introduction to scientific method - theories with reality checks

24/5/2015 IntroductiontoScientificMethodTheorieswithRealityChecks

data:text/htmlcharset=utf8,%3Ctable%20width%3D%22100%25%22%20border%3D%220%22%20cellpadding%3D%2240%22%20bgcolor%3D%22%23FFFFFF%22%20style%3D%22fontfamily%3A%20'Tim 1/13

IntroductiontoScientificMethod:usinglogicalrealitychecksinscienceandotherareasoflife

byCraigRusbult,Ph.D.

Thispageisabeginning.Itwillhelpyouunderstandthesimplicityofscientificmethodinthesimple"realitycheck"thatisthemainfocusofscientificlogic.Butalongthewayyou'llseeotheraspectsofscientificthinkingskills,andattheendyou'llbeinvitedtocontinueyourexplorationofhowitallfitstogetherinabigpicturesoyoucanunderstandthecomplexityofscientificmethodsandtheirpotentialapplicationsinscienceeducation.

Part1:TheFoundationofScientificMethodLogicalRealityChecksSituationsallowObservationsandTheoriesallowPredictionsTheoryEvaluation(bycomparingObservations&Predictions)TheoryGeneration(byanimaginativeuseofRealityChecks)DesigningObservationSituationsGeneration&Evaluation

Part2:Doesascientificmethodexist?ControversyandComplexityAModelforScientificMethod

TheFoundationofScientificMethodlogicalRealityChecksYoucanunderstandandenjoytheadventureofscience,becausethethinkingusedinscienceisnotstrangeandmysterious,it'sthesamethinkingyouuseindailylife.Inscientificlogic,asindailylife,youuserealitycheckstodecidewhether"thewayyouthinktheworldis"matches"thewaytheworldreallyis."We'llbeginbylookingatthecentralactivityofmodernscientificmethod,whenOBSERVATIONS(fromanExperiment)andPREDICTIONS(basedonaTheory)arecomparedinaREALITYCHECKthatisatestofqualityforaTheory:MAKINGOBSERVATIONSInscience,informationaboutnaturecomesfromourobservations.Considertwotypesofobservationsituations:a)Forseveralmonthsyoumakeobservationsaboutthemoon'sappearance,andthetimesandlocationsofitsrisingandsetting.b)Youobservethegrowthofyoungplantsinmanycontexts,byvaryingmanyfactors:light,temperature,typeofseed(limabean,...),typeofsoil,amountandfrequencyofwatering,amountandtypeoffertilizer,treatmentofseed(bysoaking,cooking,...)beforeplanting,andmore.Youtrydifferentcombinationsoffactors,andforeachexperimentyoumakeobservationsbothaboveandbelowthesoilsurface,beforeandaftertheplantgrowsthroughthesurface.



