Re: [Phys-L] scientific method diagram

[Krishna Chowdary <chowdark@gmail.com>]

Have folks explored this resource deeply? Any thoughts? Seems like it
might be relevant.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/index.php

-Krishna

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 5:00 PM, John Denker <jsd@av8n.com> wrote:
> Hi --
>
> The conventional five-step "poster" version of the so-called
> "scientific method" is an abomination.  There are about ten
> things wrong with it.
>   http://www.av8n.com/physics/scientific-methods.htm#sec-poster
>
> However, there is a proverb:  "You can't beat something with
> nothing".  That is to say, even though the poster is worse
> than nothing, it is hard to ask people to tear down that poster
> unless you can offer some sort of replacement.
>
> Therefore I cobbled up the following:
>   http://www.av8n.com/physics/scientific-methods.htm#sec-pub
>
> It's a diagram, plus a little story about how science /sometimes/
> gets done.
>
> The diagram is arguably too complicated and arguably not
> complicated enough ... but I reckon it is an improvement
> over the five-step non-iterative grossly-wrong poster.
>
> This is a work in progress.  I am quite aware that it would
> help to make the diagram more flashy and colorful ... but
> before doing that I wanted to make it correct (or at least
> not too grossly wrong) as to substance.
>
> Comments?  Questions?  Suggestions?
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@phys-l.org
> http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l