Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Friar Bellows · 11-12-2002, 02:22 AM

Over 30 years ago the scientist Peter Medawar wrote:

Quote:

If the purpose of scientific methodology is to prescribe or expound a system of enquiry or even a code of practice for scientific behavior, then scientists seem to be able to get on very well without it. Most scientists receive no tuition in scientific method, but those who have been instructed perform no better as scientists than those who have not. Of what other branch of learning can it be said that it gives its proficients no advantage; that it need not be taught or, if taught, need not be learned?

I'd like to pose some questions for the practising scientists among us:

1. Did you ever take any courses on scientific method?

2. Do you take any notice of the current debates in scientific methodology?

3. Is what Medawar wrote over 30 years ago (still?) true today?

Vorkosigan · 11-12-2002, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Friar Bellows:
Over 30 years ago the scientist Peter Medawar wrote:
I'd like to pose some questions for the practising scientists among us:

1. Did you ever take any courses on scientific method?

2. Do you take any notice of the current debates in scientific methodology?

3. Is what Medawar wrote over 30 years ago (still?) true today?

It wasn't even true when he wrote it. Perhaps he never noticed the numerous courses scientists get in which they learn and practice the methodologies used in their particular fields.

I'm not a scientist though.

Corey Hammer · 11-12-2002, 04:42 AM

Most people in science programs receive some sort of explicit training in research methods and design. Everyone receives implicit training in methods and design because they have to do research at least once for a Master's and twice for a Doctorate.

Oxymoron · 11-12-2002, 06:12 AM

I have never seen courses in scientific method, it sounds like an interesting idea though.

I took a philosophy module when I was a graduate student, and the Philosophy of Science was taught as part of that. It turned out to be more useful than I had imagined!

Generally, I would expect that bad scientific practice is generally weeded out by peer review. Though there are famous examples of bloopers living for long times (eg von Neuman's quantum mechanical mistakes), the general trend is in the right direction.

This reply is a bit more wishy-washy than you wanted, though, so I'll end it here

Feather · 11-12-2002, 06:46 AM

I dunno what that guy was smoking, but every physics course I've ever taken (and especially the labratory classes) has covered the "scientific method" quite thoroughly. Just because there isn't a separate course to teach the method doesn't mean the method isn't taught.

I also recall my highschool biology and chemistry courses spending some nontrivial time covering methodology and "philosophy" of science.

It's difficult to be a scientist without knowing how to be one, after all.

Sidian · 11-12-2002, 07:31 AM

even if the methodology wasn't imposed by education, i would propose that it is inherent to human process and to science itself. it's a logical procession of thought that even if not drawn out specifically would be bound to occur anyway. i think there being scientists who have named it and cherished it as a code of honor is more strange then its apparent existence in those who haven't.

it's not such a big deal and it is certainly not the only thing taught in this branch of learning to have it said of the branch "that it gives its proficients no advantage; that it need not be taught or, if taught, need not be learned"

Rusting Car Bumper · 11-12-2002, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Friar Bellows:

1. Did you ever take any courses on scientific method?

Yes. and I'm degreed in physics. but it was completely volutary and the course title did not say "scientific method" or "philosophy of science."

Quote:

Originally posted by Friar Bellows:
2. Do you take any notice of the current debates in scientific methodology?

I took notice of some in the recent past but I'm not up to date.

Quote:

Originally posted by Friar Bellows:
3. Is what Medawar wrote over 30 years ago (still?) true today?

Its partially true. Many universities either do not have or do not require such courses of science majors.

Its certainly true that many good or great scientists did not formally receive this training.

DC

beausoleil · 11-12-2002, 02:27 PM

1. Did you ever take any courses on scientific method?

No, though philosophy of science has been a minor interest for a couple of decades

2. Do you take any notice of the current debates in scientific methodology?

Some, though I wouldn't say I was an expert

3. Is what Medawar wrote over 30 years ago (still?) true today?

I would say it is certainly true, and I think some of the answers above reflect the vagueness of the term scientific methodology rather than a problem with his assertion. Certainly one learns traditional methodology to do with one's discipline, but this isn't much to do with what a philosopher of science would describe as scientific methodology in the abstract sense.

Personally I'm much more interested in how scientists work, rather than in how philosophers of science think they should work. Insofar as science is successful, it's surely dangerous to prescribe a methodology restricting 'strategies' people have used successfully in the past. One might even say it is unscientific to put theory before data! In theory people should propose theories then test them (I'm being purposely crude) - in practice people follow their noses, do all sorts of odd experiments, then mull over the results and, sometimes, write them up as if they conformed to the ideal scientific method. The relation between paper and what was actually done can be quite strained. Fishing trips are much more common than one might think from reading the literature, and often lead to the most exciting results. Also, you frequently do the right experiment for the wrong reason, but would never dream of writing it up that way.

(Prompted by the 'weeding out' comment)I think peer review is vastly over-rated . As an eminent FRS of my acquaintance said, 'peer reviewed publications are a way of stopping people stealing your ideas, not an endorsement as fact' I certainly don't put confidence in a result simply because it appears in a peer reviewed journal - being a research scientist involves critical appraisal of papers for oneself.

That's the view from the physics/chemistry/geology border area, anyway!

Starboy · 11-12-2002, 06:54 PM

This entire episode reinforces a sentiment that I have held for some time now. There needs to be a distinction between science speculation and science research. Many of the fringe areas that were referred to in the brothers paper are so far removed from any form of experimentation that one could say they are not even speculation but out and out science whimsy. There is a place for science speculation but a dissertation paper is probably not one of them.

Starboy

Ms. Siv · 11-12-2002, 10:06 PM

I aint a practising scientists (last I checked, a career in Information Technology wasn't "science"

) ... but I have my thoughts on this topic all the same.