A)Inanuncontrolledobservationsituation(likeobservingthemoon)thesituationissetupbynature.B)Inacontrolledobservationsituation(inthedesignedexperimentswithseeds)humanssetupthesituation,but"whathappens"dependsonnature.Thedegreeofhumancontrol,insettingupanobservationsituationcanrangefromnocontrolthroughpartialcontroltototalcontrol.Observationsthroughouttherangeofcontrolcanbelogicallycomparedwithpredictionstoallowrealitychecks.Therefore,inthispageallobservationsituationswillbecalledexperiments,eventhoughingeneraltheterm"experiment"isreservedforsituationsthatareatleastpartiallycontrolled.Weobserveusinghumansenses(tosee,hear,touch,taste,orsmell)plusinstruments(watch,ruler,scale,pipet,compass,thermometer,microscope,telescope,spectrometer,chromatograph,...)thathelpusmeasuremorepreciselyandobservemorewidely.Wetranslaterawdata(fromsensesorinstruments)into"observations"thatwerecordusingsymbolicrepresentationsthatareverbal(words,...),visual(pictures,...),andmathematical(numbers,...).I.O.U.Later,thissectionwillincludemoreideasaboutthecreativegenerationandcriticalevaluationof"opportunitiesforobservation"duringtheprocessofexperimentaldesign.THEORIESallowPREDICTIONSAtheoryisahumanattempttodescribeand/orexplainourobservationsofwhathappens,or(inhistoricalscience)whathashappened.Adescriptivetheoryclaimsonlytodescribewhathappens.Anexplanatorytheoryclaimstodescribewhathappensandalsowhyithappens.Withadescriptivetheory,predictionsaremadebygeneralizing,inanextrapolationthatassumes"whathappenedbeforeinsituationsthataresimilar(butusuallynotidentical)willhappenagain."Or,youcouldviewthispredictionasauseofifthendeductivelogic:"Ifthissituationissimilartoprevioussituations(asclaimedbythetheory),thenweshouldexpectaresultthatissimilar."Forexample,youcouldpredictthetimeandlocationofthemoonriseonWednesday,byextrapolatingbasedonpatternsyourecognizedwhilethinkingaboutobservationsfromSunday,Monday,andTuesday.Anexplanatorytheoryclaimstoexplain"howandwhythingsarehappening"inanexperimentalsystembydescribingverbally,visually,and/ormathematicallythesystem'scomposition(whatitis)andoperation(whatitdoes).Youcanusethismodeltomakepredictionsbyansweringthequestion,"Inthissituation,ifthecompositionandoperationmodelistrue(asclaimedbythetheory),thenwhatwillhappenandwhatwillweobserve?"Witheithertypeoftheory,theiftheninferenceissimilar.Yourunamentalexperimentbythinking,"Inthissituation,IFthesystembehavesasexpected(accordingtothetheory),THENwewillobserve___"andwhatyouputintheblankisyourtheorybasedprediction.Whenscientistsmakeaniftheninference,theycanmovefromIFtoTHENinavarietyofways.Theymightrememberwhathashappenedbefore,andextrapolatefromthispastintothefuturebyestimatinghowsimilaritiesanddifferencesinsituations(whencomparingprevioussituationswiththecurrentsituation)willtranslateintosimilaritiesanddifferencesinobservations.Or,ifatheoryincludesanequationoramodel,theycouldsubstitutenumbersintotheequationandcalculate,or"runthemodel"intheirmindsorinaphysicalsimulationorcomputersimulation.Ifpredictionscanbemadeusingseveralmethods,thiswillserveasacheckonthepredictingmethodsandacrosscheckonthepredictions.Atheorybasedinferenceabout"whatwillhappenandwhatwillbeobserved"canbemadeeitherbeforeorafterobservationsareknown.Whenaninferenceismadeafterobservationsareknown,thereismoreconcernaboutunconscious



biasorconsciouscheating,sincenonvalidlogiccouldbeusedinanattempttoachieveamatchbetweentheinferenceandtheknownobservations.Butinferenceswitheithertimingarelogicallyequivalentifeachisobtainedusingvalidlogic,andinsciencebotharecalled"predictions".

THEORYEvaluation(leadingtoTheoryStatus)Thelogicalfoundationofscientificmethodistherealitycheck.Byobservingrealityandusinglogic,scientistscandecidewhetheratheoryabout"thewayitis"correspondswith"thewayitreallyis."Aphysicalexperimentallowsobservationsofwhatnatureactuallydoes,andamentalexperimentletsusmakepredictionsaboutwhatnaturewilldo.Inarealitycheck,scientistscompareOBSERVATIONSwithTHEORYbasedPREDICTIONS.Ifatheoryfailsinrealitychecksbecauseitspredictionsdonotmatchobservations,scientistscanrejectthetheory.*Bycontrast,acorrectpredictiondoesnotproveatheoryistrue,becauseothertheories(currentorfuture)mightmakethesamecorrectprediction.Todistinguishbetweentwotheories,weneedtoobservewhathappensinacrucialexperimentthatprovidesasituationwherethetwotheoriesmakedifferentpredictions.{*Butadecisiontorejectatheoryisajudgmentcall,andscientistsmaybecautiousaboutimmediatelyclaiming"falsification"afterafailedrealitycheck,duetothepossibilitythattheirknowledge(ofthesituation,observations,orpredictions)isinaccurate.}MultipleIndependentConfirmations:Whenatheorymakescorrectpredictionsinawidevarietyofindependentareas,andalternativetheoriesmakeincorrectpredictions,thisprovidesstrongevidencethattherepeatedlyconfirmedtheoryistrue.Usually,empiricalfactors(basedonrealitychecks)arethemainfactorsintheoryevaluation.Butscientistsalsoconsiderconceptualfactorssuchasatheory'slogicalcharacteristics(likeinternalconsistencyandstructuralsimplicity)anditsrelationshipswithothercurrentlyacceptedtheories.Scientistsarealsoinfluencedbyculturalpersonalfactors(suchaspersonaldesires,grouppressures,practicalconsiderations,philosophical&religiousviews,metaphysicalperspectives,personalthinkinghabits,culturalthoughtstyles)butmostscientiststhinkthequalityofsciencedecreaseswhenthesefactorsaffecttheresultsoftheoryevaluation.Theoverallresultoftheoryevaluationisanestimateoftheorystatus.Thisstatus,whichcanrangefromverylowtoveryhigh,indicatesthescientists'confidenceinatheory.Mostscholarswhostudysciencethinkwecannotlogicallyproveatheoryiseithertrueorfalse,butwecandeveloparationallyjustifiedconfidenceinourconclusions.

