Le 2011/09/30 11:26, Mike Raiford a écrit :
> On 9/29/2011 2:04 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> What's missing from most education these days is teaching of the
>> scientific method. Teaching students scientific facts just gives
>> students something else to believe in. Teaching how those facts were
>> determined to be most likely true (and what process exists to allow that
>> to change to "you know what, we were wrong about that") is more important
>> than the facts themselves.
>>
>
> I thought they still pretty much do that. Granted real scientists don't
> follow the steps with absolute rigor. They may form an idea of what they
> think should happen, then test by experimentation, record their results,
> then try to repeat the results, then have peers repeat the results.
>
> But I doubt they are as formal as:
>
> Define a question
> Gather information and resources (observe)
> Form an explanatory hypothesis
> Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a
> reproducible manner
> Analyze the data
> Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point
> for new hypothesis
> Publish results
> Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
>
> Some, and maybe all of that is happening, but it isn't done by filling
> out scientific method worksheets like I had to do in school.
>
>> In short, a skill that isn't taught often enough is that of critical
>> thinking.
>
> Definitely. Rote memorization teaches nothing, except how to memorize.
>
>

The question is often in the form of:
I wonder what I could find if I watch this or that?
Is there anything hiding behind that?
What would appen if I do something <insert qualificatif>?
Is that wild legent, myth, urban legend, beleif,... actualy based on 
some fact?
What if that crack head could be onto something in his divagations?

Sometimes, it goes straight to perform some experiment, do some 
observations.

Post a reply to this message