The Scientific Method

Do students learn the Scientific Method in school? I learned it in 2^nd or 3^rd grade, but I had an abnormally good science education in elementary school. I did learn it in public school, though, and not a science-focused private or charter school, so I see no reason for my education to have been anything special. So do others learn it, I mean really learn it and incorporate it as a tool for drawing conclusions about things in the world? It’s the heart of what scientific thinking is and is an important part of critical thinking in general, not just within science. In fields like anthropology or psychology, which are not considered “hard” sciences, the Scientific Method has to be tweaked because rigorous systematic testing of people, their behaviors, cultures, etc. often isn’t ethical, but the essence of following the logical process of observing, reasoning, testing ideas, drawing conclusions, continually incorporating and updating new information, and so forth, is still there, as it should be. Because of its flexibility, I see no reason why it can’t apply in some form to non-academic thinking either.

I suspect it is not taught, at least not well. Most people think of science as a collection of facts and tediousness first, and a process for learning about the world second, if at all. They don’t seem to question how these facts are discovered or concluded--where these facts come from. And when the facts change, as is especially true in medicine, they get upset. But change (evolution, if you will) is a sign that the Scientific Method is being used. Some facts are well-established and don’t change much, but often the details surrounding those facts are constantly being updated as more or new information or ways of looking at it are found. The process is designed to take into account the reality that we don’t know everything, although we don’t know nothing either. People in science know this; they would have nothing to do if they thought everything was known and nowhere to start if they thought nothing was known. And by design, the starting information can even be incorrect (to a point at least)-important since you wouldn’t know if you're correct ahead of time-if you’re constantly learning and incorporating, eventually, you will get better information.

Outside of science, I consider being able to change or refine your own opinions or positions healthy, not flip-flopping, as some would call it. It means you’re incorporating new information and adapting to it, and you don’t think you know everything. Sometimes people say the change is for the “wrong” reasons, like a politician changing his or her position to whatever is popular, rather than what’s “right”, or a teenager trying to fit it with a new group of friends. But what I think people really mean by a “right” or “wrong” reason is whether the person’s values have actually changed with new information and they truly support their new position (generally accepted as “right”), or whether they only value their own power or popularity, not the thing they claim to have an opinion on, or have compromised their true values (generally accepted as “wrong”). One possible way to determine the difference to me seems to be to just ask them what this new information is that caused them to change. If they have been thinking critically too, they probably can explain their thought process.

I’m not claiming that coming to conclusions is as simple as I’m making it out to be or that you always come to the “correct” conclusion (if there is such a thing), and thinking systematically and logically takes practice. But that’s the value of learning science starting early on. Critical thinking is valuable and helps tremendously when you come across something new or different. In leads us to new ideas and information and ways of being and interacting in the world. And knowing what information you’ve incorporated and what information you’ve found unhelpful or irrelevant helps when explaining your positions and views. There are presumably other ways to do this as well, other ways to learn to think critically, analyze, and use new information. But the Scientific Method is tremendously important to the modern world we live in and surprisingly simple. In biology, being able to adapt is considered essential to life. I don’t think human life is an exception.

I'll layout the Scientific Method and give a non-science example next.