Scientific Method: Not for Scientists?

The scientific method is so ingrained in school children that they could practically recite it in their sleep—question, hypothesis, test, observation, results, conclusion—these are skills understood by fourth graders and repeated until high school graduation. This is why I found it so surprising when I surveyed four professors of science and all of them had various opinions of its effectiveness. Effectiveness? How can this even be up for discussion? I spent ten years in school learning how effective the scientific method is, and now suddenly that means nothing?

Well, yes and no. Only one professor responded that they do not use it all. Dr. Kryzsiak believes that the traditional scientific method is not very useful with her research in biochemistry. She says that while she uses “components” of the scientific method, she doesn’t follow it to a tee. For example, she poses a scientific question but offers no hypothesis. She is not alone, either; Dr. Burns does not question or hypothesize, she gets “scientific ideas” from field work. Dr. Bulinski and Dr. Sinski have something in common with Dr. Burns too—all three include a step where they read scholarly papers on the subject they want to study to make sure they are not repeating research. This step also refines what they want to study exactly, and sometimes changes their direction entirely.

Dr. Bulinski cited using the scientific method the most out the four scientists surveyed, yet she still has a twist on it, because her research differs from the traditional lab work of chemists and biologists. As a paleontologist, she has to plan her trips to sites where she can collect the specimens she needs to study. For her research, she follows every step of the method closely—right down to her hypothesis.

After reviewing each response, it seems that the use of the scientific method may just be personal preference. What works for some sciences/scientists may not work for others. Dr. Sinski made the clearest statement when he wrote “it is not so much a method as it is common sense.” So while these scientists may not be recording every hypothesis and step in their process, they are making predictions and experiments constantly, without even realizing it. 

The Age of Denial?

In the New York Times article “Welcome to the Age of Denial,” Adam Frank argues that Americans are no longer grasping the importance of science.  He is not very effective in making this argument, however, because at most it seems he is grasping at straws—trying to make a bigger deal out of this situation than it deserves. Instead of “sending his students into a world that celebrates what science has to offer” he is tossing them into a world that apparently equates scientific knowledge with astrology, if I am to use the same dramatics as Frank.

His use of the statistics to “shock” work against him. First, the two percent increase in creationists does not feel dramatic, much less relevant to his cause—but more on that in a minute. The 5% difference in knowledge of climate change is greater, but I might question the validity of the numbers, due to the fad “going green” has become in the last five years. From these, Frank argues that people trust scientific research less (by doubting vaccinations, for example) and their lack of respect for “scientific fact” has led creationism to develop into “creation science.”

While I agree that some “anti-science” causes (by Frank’s definition) such as the decreased use of vaccinations in some areas of the country are cause for alarm, I do not believe them to be a part of some bigger, more generalized issue. While religion does go head to head with science, is not the heart of the problem either. Frank declares people understand and care less—but fails to pin down a defined reason why. His grand belief that American society is entering a “dark moment” in history is over-dramatized and desperate.