AVISUALSUMMARYThediagrambelow,whichshowstheessenceofscientificmethod,hasthreemainelements:OBSERVATIONS&PREDICTIONS(thesetwoarecomparedinaREALITYCHECK)andTHEORY.Ifyoustudythediagramandthinkaboutwhatyou'vebeenreading,itshouldmakesense.NoticethearrowspointingawayfromTHEORY(becauseatheoryisusedformakingthepredictionsusedtoevaluateatheory,asexplainedabove)andtowardTHEORY(becauseobservationsareusedtogenerateatheory,asexplainedbelow).



THEORYGenerationThefocusnowshiftsfromtheoryevaluationtotheorygeneration,withthinkingthatisbothcreativeandcritical,whenweask"Wheredoscientifictheoriescomefrom?"Usually,scientistsworkwiththeoriesthatalreadyexist.Butearlierinthehistoryofsciencethesetheorieshadtobegenerated.Andsometimescurrentscientistsinventtheirownnewtheories,usuallybyrevisingoldtheories.Typically,theprocessofgenerationisdifferentforadescriptivetheoryandexplanatorytheory.Adescriptivetheoryisgeneratedwhenscientistsrecognizeapattern,whentheynoticethatinacertaintypeofsituationaparticularresulthappens.Theydescribetheobservedregularitybyclaimingthat"Inthissituation(when___),___willhappen."Forexample,wecansaythat"Whenanobjectisreleased,itwillfalltowardtheground."Butisthistheoryalwayscorrect?Howdowereact,thinkingasscientists,whenweseethatsomeobjectssuchasaheliumballoon,bottlerocket,orbirddonotfall?Wereviseourgeneraltheory,limitingitsclaimsbysayingthat"Inmostsituations,areleasedobjectwillfalldownward."Andwetrytofindtheoriesthatexplainwhytheregularityoccurs,andwhytheexceptionsoccur.Forexample,wecanexplaintherisingofaheliumballoonbyproposingtheexistenceofanupwardbuoyantforcethatcauseslighterthanairobjectstoriseinair.Andwecangeneralizethisforcetootherobjectsandfluids,toalsoexplainwhyacorkfloatsonwater.Anexplanatorytheoryisusuallygeneratedbyaprocessofcreativethinkinginwhichimaginationisguidedbythelogicofrealitychecks,withcreativitybeingstimulatedbyobservationsandguidedbycriticalthinking.Inpredictionweaskacausetoeffectquestion:"Inthissituation,ifthesecausesareoperating,whatwillbetheobservedeffects?"Theifthenreasoningisreversedinretroduction(usingretroductivelogic)whenweaskaneffecttocausequestion:"Inthissituation,iftheseeffectswereobserved,whatcausescouldhavebeenoperating?"Thisreversedquestioninspiresasearchinwhichwedomentalexperimentsoverandover,eachtime"tryingout"adifferenttheoryinanattempttoproducepredictionsthatmatchtheknownobservations.Thegoalistofindatheorythatwillpasstherealitycheck,tofindatheorythat,iftrue,wouldexplainwhathasbeenobserved.{Inthediagramabove,youcanimaginea"feedbackcycle"forthethreemainelements,witheachrealitycheckprovidingfeedbackthathelpsyouuseOBSERVATIONStoretroductivelygenerateanewTHEORYwhosenewPREDICTIONSwillmorecloselymatchtheoldOBSERVATIONSinthenextrealitycheck.Inthiswaythereisanintimateblendingofcreativegenerationwithcriticalevaluation.}Sometimesthedistinctionbetweendescriptionandexplanationisn'tclear,sowealsohavesemiexplanatorytheories.

