Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 101 views

    Dogma PDF

    Uploaded by

    Aankh Benu
    This editorial discusses the oversimplified view of "the scientific method" as a linear process of hypothesizing, predicting, testing, and concluding. The authors argue that science involves a more diverse "toolbox" of methods, including model-building, analogy, pattern recognition, and chance. They provide several historical examples where prominent scientists like Darwin, Watson, Crick, and Morgan did not strictly follow the prescribed scientific method. The authors encourage teaching a broader view of scientific inquiry to help students better understand the complexity, uncertainty, and fallibility inherent in the scientific process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Dogma PDF

    Uploaded by

    Aankh Benu
    101 views2 pages
    This editorial discusses the oversimplified view of "the scientific method" as a linear process of hypothesizing, predicting, testing, and concluding. The authors argue that science involves a more diverse "toolbox" of methods, including model-building, analogy, pattern recognition, and chance. They provide several historical examples where prominent scientists like Darwin, Watson, Crick, and Morgan did not strictly follow the prescribed scientific method. The authors encourage teaching a broader view of scientific inquiry to help students better understand the complexity, uncertainty, and fallibility inherent in the scientific process.

    Original Title

    dogma.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This editorial discusses the oversimplified view of "the scientific method" as a linear process of hypothesizing, predicting, testing, and concluding. The authors argue that science involves a more diverse "toolbox" of methods, including model-building, analogy, pattern recognition, and chance. They provide several historical examples where prominent scientists like Darwin, Watson, Crick, and Morgan did not strictly follow the prescribed scientific method. The authors encourage teaching a broader view of scientific inquiry to help students better understand the complexity, uncertainty, and fallibility inherent in the scientific process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    101 views2 pages

    Dogma PDF

    Uploaded by

    Aankh Benu
    This editorial discusses the oversimplified view of "the scientific method" as a linear process of hypothesizing, predicting, testing, and concluding. The authors argue that science involves a more diverse "toolbox" of methods, including model-building, analogy, pattern recognition, and chance. They provide several historical examples where prominent scientists like Darwin, Watson, Crick, and Morgan did not strictly follow the prescribed scientific method. The authors encourage teaching a broader view of scientific inquiry to help students better understand the complexity, uncertainty, and fallibility inherent in the scientific process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    GUEST EDITORIAL

    The Dogma of “The” Scientific Method

    T his is the challenge of science—


    to shed dogma and get closer to
    the truth.
    — Rudolph Tanzi & Ann Parson
    al, some statistical, some based
    on controls, some on similarity
    relationships, some on elaborate
    thought experiments, and so on.
    through synthesizing observa-
    tions on biogeography, fossils,
    organismal design, population
    growth, and limited resources.
    Again, we think students should Only subsequently did he recon-
    (2000, p. 2)
    be encouraged to think about evi- struct it as “one long argument”
    It’s altogether too easy to dence and argument broadly. in the Origin of Species (Mayr,
    reduce all method in science to a 1991). In their more recent and
    Consider just a few historical
    simple algorithm. Hypothesize, monumental work on Darwin’s
    examples. First, note Watson and
    deduce (or predict), test, evaluate, finches, Rosemary and Peter
    Crick’s landmark model of DNA.
    conclude. It seems like a handy Grant have simply extracted sig-
    It was just that: a model. They
    formula for authority. “The” nificant patterns from volumi-
    drew on data already available.
    Scientific Method (expressed in nous data they collected over
    They also played with cardboard
    this way) haunts the introductions many years (Weiner, 1994; Grant
    templates of nucleotide bases
    of textbooks, lab report guide- & Grant, 2002). No hypothesis.
    (Watson, 1968). Yes, their
    lines, and science fair standards. No experiment. No control. If
    hypothesis of semi-conservative
    Yet we consider it a poor model for such great heroes of biology did
    replication was eventually tested
    learning about method in science. not use the prescribed Scientific
    by Meselson and Stahl—later. But
    We endorse instead teaching Method, how can anyone justifi-
    even that involved enormous
    about the Scientists’ Toolbox. ably portray it as “the” method of
    experimental creativity (Holmes,
    Science draws on a suite of meth- science?
    2001). Consider, too, Mendel’s
    ods, not just one. The methods discoveries in inheritance. Scientific papers do indeed
    also include model-building, Mendel did not test just seven seem to follow the scientific
    analogy, pattern-recognition, traits, cleverly chosen in advance method. But they are reconstructed
    induction, blind search and selec- (as the story is often told). accounts of completed work. They
    tion, raw data harvesting, com- Rather, he seems to have fol- are composed to fit a standardized
    puter simulation, experimental lowed twenty-two traits, hoping publication format. They do not
    tinkering, chance and (yes) play, for patterns to emerge. He ulti- describe how research always
    among others. The toolbox con- mately abandoned those he occurs in practice (Medawar,
    cept remedies two major prob- found confusing (Di Trocchio, 1964; Bazerman, 1988; Knorr-
    lems in the conventional view. 1991). Nobelist Thomas Hunt Cetina, 1984).
    First, it credits the substantial Morgan, in Mendel’s wake, did The chief problem we see is
    work—scientific work—in develop- not discover sex-linkage through that students come to believe that
    ing concepts, or hypotheses. any formal hypothesis about the Scientific Method guarantees
    Science is creative. Even to pur- inheritance. He was looking for discovery and unambiguous, reli-
    sue the popular strategy of falsifi- species-level mutations. When he able conclusions. Uncertainty,
    cation, one must first have imagi- first encountered his famous incompleteness, or revision are
    native conjectures. We need to white-eyed mutant, he did not excluded. Of course, science is
    foster such creative thinking immediately frame a prospective fallible. But how? The Scientific
    skills among students. Second, conclusion. Rather, he probed Method does not say. Bauer
    the toolbox view supports many and observed, not sure what he (1992) has nicely profiled how
    means for finding evidence— had found (Allen, 1978). Or con- the mythic Method misleads. For
    some direct, some indirect, some sider Darwin. Darwin arrived at Bauer, scientific ideas develop
    experimental, some observation- natural selection, of course, gradually, subjected to successive

