Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 30/09/2011 05:38 PM, Darren New wrote:
> > On 9/30/2011 8:32, Warp wrote:
> >> That list prominently lacks the crucial concepts of control(led testing)
> >> and peer reviewing.
> >
> > There's plenty of that. Co-students mocking you, and the teacher grading
> > you. ;-)

> Whereas in *real* scientice, it's other eminent scientists who mock you...

  That's the whole point. If your results stand up to that kind of
scrutiny, you're a winner. (See eg. the paper named "100 authors against
Einstein".)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>>> There's plenty of that. Co-students mocking you, and the teacher grading
>>> you. ;-)
>
>> Whereas in *real* scientice, it's other eminent scientists who mock you...
>
>    That's the whole point. If your results stand up to that kind of
> scrutiny, you're a winner. (See eg. the paper named "100 authors against
> Einstein".)

What worries me is the possibility of a theory not being taken seriously 
because nobody likes it, rather than because the theory doesn't work...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:26:45 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> 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.

That happens in some classrooms, but it's not as widespread as it should 
be.

And we wonder why US students "fail" at math & science in the real world.

> 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.

I'm sure it isn't.

>> In short, a skill that isn't taught often enough is that of critical
>> thinking.
> 
> Definitely. Rote memorization teaches nothing, except how to memorize.

Exactly, and primary school is supposed to (or should be) be about 
learning how to learn rather than how to memorize.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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

> Mike Raiford<"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>       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)
>
>    That list prominently lacks the crucial concepts of control(led testing)
> and peer reviewing.
>

Look at the 4th and last points...

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 13:49:31 -0400, Alain wrote:

>>> 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?

That's one of the things I really like about Mythbusters.  They may not 
get the 'science' right all the time, but they are teaching important 
skills in problem decomposition and building a test.  If they ever 
changed the program so as to lose the elements of "developing their 
tests", the show would lose a lot of its appeal.

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

Yep.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 14:56:56 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:

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

I meant to add - but unfortunately, a poorly planned experiment generally 
won't yield meaningful (or useful) results.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >>> There's plenty of that. Co-students mocking you, and the teacher grading
> >>> you. ;-)
> >
> >> Whereas in *real* scientice, it's other eminent scientists who mock you...
> >
> >    That's the whole point. If your results stand up to that kind of
> > scrutiny, you're a winner. (See eg. the paper named "100 authors against
> > Einstein".)

> What worries me is the possibility of a theory not being taken seriously 
> because nobody likes it, rather than because the theory doesn't work...

  Then the detractors would have to point out the flaws.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Alain <aze### [at] qwertyorg> wrote:
> Le 2011/09/30 11:32, Warp a écrit :
> > Mike Raiford<"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>       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)
> >
> >    That list prominently lacks the crucial concepts of control(led testing)
> > and peer reviewing.
> >

> Look at the 4th and last points...

  Which say nothing about controls nor peer reviewing.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>>>> Whereas in *real* scientice, it's other eminent scientists who mock you...
>>>
>>>     That's the whole point. If your results stand up to that kind of
>>> scrutiny, you're a winner. (See eg. the paper named "100 authors against
>>> Einstein".)
>
>> What worries me is the possibility of a theory not being taken seriously
>> because nobody likes it, rather than because the theory doesn't work...
>
>    Then the detractors would have to point out the flaws.

That's what's /supposed/ to happen, yes.

It becomes worrying when people point out "flaws" such as "this theory 
is /obviously/ wrong. Everybody can see that."

I don't know if this actually happens in modern day science. I hope not...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message