Scientists are but human ... like the rest of us. Thats precisely the reason why the scientific method is so valuable ... because it tries its best to weed out individual human biases and subjectivity.
As to whether scientists actually do practise the scientific method or not ... well I seriously doubt if there exists some strict codified set of laws like the 10 commandments.
Anything which is objective evidence based and is skeptically analysed before it is accepted is scientific. We;re all scientific in some aspects of ourlives (some more so, some less so). When our ancestors hunted or foraged, they used all their scientific faculties. They had to. It gave them the best results.

Sure, there might be certain scientists who aren't really scientists because they let their biases interfere with their work. But thats precisely the reason we have the scientific method. Sooner or later these biases will be weeded out by the scientific community as a whole. Thats the whole point of it.

- Sivakami.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-12-2002, 04:42 AM	#3
Corey Hammer Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 368	Most people in science programs receive some sort of explicit training in research methods and design. Everyone receives implicit training in methods and design because they have to do research at least once for a Master's and twice for a Doctorate.

11-12-2002, 06:12 AM	#4
Oxymoron Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: http://10.0.0.2/ Posts: 6,623	I have never seen courses in scientific method, it sounds like an interesting idea though. I took a philosophy module when I was a graduate student, and the Philosophy of Science was taught as part of that. It turned out to be more useful than I had imagined! Generally, I would expect that bad scientific practice is generally weeded out by peer review. Though there are famous examples of bloopers living for long times (eg von Neuman's quantum mechanical mistakes), the general trend is in the right direction. This reply is a bit more wishy-washy than you wanted, though, so I'll end it here

11-12-2002, 06:46 AM	#5
Feather Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Gainesville, FL Posts: 1,827	I dunno what that guy was smoking, but every physics course I've ever taken (and especially the labratory classes) has covered the "scientific method" quite thoroughly. Just because there isn't a separate course to teach the method doesn't mean the method isn't taught. I also recall my highschool biology and chemistry courses spending some nontrivial time covering methodology and "philosophy" of science. It's difficult to be a scientist without knowing how to be one, after all.

11-12-2002, 07:31 AM	#6
Sidian Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Colorado Posts: 39	even if the methodology wasn't imposed by education, i would propose that it is inherent to human process and to science itself. it's a logical procession of thought that even if not drawn out specifically would be bound to occur anyway. i think there being scientists who have named it and cherished it as a code of honor is more strange then its apparent existence in those who haven't. it's not such a big deal and it is certainly not the only thing taught in this branch of learning to have it said of the branch "that it gives its proficients no advantage; that it need not be taught or, if taught, need not be learned"

11-12-2002, 02:27 PM	#8
beausoleil Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: US and UK Posts: 846	1. Did you ever take any courses on scientific method? No, though philosophy of science has been a minor interest for a couple of decades 2. Do you take any notice of the current debates in scientific methodology? Some, though I wouldn't say I was an expert 3. Is what Medawar wrote over 30 years ago (still?) true today? I would say it is certainly true, and I think some of the answers above reflect the vagueness of the term scientific methodology rather than a problem with his assertion. Certainly one learns traditional methodology to do with one's discipline, but this isn't much to do with what a philosopher of science would describe as scientific methodology in the abstract sense. Personally I'm much more interested in how scientists work, rather than in how philosophers of science think they should work. Insofar as science is successful, it's surely dangerous to prescribe a methodology restricting 'strategies' people have used successfully in the past. One might even say it is unscientific to put theory before data! In theory people should propose theories then test them (I'm being purposely crude) - in practice people follow their noses, do all sorts of odd experiments, then mull over the results and, sometimes, write them up as if they conformed to the ideal scientific method. The relation between paper and what was actually done can be quite strained. Fishing trips are much more common than one might think from reading the literature, and often lead to the most exciting results. Also, you frequently do the right experiment for the wrong reason, but would never dream of writing it up that way. (Prompted by the 'weeding out' comment)I think peer review is vastly over-rated . As an eminent FRS of my acquaintance said, 'peer reviewed publications are a way of stopping people stealing your ideas, not an endorsement as fact' I certainly don't put confidence in a result simply because it appears in a peer reviewed journal - being a research scientist involves critical appraisal of papers for oneself. That's the view from the physics/chemistry/geology border area, anyway!

11-12-2002, 06:54 PM	#9
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	This entire episode reinforces a sentiment that I have held for some time now. There needs to be a distinction between science speculation and science research. Many of the fringe areas that were referred to in the brothers paper are so far removed from any form of experimentation that one could say they are not even speculation but out and out science whimsy. There is a place for science speculation but a dissertation paper is probably not one of them. Starboy

11-12-2002, 10:06 PM	#10
Ms. Siv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: India Posts: 2,340	I aint a practising scientists (last I checked, a career in Information Technology wasn't "science" ) ... but I have my thoughts on this topic all the same. Scientists are but human ... like the rest of us. Thats precisely the reason why the scientific method is so valuable ... because it tries its best to weed out individual human biases and subjectivity. As to whether scientists actually do practise the scientific method or not ... well I seriously doubt if there exists some strict codified set of laws like the 10 commandments. Anything which is objective evidence based and is skeptically analysed before it is accepted is scientific. We;re all scientific in some aspects of ourlives (some more so, some less so). When our ancestors hunted or foraged, they used all their scientific faculties. They had to. It gave them the best results. Sure, there might be certain scientists who aren't really scientists because they let their biases interfere with their work. But thats precisely the reason we have the scientific method. Sooner or later these biases will be weeded out by the scientific community as a whole. Thats the whole point of it. - Sivakami.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.