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]

Nature of Science (NOS)




One test of this hypothesis that I can think of would be to
investigate the origins within the colleges that are sending these
instructions about "scientific method." I rather doubt they would be
coming from the science departments or the colleges of science. Most
likely they originate from the schools of education, where they myth
of "scientific method" has taken firm root. That seems to be
something that could be investigated.

On the other hand, I support science courses teaching the idea of
"scientific methodology." Students need to learn not just how to
solve problems (after all, if they become scientists, they need to
understand that some problems don't have solutions, and how to
restructure the questions so that answers can be found is an
important skill), but just what science amounts to and how it is
done, at least within the discipline being then studied. It seems to
me that a science course which teaches a realistic view of the nature
of science and how it is done would satisfy at least the letter of
the instructions to include "scientific method" in the courses. Those
students who do not go on to become scientists especially need to
understand how science is done, so they can at least realize what is
going on when they read those gee-whiz articles in the newspapers, or
hear someone expounding on the latest controversy over the
environment, or when they pick up a book by Deepak Chopra or John
Edward.


I do not think that the myth of "scientific method" comes from the education
departments. I would say it is quite the opposite. The education
departments are actively fighting this myth. The cited paper in my NOS post
was written by faculty members in the education departments. It is more
likely to have come from administrators or fellow colleagues in science
departments.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX