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] strange things in chem book & scientific methods



Actually the scientific method is considered to be the same thing that other
fields do for research.

But there are probably some common things/assumptions that used by all
scientists:
1. control of variables
2. proportional reasoning...
3. We assume that we can repeat an experiment and get the same results.
4. We assume that the laws do not change with time and that they were the
same for all knowable times. This would be an assumed extension of
repeatability.
5. We assume that nature follows regular patterns which can be deduced.
6. Hypothetico deductive reasoning is used frequently. Actually according
to the research of Lawson HD reasoning is the basis of inductive reasoning,
so in a sense induction is not a separate category. Getting students to ask
what if questions is very important, but getting them to generate an
hypothesis is not. But having them predict what they think they will see in
a physical situation is important because it builds visualization skills.
7. We may do not use dogmatic texts to guide our thinking. Apropos this
there is an interesting article in the latest Physics Today about Giovanni
Battista Riccioli.
8. We are often compulsively addicted to being careful and accurate. This
often maddens spouses and some non scientists. We may actually share this
with theologians.
... I suspect there are other characteristics which can be added here

Unfortunately some journals may have have bought into the idea of a fixed
scientific method, and require papers to be of that form. Authors will use
that format just to get published and the bad practice is perpetuated.

The Modeling program very much mirrors this type of philosophy. The science
fair program is a very poor cartoonish simulation of science because of
their insistence on a set method.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

...Oddly, it states that there is no one single Scientific Method.


Hi, Paul

Why do you consider that odd?

Unless you take 'scientific method' to mean something so general that
the term becomes virtually meaningless, surely there is no one
scientific method. (Do you think it is odd because it does not sit
with some of the other rather simplistic and dubious statements in
the book?)

I work in the UK system where for a while we had a curriculum and
assessment regime in place which encouraged students to see
scientific work in terms of a simple 'control-of-variables'
experimental method. One does not have to adopt an extreme
Feyerabend-like perspective on scientific processes (i.e. the history
of science suggests there is no such thing as scientific method) to
acknowledge there are many scientific fields where such an approach
is seldom adopted or even possible.