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] Re: What is Scientific Process?



Bridgman (the sp. is correct) was a devout experimentalist, and he is
telling us, I think, how to go about taking experimental data. When doing
a measurement, which was the sort of thing he did, you'd better not have
a hypothesis about what the result should be.

If I have a new way to calculate, say, the magnetic moment of the proton
(as I once did), I wouldn't bother with the calculation unless I thought
there was a chance that the answer would agree with experiment (it
didn't). The project was, however, a success in that the method of
calculation turned out to be useful in other contexts.

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, jbellina wrote:

Well put. You can't think about something without thinking about
it. Seems to me this is the same idea as the private universe notion
that our students come into the classroom with ideas. The scientist
always goes into the workspace with ideas.

cheers,

joe
On Aug 30, 2005, at 1:34 PM, James E Mackey wrote:

This was interesting. A compact summary. About the only things I would
question is Bridgeman's quote "“[The scientist] cannot permit himself
any preconception as to what sort of results he will get,
nor must he allow himself to be influenced by wishful thinking or any
personal bias.” This seems wrong. How can one devise an experiment
with
having some preconceptions about the results expected. How does one
decide what to measure without preconceptions about the results. The
provlem would arise when one allows "wishful thinking" to bias his
conclusions based on the experimental results. Everyone has
preconceptions about his experiments, so saying a scientists cannot
permit himself any preconception is wrong.
The second small quibble is with Stephen Gould's quotation 'And humans
evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's
proposed
mechanism or by some other, yet to
be discovered." is a world fact, in the same sense as garvity. It
is not!
James Mackey

Larry Woolf wrote:


Some references that may be useful:

<http://www.southerncrossreview.org/32/feynman3.htm>

<http://www.msu.edu/user/boswort9/attempt1/cep817web/amasci/
scimis.htm#meth>

My perspective, as a working scientist for the past 25 years,
including the
ideas of many others:
<http://www.sci-ed-ga.org/pdfs/how-do-science-10-10-04.pdf>

Larry Woolf
General Atomics
San Diego, CA 92121
<http://www.sci-ed-ga.org>
<http://www.ga.com>




-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Craft
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 8:40 PM
Subject: What is Scientific Process?

As Jack alludes below, the question of what is the "scientific
process" looms large in the ID thread. Also as I wrote
earlier that I am required to teach students (quite rightly)
about the way that scientists do their work. Our mandatory
syllabus makes this clear when it says we need to
cover:

5.2 the nature and practice of science
c) apply scientific processes to test the validity of ideas and
theories
d) describe how an idea can gain acceptance in the scientific
community as either theory or law
g) identify that the nature of observations made depends
upon the
understanding that the observer brings to the situation

My question still stands, and I really would like some input
in this... What is the scientific process that this syllabus
assumes exists??? Are the distinctions made in the syllabus real?





--
"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley