheses when verified become theories.

I think the hypothesis testing mania continues because it has always been
taught that way and because it provides a simple testable sequence that you
can teach to students.

There are many things that are put into texts and emphasized because they
are simple things you can give to students and then test them on it.

Some texts still repeat the old saw about hypotheses, theories and laws.
Most texts now say something like: scientists work in many ways, but there
is a method that they often follow. Then the 5 step method is presented.
Sometimes it is presented with more steps added. But essentially the
authors seem to want to present a fixed method that can be memorized. I
suspect that many state standards also require something similar. Every
teacher's store has a large supply of 5 step posters, cards... What would
they sell if the 5 step method were declared anathema? They would find
something!

I have tried to tell teachers, and they argue with me. They never engaged
in real research, and I have, but that doesn't stop them. Also many
teachers do not like to find out that when books are in error. They are
mortally afraid that those errors will be tested as facts on the state
exams. One of the funnier outrageous errors is making reference to the
"dark side of the Moon that never faces the Sun" in a Glencoe text.

This is part and parcel of what might be termed "school science" which has
very little relationship with science as practiced. School history and
literature has always been edited to remove any inconvenient truths. At one
time there was a cult of George and Martha Washington and the Gilbert Stuart
reproduction was an icon hung in every history classroom. They were
glorified as the good parents of our country. Of course they never told the
students that the marriage was made for social reasons, and that George was
the father of the nation in more ways than one. But in the current era,
sexuality is glorified a bit out of proportion. George was a good leader
and his appetites had no bearing on his abilities.

I know the national standards do not say anything about the 5 step
scientific method, but does anyone have a handle on how many state standards
promote it?

I think here change comes from the top. If all college science classes
emphasized what science does and debunked the simplistic scientific method,
eventually it would leave the lower classrooms. Most students leave their
college classes without the foggiest idea as to what the nature of science
is. They think it is a set of memorizable facts that often do not make
sense. They also think that science provides an exact picture of reality,
when it is actually something we made up to help us picture and model what
we physically experience or experiment. Here I would say that PER inspired
courses may be imparting the NOS better than conventional courses, but that
has not been well tested as an outcome. It might also be helpful if the
science texts also debunked the 5 step method, but such a text might not
sell as well.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


.... I think that the capture of science education by the crowd that
insists that *every* experiment must be one where a stated hypothesis
is tested have distorted students' views of what science is, and have
led to some very tortured experimental designs in science fairs and
other competitions.

Amen, brother.

I have no idea where this is hypothesis testing cult is coming
from. I've heard teachers say that strict hypothesis testing is
required by the rules of the science fair, when in fact I have
never been able to find any such requirement in current ISEF
documents, and a friend of mine who has been deeply involved for
years says it has never ever been there.

Every so often I try to de-emphasize hypothesis testing in the
wikipedia article on "Scientific method" but my edits get promptly
reverted.

Evidently the hypothesis testing cult is being passed down from
generation to generation, but I don't know how or why.

In case anybody is wondering where I'm coming from, see
http://www.av8n.com/physics/scientific-methods.htm