Butdoscientiststypicallydesigntheories?Intheirdailywork,scientistsrarelydesignlargescalegeneralizedmegatheories,suchasthetheoriesofgravity,invariance,orevolutiondevelopedbyNewton,Einstein,orDarwin.Instead,usually



theyareapplyinggeneralizedtheoriesthatalreadyareaccepted,intheirstudyofparticularexperimentalsituationsforwhichtheyaredesigningsmallscalespecializedsubtheories.Forexample,agroupofchemistsmightapplygeneralizedtheories(atomictheory,quantummechanics,kinetics,thermodynamics,...)toaparticularexperimentalsystem,oracollectionofsystems,inanefforttodesignasubtheorythatseemstobetrue(and/oruseful)forthesesystems.Or,morecommonly,scientistssimplyacceptthemegatheories&subtheoriesdevelopedbyothers,sotheycanmakeobservationsandlearnmoreaboutnatureintheexperiments(controlledoruncontrolled)theyaredesigningandrunning.

Youcanbeascientist,generatingyourowntheorytoexplainmoonphases,by"runningamodel"forthesunearthmoonsystem.*Darkenaroom,turnonalamptobethesun,useoneballfortheearthwithamarker(asticker,apin,...)toshowyourlocationonearth,soyoucanimagine"whatyouwillsee"fromthatlocationandanotherballforthemoon.Bylookingattheeffectsofearth'srotationarounditsaxis,andthemoon'sorbitaroundearth,youshouldalsobeabletoexplainwhythesunsetsinthewest,andwhythereisapatternformoonphasesandtheassociatedtimesofmoonrisesandmoonsets.

EXPERIMENTALDesignCreativeGenerationandCriticalEvaluationBydefiningthetermbroadly,experimentscanincludeallobservationsituations,bothcontrolledexperimentalsituationsanduncontrolledfieldsituationsthatcanbecalledfieldexperimentsornaturalexperiments.Whenscientistsdesignanexperiment(orsetofexperiments)theirgeneralgoalistofillgapsincurrentknowledgebygatheringinformationaboutexperimentalsystemsortechniques.Morespecifically,anexperimentcanbedoneto"seewhatwillhappen"inanewsituationortotestthereproducabilityofobservationsfrompreviousexperiments,toresolveananomaly,impressafundingagency,orprovidesupportforanargument,asinacrucialexperimentthatcandistinguishbetweencompetingtheories.Scientistsoftenrunthoughtexperimentsusuallysotheycanbemoreefficient(towastelessoftheirvaluabletimeandresources),butalsooccasionallyforsystemsthatcannotbephysicallyobservedbyasking"ifwedothis,whatmighthappenandwhatwouldwelearn?"*Theprevioussectionendedwithonetypeofthoughtexperiment,"runningamodel"andusingphysicalobjectstomakeyourvisualthinkingmoreeasyandeffective.Anothertypeofthoughtexperiment,becomingmuchmorecommonduringthepastfewdecades,arethecomputersimulationsthathelpscientistsdomathematicalthinkingmoreeasilyandeffectively./Anothertypeofthoughtexperimentistoimaginethequestionsthatwillbeasked,byyourselfandothers,duringevaluation"isthesamplelargeenoughanddoesitaccuratelyrepresentthewholepopulation?"or"whataretheeffectsofsystematicerrorsandrandomerrors?"or...andthendesignexperimentstoanswerthesequestions.Newopportunitiesforexperimentingcanarisefromnewevents(likeanozonehole)ornewdiscoveries(ofolddinosaurbones,...).Scientistsmaywanttotestanewsubtheoryorexploreitsapplicationforavarietyofsystems.Anewobservationtechnologymayallownewexperimentalsystems.Scientistswhoareawareandcreative,thinkingwithopenmindedimagination,cantakeadvantageofopportunities.



