3 ms·

it's complicated because it's probably moot: we should learn, teach, spread and support "the scientific method" rather than anyone's "science"

by ABS 5y ago

Mountain_Skies 5y ago
All this will accomplish is people that wear "I believe in science" shirts will instead wear "I believe in the scientific method" shirts but unless there's an actual behavioral change, all you've done is add a bit more ink to a piece of cotton. The message is good but if it isn't accompanied by an actual behavioral change, it's worthless.
rmah 5y ago
When I was a child, we were taught the scientific method multiple times through middle-school and high-school. Is this really no longer the case? I really doubt it is.
emerongi 5y ago
Well, at some level you do just need to trust someone's "science", otherwise you can only rely on your own empirical evidence.
shkkmo 5y ago
We absolutely must teach science, it is frankly ridiculous to assert that we should only teach the scientific method and assume everything else will follow from that. It has taken millions of people hundreds of years to establish the corpus of scientific knowledge and understanding that knowledge is critical to advancing that knowledge or disproving it. We could do a better job of teaching the science alongside the history of the process of its discovery and validation and incorporate actually reading scientific papers rather than just textbooks. We can emphasize science as an ongoing process rather than simply a "just so" story, but we absolutely have to teach its results and not just the methodology.
- ABS 5y ago
  I agree! I guess it's a good thing then that I did not write anywhere that we should only teach the scientific method :-) I made a statement about the argument (and title) of the article we are commenting, it doesn't automatically assert that everything else I'm not mentioning is not important/valid or should not be done at all.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    The argument that article is making is a general argument about the philosophy of science and the types of demarcations between science and pseudoscience or fringe science. As such, it seems wholey reasonable to infer that you were making a general statement about how science education (particularly with the phrase: anyone's "science".) Since that was not your intent, what exactly were you trying to say? Which specific "sciences" are you advocating should not be taught and should be replaced by only teaching the scientific method?

it's complicated because it's probably moot: we should learn, teach, spread and support "the scientific method" rather than anyone's "science"

by ABS 5y ago

it's complicated because it's probably moot: we should learn, teach, spread and support "the scientific method" rather than anyone's "science"

Mountain_Skies 5y ago

All this will accomplish is people that wear "I believe in science" shirts will instead wear "I believe in the scientific method" shirts but unless there's an actual behavioral change, all you've done is add a bit more ink to a piece of cotton. The message is good but if it isn't accompanied by an actual behavioral change, it's worthless.

rmah 5y ago

When I was a child, we were taught the scientific method multiple times through middle-school and high-school. Is this really no longer the case? I really doubt it is.

emerongi 5y ago

Well, at some level you do just need to trust someone's "science", otherwise you can only rely on your own empirical evidence.

shkkmo 5y ago

We absolutely must teach science, it is frankly ridiculous to assert that we should only teach the scientific method and assume everything else will follow from that. It has taken millions of people hundreds of years to establish the corpus of scientific knowledge and understanding that knowledge is critical to advancing that knowledge or disproving it. We could do a better job of teaching the science alongside the history of the process of its discovery and validation and incorporate actually reading scientific papers rather than just textbooks. We can emphasize science as an ongoing process rather than simply a "just so" story, but we absolutely have to teach its results and not just the methodology.

ABS 5y ago
I agree! I guess it's a good thing then that I did not write anywhere that we should only teach the scientific method :-) I made a statement about the argument (and title) of the article we are commenting, it doesn't automatically assert that everything else I'm not mentioning is not important/valid or should not be done at all.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  The argument that article is making is a general argument about the philosophy of science and the types of demarcations between science and pseudoscience or fringe science. As such, it seems wholey reasonable to infer that you were making a general statement about how science education (particularly with the phrase: anyone's "science".) Since that was not your intent, what exactly were you trying to say? Which specific "sciences" are you advocating should not be taught and should be replaced by only teaching the scientific method?