Is The Scientific Method Dead?
One of the famous Greek philosophers observed a cat eating a mouse
. The mouse had four legs. So did the cat. Interesting! A moments thought reminded him that wolves ate sheep, and both of them had four legs. A hawk was pursuing a sparrow. They both had two legs. "Animals eat other animals with the same number of legs", he concluded.
He proceeded to write his conclusion in a book which was widely circulated teaching people about nature and science. In it he explained that since the things he had observed were true, and since spiders had eight legs, flies must also have eight legs. Over a hundred years later, a little boy read the book. Bored, he caught a fly to see. It only had six legs. There must be something wrong with it, because the expert said flies had eight legs. Curious now, he caught more flies. They all had six legs. Maybe the Philosopher was wrong. His teachers told him he was just a dumb kid and all but one ignored his comments. Finally, that teacher looked at the flies himself and told the other teachers the boy was right. It didn't have much effect. The idea that flies had eight legs remained in textbooks for another four hundred years.
I have been unable to verify the details of the preceding story, but that the philosopher developed the principle and it was taught for over five hundred years is recorded. Many of the Greek philosophers used a similar method called inductive reasoning. By observing certain facts, one tries to predict other situations. Centuries later the alchemists used the same approach in their quest for a way to turn other metals into gold. Repeated failures led to writing down what didn't work in an effort to prevent repeating the same mistakes. Little by little, the scientific method became formalized, although people had unwittingly used it since the dawn of humanity.
In the scientific method, one observes facts about what ever one is studying, then uses inductive reasoning to postulate what happens in other situations. This is where the philosopher stopped. He assumed he was right and didn't check further. His conclusion must be fact. The alchemists figured out that their postulates might be wrong. They realized they had to test the postulate further to obtain the results they wanted.
They would try their prediction, recording the results. If it didn't work, obviously their was a flaw in their reasoning. Sometimes , it was obvious they were on completely the wrong track and had to start over. Other times the results were similar to what was expected, and they merely adjusted their postulate and tried it again. If their turned out to be correct, They called it a hypothesis. They chose this term because they quickly discovered that sometimes conclusions worked in some cases and not in others. A hypothesis is an idea that works in some cases. It may or may not be true, but you now have a solid starting point. You have been able to produce the desired result.
If the hypothesis does not consistently produce the desired results, it must be wrong, and must be modified or replaced, and the resulting postulate or hypothesis tested. If one is able to produce those results consistently, then probably it is because the hypothesis is at least partially correct, and can now be considered a theory. Now one can begin to refine the theory, testing the effects of small changes and modifying the theory to reflect the results. On rare occasions, one may find that the entire theory is seriously flawed and needs to be completely redone, because of some special circumstance, but only rarely. Only when every possible avenue has been explored and shown that the theory is always true can the theory be considered fact. Until that time. It is a working hypothesis, a rule of thumb that works in most cases.
To use the scientific method requires careful observation and recording of the results of each change, all of which takes time. Modern American society tends to want answers quickly, and is impatient with the scientific method. The tendency is therefore to use inductive reasoning, and assume the conclusion is true. If it turns out to be flawed, rather than checking why, the postulate is abandoned and a new one is adopted. The tendency is showing up in a great many areas of modern society, but especially in the areas of economics, education, and psychology.
It seems that every year an economist develops a new theory of economics and receives a Nobel prize for it. Winning the Nobel prize makes the person an "expert." Government accepts the expertise and takes several years to implement some of these theories. As a result, theories that have been proven false are still being followed years later. This is a major factor in the current economic crisis, and in the actions being taken to resolve it.
American Schools are failing because, rather than systematically studying what is required to educate the children, they are seeking a system that will automatically do so. The problem has existed for years, but is exacerbated by threats of loosing funding if they do not produce results fast enough. Many schools switch educational programs every two years in a desperate effort to find one that will produce the desired results and prevent funding cuts.
In recent years, we have seen a tremendous increase in school shootings, in murders by teens and even young children, in suicides by children and teens and drug and alcoholism. Clearly, our current approach isn't working. Every few weeks we hear of some new psychologists theory and those responsible for training children implement it.
Several years ago, a teacher friend of mine asked, "If socializing with kids their own age is so important for healthy social development, why are the kids who get the most the most anti social?" It is a valid question, pointing out a failure to examine the results of actions carefully. The problems were much less severe for over a hundred years than at present. Perhaps we need to examine why before implementing some new program. Perhaps children need to be exposed to other ages for healthy social development. Perhaps they need to learn to function with only one or two before meeting a group.
While there have always been problems, some of the current ones have only recently become serious. To go back and see why they were less serious in the past and adjust our approach accordingly would seem the most scientific and intelligent approach.
by: Donald Fishgrab
LW Scientific Microscopes Uses Of Iron As Per Scientific Evidence 3 Steps to Identify Supplements that Lack Scientific Evidence for their Reported Benefits by:Mark Worthen, Psy.D. Scientific Studies...Not So Much Scientific Copyediting ? - Secrets Revealed ! Are You Typing Scientific Publications? 4 Reasons Why The Zodiac Signs Have No Scientific Significance
Contact Lenses And Scientific Advancement Is There Scientifically Proven Weight Loss Method? by:Mahesh Bhat The Scientific Truth About Muscle Growth Once And For All - Part 1 by:Ben Kong The Scientific Truth About Muscle Growth Once And For All - Part 2 by:Ben Kong 10 Uses of Fish Oil Based on Scientific Evidence by:Larry L. Taylor Scientific Wrestling: A New Dawn for an Old Styleh by:Jake Shannon