Part2Doesascientificmethodexist?Isthereascientificmethod?If"method"means"asinglemethod,usedinthesamewaybyallscientistsatalltimes,"theanswerisNO.Somedetailsofmethodschangewithtimeandculture,andvaryfromoneareaofsciencetoanother,sothereisnothingthatcouldbecalledTheScientificMethod.Butsomescientificmethodsarecommonlyusedbyscientists.Themethodsofscientistsaredesignedtobefunctional,toachievegoals.Formostscientists,themaingoalistofindtruth.Theywanttoconstructtheoriesthataretrue,thatcorrespondwithrealitybycorrectlydescribingwhatreallyhappensinnature.Inasearchfortruetheories,themainthinkingtoolsthegenerationandevaluationoftheories,usingobservation,imagination,andlogicaredescribedabove.Butscientistsdomorethanjustgenerateandevaluatetheories.Theyalsodesignanddoexperiments,planbigresearchprojectsandsmalldailyactivities,describe(bywritingandtalking)theirownresearch,learn(byreadingandlistening)abouttheresearchofothers,discussideaswithotherscientists,andmore.Basically,scientistsdomentallyandphysicallywhatevertheythinkwillhelpthemachievetheirgoals.Themethodsofscienceareflexible,notrigid.Considertwotypesoficeskaters.Thesequentialactionsofafigureskaterarepreciselyplannedand,iftherearenomistakes,predictable.Bycontrast,eventhoughhockeyskatershaveastrategicplan,theplanisintentionallyflexible,witheachskaterimprovisinginresponsetowhathappensduringagame.Themethodsusedinscienceareanalogoustotheflexible"structuredimprovisation"ofahockeyskater,nottherigidchoreographyofafigureskater.Theseideasareexaminedinmoredetailinapageasking"Isthereascientificmethod?"

InPart1yousawalogicalstructuralanalysisofscience&design,focusingonlogic.Butinscience,decisionsaremadebypeople.Thisaddsanotherlayerofcomplexityinreallife,scientistsaremotivatedandguidedbyawidevarietyoffactorsthatextendbeyondlogictoincludeculturalpersonalfactors,asdescribedbelowinControversyandComplexity.

ControversyandComplexityScholars,includingscientistsandthose(inphilosophy,history,sociology,psychology,andeducation)whostudyscience,havevigorousdiscussionsaboutthemethodsusedinscience.Someofthemosthotlydebatedquestionsareaboutculturalpersonalinfluencesintheprocessofscience,especiallyinevaluationsofscientifictheories:Areculturalpersonaleffectssignificant,andaretheydesirable?Mostscientiststhinktheseeffectsshouldbeminimized,butsomescholars(especiallynonscientistswhohaveadoptedapostmodernperspective)thinkculturalpersonalfactorsshouldbeapartofscientifictheoryevaluation.Iclaimthatempiricalfactorsareusually(butnotalways)themainfactors(butnottheonlyfactors)duringtheoryevaluation,thatconceptualfactorsareusually(butnotalways)scientificallyuseful,andthatculturalpersonalfactorsshouldberecognized(theydooccur)andminimized(becausetheyusuallyarenotscientificallyuseful).Inwhatways,andtowhat



extent,aretheprocessandresultsofevaluationinfluencedbyconceptualfactorsandculturalpersonalfactors?Theinfluencevaries,becauseitdependsonthescientists(andtheirculture)andthetheory.Anditdependsonwhoisansweringthequestion,sincethisisatopicforhotdebateamongscientistsand(especially)thescholarswhostudyscience.Mostofthispagehasemphasizedtheimportanceofempirical"realitychecks"andthesimplicityofscience.ButIalsorecognizetheeffectsofnonempiricalfactorsandthecomplexityofscience,asexplainedbelow.

