THE "METHOD" OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

(C.J. Sindermann, The Joy of Science, pp. 4 – 6)

Beginning in some chart-bedecked secondary school science classroom, a simple superficially logical concept, "the scientific method," is usually proposed to unsuspicious junior minds as an explanation of how scientists conduct their business. Classical steps in the "method" form a readily memorized list (with some variations, depending on the teacher):

• Formulation of a hypothesis

• Accumulation of relevant data through observation and experimentation

• Possible modification of the hypothesis based on interpretation of data

• Further observation and experimentation to verify the revised hypothesis

• Synthesis of all available data; and finally the capstone–

• Statement of a concept

What a beautiful blueprint for action! What an orderly way to search for truth! What a fraud! Most successful scientists would agree with Broad and Wade in their book Betrayers of the Truth⁽¹⁾ and even with Feyerabend's treatise Against Method⁽²⁾ that there is no single specific "scientific method"; that it is a philosopher's invention imposed on the everyday world of scientific research, with little foundation in reality. Those same scientists would probably agree, however, that there is a state of mind, an approach to problem-solving, that is common to scientific observation – and that this is the essence of the methodology of science. Common elements include objectivity (insofar as the subjective mind will permit it), insurance of adequate controls, dispassionate analyses based on adequate statistical treatment, and assurance of validity of samples. Conclusions must not extend beyond the data on which they are based (the foundation of a delightful modern EPA concept of "legal viability").

Reality, for most professionals, is far sloppier than the neat textbook "scientific method," and follows no single pathway. The evolution of and the progressive refinement in methods and concepts may be more acceptable explanations of how science is done. The process includes

• Evolution of ideas and insights, from the first faint hint of something on the horizon, through repeated blind alleys and diversionary channels, to a final testable statement

• Evolution of experimental design, from crude "let's just see what happens if we do this" to an elaborate, successive-step, equipment-intensive series of progressively complex experiments, to the final exquisite, definitive, but superficially simple demonstration

• Evolution o f data analyses, from the first rough correlations to testing of elaborate computer-based models quality, if properly polished. Some of the professor's ideas may have developed from his or her ongoing research, and some small tidbits of these may be doled out and considered.

• Evolution of syntheses, based on data analyses, incorporating relevant conclusions and insights published by other investigators

The scientific method, therefore, can be best visualized as a succession of stages in the progression of thoughts, complete with major or minor changes in direction and with nodal points where critical insights have occurred. It is much like a treasure hunt in which the original designer of the course has disappeared (or is at least unavailable for direct consultation).

If these limitations on the reality of a single "scientific method" are accepted, it is still possible to track the emergent scientist through the critical stages already mentioned-by examining (1) the origin of research ideas, (2) experimentation and observation, (3) conclusions and syntheses, and (4) communication of findings.

References

1. William Broad and Nicholas Wade, Betrayers of the Truth, New York, Simon & Shuster, 1983.

2. Paul Feyerabend, Against Method, London, Verso, 1975.

From C.J. Sindermann, The Joy of Science, pp. 4 – 6, Plenum, New York and London, 1985. ISBN 0-306-42035-X