    EDITORIAL 485
    645
    filters. There is no unique algorithm The reasoning shouldn’t seem for- References
    yielding absolute truth. We believe eign. Students should see that when
    that students need to learn how sci- we apply these same methods to Allen, G.E. (1978). Thomas Hunt Morgan:
    ence can be limited, how some evi- understanding the natural world, we The Man and His Science. Princeton,
    dence can be complex, and how call it science. NJ: Princeton University Press.
    some questions can be unresolved. Anand, P. (2002). Decision-making
    That, in turn, helps them under- We thus encourage our col-
    leagues to teach the suite of skills in when science is ambiguous. Science,
    stand how (or when) we should 295, 1839.
    trust scientific claims. Such judg- science. ABT is an excellent resource.
    ment is especially important as more In just the past two years, articles Bauer, H.H. (1992). Scientific Literacy and
    and more public decisions involve have featured such skills as: the Myth of the Scientific Method.
    Urbana, IL: University of Illinois
    complex and/or ongoing science • framing inquiry questions Press.
    (Anand, 2002). (Marbach-Ad & Clawasen,
    63/6), Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping Written
    Given that the conventional Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of
    Scientific Method does not adequate- • building hypotheses (Hoese the Experimental Article in Science.
    ly describe the richness of science, we & Nowicki, 63/3), Madison, WI: University of
    marvel at its hold on the school Wisconsin Press.
    mindset. Why the entrenched • designing experiments
    dogma? At one level, the simplicity (Deutch, 63/4; Temple, Di Trocchio, F. (1991). Mendel’s experi-
    may be merely convenient. But the 64/1), and ments: a reinterpretation. Journal of
    the History of Biology, 24, 485-519.
    dogmas may be deeper. Those who • integrating and assessing
    actively defend the Scientific Method data from multiple methods Einstein, A. (1954). Ideas and Opinions.
    (recently in ABT: Lawson, September, (Singer, Hagen & Sheehy, New York: Dell.
    2000; McPherson, April, 2001) seem 63/7).
    concerned with the privilege of sci- Grant, P.R. & Grant, B. R. (2002).
    In addition, we advocate historical Unpredictable evolution in a 30-
    ence. For them, science is special. It is
    year study of Darwin’s finches.
    beyond the ordinary. It is exclusive. case studies, which allow students to
    Science, 296, 707-711.
    The Scientific Method demarcates see biology in action (e.g., Hagen,
    Science with a capital ‘S’. Without Allchin & Singer, 1996; reviewed in Hagen, J.B., Allchin, D. & Singer, F.
    discipline, it would seem, no claim is ABT, April, 1999). (1996). Doing Biology, Glenview, IL:
    any better than any other. Order Harper Collins.
    If one must characterize method
    seems secured by rule-following and Holmes, F.L. (2001). Meselson, Stahl, and
    in science concisely, let it be some-
    conformism. Portrayed in this way, of the Replication of DNA: A History of
    thing like this:
    course, the promise of The Scientific ‘The Most Beautiful Experiment in
    Method seems grossly overstated. Yet Scientists follow hunches, clues, Biology’. New Haven, CT: Yale
    we wonder how prevalent this per- and questions obtained from observa- University Press.
    spective is. tions, earlier claims, reading, etc. They
    Knorr-Cetina, K. (1984). The Manufacture
    explore how to generate relevant infor-
    We agree instead with Albert of Knowledge. Oxford: Pergamon
    mation. They consider possible sources Press.
    Einstein (even though he was not a
    of error. They engage others in inter-
    biologist!): “The whole of science is
    preting evidence. Results usually lead Mayr, E. (1991). One Long Argument.
    nothing more than a refinement of every- Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
    to more questions. Ideas are refined.
    day thinking” (Einstein, 1954, p. 283). Press.
    Some change, some are abandoned.
    Accordingly, a conception of scientific
    method should grow out of familiar Yes, teach how to pose hypothe- Medawar, P. (1964). Is the scientific
    experience. It should complement ses. Yes, teach controlled experi- report fraudulent? Yes: It misrepre-
    and extend ordinary discovery ments. As tools. And don’t stop sents scientific thought. Saturday
    processes. And it should highlight Review, 47(August 1, 1964), 42-43.
    there. Viewing science as con-
    how to establish reliable evidence—an strained by one privileged method is Tanzi, R.E. & Parson, A.B. (2000).
    aim shared, for example, by journal- greatly impoverished. We do science Decoding Darkness. Cambridge, MA:
    ists and judges. A physician diagnos- in many ways. Let’s teach the Perseus.
    ing an illness, a mechanic trou- Scientists’ Toolbox.
    Watson, J.D. (1968). The Double Helix.
    bleshooting a car, a detective tracking
    New York: Atheneum.
    a crime all use the same methods as Dan Wivagg
    scientists, although in different con- Douglas Allchin Weiner, J. (1994). The Beak of the Finch.
    texts. Lab work should make sense. allchin@pclink.com New York: Vintage Books.

    646 THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, VOLUME 64, NO. 9, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2002

    You might also like