AModelforScientificMethod(inallofitsgloriouscomplexity)I'vedevelopeda"modelforthemethodsofscience"thatdescribesnineaspectsofwhatscientistsdo:1.HypotheticoDeductiveLogic,andEmpiricalFactorsinTheoryEvaluation2.ConceptualFactorsinTheoryEvaluation3.CulturalPersonalFactorsinTheoryEvaluation4.TheoryEvaluation(usingcriticalthinking)5.TheoryGeneration(usingcreativethinking)6.ExperimentalDesign(GenerationandEvaluation)7.ProblemSolvingProjects8.ThoughtStyles(culturalandpersonal)9.MentalOperations(creativeandcriticalthinking)

Thediagramtotheright,whichissimilartotheoneabovebutwithlessdetail,shows9aspectsofScientificMethod:3ofthem[123]forevaluationfactors(empirical,conceptual,culturalpersonal),another3[456]forthedesigning(generation&evaluation)oftheoriesandexperiments,and3[789]fortheprocessofscience(problemsolvingprojects,thoughtstyles,productivethinking).Becausemymodelshowsthefunctionalrelationshipsbetweenthese9aspectsofsciencebyintegratingtheirrelationshipsintoacoherentframework,IcallitIntegratedScientificMethod.Thismodelofscientificthinking,fortheexploratoryprocessofinquiryusedbyscientistswhentheyaskquestionsandtrytofindanswers,isaunifyingsynthesisofideas(mainlyfromscientistsandphilosophers,butalsofromsociologists,psychologists,historians,andmyself)thatcanbeusefulforunderstandingthemethodsofproblemsolvingusedinscience,andforhelpingstudentsimprovetheirskillswiththesemethodsofthinking.MymodelofscientificmethodsisnotTHEScientificMethod,andits9partsareaspectsofscienceratherthanstepsinasequence.Thismodelisoutlined,verballyandvisually,inABasicOverviewofScientificMethodandisexaminedwithmore



depthinADetailedOverviewofScientificMethodwhichisacondensationofthefirsthalfofmyPhDdissertationthesecondhalfwastheapplicationofthismodelfortheintegrativeanalysisofascienceinquiryclassroom..

Inthepageyou'renowreading,youalreadyhaveseensomeofthenineperspectivesonscientificthinkingandaction.Inthispagethemainfocushasbeen"realitychecks"usinghypotheticodeductivelogic(1),butyou'vealsoseentheprocessoftheorygeneration(5)andtheoryevaluation(4)andhowatheoryisdesignedusing"qualitychecks"withthecriteriaforqualitybasedonacombinationofempiricalfactors(1)andconceptualfactors(2)andculturalpersonalfactors(3),andeverythingisinfusedwiththeproductivementaloperations(9)ofcreativeideagenerationandcriticalideaevaluation.

AModelforDesignProcessThispageincludesabriefoutline[whichneedsrevisingiou]ofScienceasDesign.YoucanlearnmoreaboutdesignstrategieswhichareusedforalmosteverythingyoudoinlifeinAnIntroductiontoDesignwhichgivesrealworldexamplesofproblemsolvingandtheprocessofdesign,plusoutlinesofdesignandsciencerelationships(whichareexploredmoredeeplyinDesign&Science)andeducationalapplicationsofDesignProcess&ScientificMethodandAnOverviewofDesignProcessoffersa"modesofthinkingandaction"perspectivethatcomplementsAnIntroductiontoDesign.

