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: Scientific Methods



Please excuse this cross posting to discussion lists with archives at:

Phys-L <http://lists.nau.edu/archives/phys-l.html>,

PhysLrnR <http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/physlrnr.html>,

In his Phys-L post of 1 Sep 2002 13:05:31-0400, John Denker lists 10
features of scientific methods, the first being:

"There is no such thing as 'the' scientific method. Science uses many
methods. There will never be a pat answer to the question 'what is
science'. "

John then goes on to list NINE features of scientific methods.

In the section "Can Educational Research be SCIENTIFIC Research" of
Hake (2002), I combine viewpoints of Hestenes (1999) and Redish
(1999) to give only THREE attributes of scientific methods as
practiced by most research scientists:

(1) "EMPIRICAL: Systematic investigation . . . (by quantitative,
qualitative, or any other means) . . . of nature to find reproducible
patterns in the structure of things and the ways they change
(processes)." (Hestenes 1999)

(2) "THEORETICAL: Construction and analysis of models representing
patterns of nature."
(Hestenes 1999).

(3) "Continual interaction, exchange, evaluation, and criticism so as
to build a . . . . community map." (Redish 1999).

Gottfried & Wilson (1997) point out that the latter crucial feature
of scientific methods is often overlooked by social constructivists.
The importance of the scientific community map has been emphasized by
physicists Ziman (2000), Cromer (1997), and Newton (1997); and by
philosopher of science Giere (1997). I suggest that John Denker might
consider adding that feature to his list.

For other perspectives on scientific methods see Ralph Baierlein's
(1998) piece on the question "What is the scientific method" and
subsequent attempted answers by Damon, Deveney, Hestenes, Honig,
Kosso, LoPresto, Nunes, Robinson, and Sobel in Am. J. Phys. 67(4):
273-276 (1999).

But in my opinion all of the above are topped by the great Percy
Bridgeman's (1950) view that:

"The scientific method . . .is nothing more than doing one's
damnedest with one's mind, no holds barred. . ."


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
Baierlein, R. 1998. "Question #77: The Scientific Method." Am. J.
Phys. 66(9): 751.

Bridgeman, P. 1950. "Reflections of a Physicist." Philosophical Library.

Cromer, A. 1997). "Connected Knowledge." Oxford University Press.

Giere, R.N. 1997. "Understanding Scientific Reasoning." Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston.

Gottfried, K. & Wilson K.G. 1997. Science as a cultural construct.
Nature 386, 545-547.

Hake, R.R. 2000. "Towards Paradigm Peace in Physics-Education
Research," presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April 24-28, 2000; on
the web
at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>.

Hake, R.R. 2002. "Lessons from the physics education reform effort."
Conservation Ecology 5(2): 28; online at
<http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art28>. See also Hake (2000).

Hestenes, D. 1999. "The scientific method." Am. J. Phys. 67(4): 274;
online at <http://modeling.la.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>.

Newton, R.G. 1997. "The Truth of Science: Physical Science and
Reality." Harvard University Press.

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>.

Ziman, J.M. (2000). "Real Science," Cambridge University Press, esp.
Sect. 7.3 "What makes science reliable?"