ContinuedExplorationsofScience,andApplicationsforEducationLearningabasicmodelofscientificmethod,asinthispage,isagoodwaytobegin.Butusuallyitisn'tagoodplacetoend.Ifyouwanttounderstandsciencemorecompletely,andappreciateitmorefully,IencourageyoutocontinueyourjourneyofexplorationbeginningwiththeBasicOverviewofIntegratedScientificMethod(linkisabove)whichwillhelpyoulearnmoreaboutthefascinatingcomplexityofscience.Youcanalsostudythehotdebatesaboutscience:Shouldscientificmethodbeeksrated?Andinanoccasionallycontroversialarea,educators(plusparents,schoolboards,...)thinkaboutthegoalsandmethodsofgeneraleducationandscienceeducation.Inalltypesofschoolspublic,private,andhome,fromK12throughcollegeteachersarewonderinghowthelogicalthinkingskillsofsciencecanbetaughtmoreeffectivelyintheclassroom.Theywanttoofferaqualityeducationthatincludesscientificconceptsplusthinkingskills,sostudentswillbemotivatedtolearn,andwilllearnhowtothinkmoreoftenandmoreeffectively,withenthusiasmandskill.Awidevarietyofquestionsaboutcreativeandcriticalthinking,curriculumdesign,teachingstrategies,...areexploredintheareasforthinkingskills&teachingmethods.[update:Inearly2012,Ibeganmakinga"condensedwebsite"fortheseideas,UsingDesignProcessinProblemSolvingandEducation,whichIrecommendthenextthreelinksarefortheolderwebpagesthatI'mcondensing.]AgoodstartingplaceistheconclusionofAnIntroductiontoDesignwhichleadstoProblemSolving&MetacognitioninEducation.AlsocheckAnOverviewofDesignProcess.Andforcontinuedexploration,youcanseewhat'savailableinanoverviewsitemapforDesignProcess&ScientificMethodinEducationDevelopingaCurriculumforThinkingSkillsandProblemSolvingwhereyou'llseelinkstopagesasking"HowcanweuseAesop'sActivitiesforgoaldirectededucation?"andmore.



APPENDIXSemiExplanatoryTheoriesPhilosophersofscienceask,"Whatisrequiredforanadequateexplanation?",andtheydon'toffereasyanswers.Theysaythateventhoughdistinguishingbetweendescriptionandexplanationcanbeuseful,usuallyitisn'tentirelyaccuratebecausemostmoderntheoriesclaimtoexplainsomethingsbutnoteverything.Consider,forexample,Newton'stheoryofgravity.Itdescribeswhathappens:twoobjectsattracteachotherwithaforceofGMm/R2whereGisaconstantofnature,Mandmaretheobjects'masses,andRisthedistancebetweentheircenters.Italsoprovidessomeexplanation:gravitationalforceiscausedbyinteractionbetweenthemassesofanytwoobjects,anywhereintheuniverse.Buttheexplanationisnotsatisfactoryatdeeperlevels,whenweaskadditionalquestionsabouthowandwhy:Howisgravitationalforceproduced?Isitassociatedwithanelementaryparticle,agraviton?Isitrelatedtostrong,weak,andelectromagneticforces?Howisittransmittedthroughalmostemptyspacebetweentheearthandmoon?Whydoesgravityexist?Forthesequestions,scientistsstilldon'thavesatisfactoryanswers.Andothersemiexplanatorytheorieswhichcanclaim"someexplanationbutnotafullexplanation"occurinotherareasofscience.

VisualRepresentationsofThinkinginScienceModeandDesignMode:

Below,thethirddiagramcombinesideasfromthetoptwodiagrams(whichshowrelationshipsbetweenThinkinginScienceMode&DesignMode)plusadditionalideasaboutPredictiveFeedback,EmpiricalFeedback,andmore.

Thebottomdiagram(initslowerpart,belowtheshadedtopparts)showssomeimportantdetailsofInventingandUsingaTheory.

(thebottomdiagramwithnodistortingphotoreduction)


data:text/htmlcharset=utf8,%3Ctable%20width%3D%22100%25%22%20border%3D%220%22%20cellpadding%3D%2240%22%20bgcolor%3D%22%23FFFFFF%22%20style%3D%22fontfamily%3A%20'Ti 10/13



Thissectionhasadarkgraybackgroundandsmallfontsizebecauseit'snotworthreading.Later,I'lleitherreviseitorwillremoveit.Untilthen,youshouldjustignoreit.

ScienceasDesignScienceProcessinthecontextofDesignProcessAusefulwaytothinkaboutscienceanddesignistodefinescienceas"thedesigningoftheories&experiments."Theprocessofdesignisbrieflyoutlinedbelow,inCombiningtwothinkingstrategies...Thus,scientistsdesigntheories,andexperimentsthatletthemmakepredictionsand/orobservations.Thefollowingsectionisanotherperspectiveonscientificmethod.

CombiningtwothinkingstrategiesinScientificMethod:ScienceMode(usingRealityChecks)andDesignMode(usingQualityChecks)

Thebasicprocessofdesign,showninthediagrambelow,beginswhenyouchooseanOverallObjectivethatisthething(theproduct,strategy,ortheory)youwanttodesign.Imaginethatyouwanttodesignaproduct.AfteryoudefineGoals(forthepropertiesyouwanttheproducttohave),yougenerateoptions(bysearchingforoldproducts,or



inventingnewproducts)andforeachoptionyouevaluateitsquality(asdefinedbyyourgoals)inaQualityCheck,eitherbycomparinggoals(forthedesiredpropertiesofaproduct)withpredictions(abouttheactualpropertiesofthisproductoption)orbycomparinggoals(fordesiredproperties)withobservations(oftheactualpropertiesforthisproductoption).Youcontinuethisprocessofgeneratingoptionsandevaluatingthem(byusingoneorbothtypesofQualityChecks)untilyoudecidethatoneoftheoptionsissatisfactory,oryouabandonthesearch./Thisisasimplifiedquickandroughsketchofthedesignprocess,whichisdescribedinmoredetail(andillustratedbythedesignofahybridminivaninthe1980s)inAnIntroductiontoDesign.

image(zbriefd.gif)removed

commenttoreader:Therestofthis"scienceanddesign"section(especiallytheending)isroughandincomplete.Itwillberevisedsoon,probablyinDecember2011.Foratreatmentthatismuchmorepolishedandcomplete,checkthe"scienceanddesign"sectionofAnIntroductiontoDesign.AndIthediagramsofdesignattheendofthispagewillprobablybemoved(toanotherpartofthepage)orjustremoved.==[[also,manyscientistsliketoseetheirgoalasquestionansweringratherthanproblemsolving(withitscommonmeaning)solaterI'llexplainwhyscienceisproblemsolvingifthisisdefined,asinAnIntroductiontoDesign,asanopportunityformakingthingsbetter,formovingfromanowstatetoagoalstate(wherethereisagapinyourknowledge)inwhichyourknowledgehasimproved,withthecurrentstateviewedasaproblem]]

ScienceasDesign:Whenscientistsdesignatheory,theycreativelygeneratethetheory,andcriticallyevaluateitsqualitybycomparingitspropertieswiththegoalpropertiestheywantatheorytohave.Formostscientistsinmostsituations,themostimportantpropertyofatheoryisitsempiricalquality(whichisevaluatedobservationbasedRealityChecks)butscientistsalsoconsiderconceptualqualityandculturalpersonalqualitywhenevaluatingatheory.TheirGOALSforatheorywhicharethedesiredpropertiesofatheoryincludethreetypesoffactors:empirical,conceptual,andculturalpersonal.Thediagrambelowshowsthreecomparisons,andwecanthinkofthesecomparisonsas"checking"foreitherqualityorreality,whilethinkinginDesignModeorScienceMode.Whenscientistsaredesigningatheory(orexperiment),theycomparetheirGOALS(thedesiredpropertiesforatheory)withOBSERVATIONS(aboutatheory'sactualpropertiesnow)tomakeaQualityCheckwhiletheyarethinkinginadesignmodeandtheycompareGOALS(fordesiredproperties)withPREDICTIONS(aboutthistheory'spredictedpropertiesinthefuture)tomakeanothertypeofQualityCheckindesignmodetheyalsocomparetheirtheorybasedPREDICTIONS(foraparticularsystem)withrealitybasedOBSERVATIONS(ofthissystem)tomakeaRealityCheckinsciencemode.

Themainfocusofscientificmethodisrealitychecks,whilequalitychecksarethemainthinkingtoolintheprocessofdesignthinkingthatweusefordoingalmosteverythinginlife,whenwedesigntheories(inscienceandinotherareas,includingeverydaylife)andproducts(thingswemakeanduse)andstrategies(forawidevarietyofstrategydecisionsinmanyareasoflife).

suchasthetechnologicaldesignapplicationsofscience,andtheuseofscientificrealitychecksbyadesignerwhoissearchingfortruthsotheproductsandstrategiesbeingdesignedwillhaveasolidfoundationin"thewaytheworldreallyis"/wheredesignistheprocessofcombiningcreativegenerationwithcriticalevaluation/{Theprocessofdesignissimilarforatheory,asoutlinedbelow,orforanexperiment,asdescribedabove.}

introduction to scientific method - theories with reality checks

Documents