Home » Academics » Lecture Hall

Letting Some Air out of the Scientific Method

Method to the Madness

Open any introductory science textbook and the first chapter will inevitably contain a figure that looks something like this:

Under the authoritatively-labeled header "The Scientific Method," this diagram is an attempt to capture not only how a scientist progresses through a scientific investigation, but also the path to the formulation of scientific theories. These stripped-down flowcharts, in whatever form they appear, communicate that the process of scientific discovery occurs in a straightforward and systematic way.

This diagram, however, may do more harm than good.

While having a convenient way to represent the "method" of science seems advantageous for students, the reality of scientific discovery is much more complex. Representing this complex process in such a basic flowchart tends to produce misconceptions, especially in those students who have minimal exposure to science. Often unquestioningly accepted by the majority of introductory-level college students, the end result is that the more widespread and unchecked the misconceptions are, the more entrenched these erroneous expectations of science become in the minds of students and the culture as a whole.

As a science educator, this is alarming. Having taught at university, written articles about science and developed instructional materials, I'm aware that navigating students through scientific content can be challenging — especially when certain areas in science are ripe for misunderstanding. In the past, I've conducted a variety of investigations in chemical research and would be hard pressed to produce a single diagram to represent my general approach to solving scientific problems. And yet, the real problem isn't that the diagram is untrue or that it doesn't reflect a generalized flow of scientific investigations — the problem is all in the inferences.

Getting the Wrong Impression

Upon studying the Scientific Method diagram from a textbook, a number of lasting impressions are potentially left on students, impressions that can be detrimental to an accurate worldview, especially one that integrates science in a balanced and modern approach. Here are some of the more common scientific misconceptions derived from this diagram:

Impression #1: Science is Learned
One of the strongest impressions students can derive from this kind of diagram is that, because they have been trained in proper "scientific methods," only professionals do true science. This idea mainly comes from the sense that not everyone knows how to generate a hypothesis worthy of investigation or should be allowed to conduct experiments on a whim. The diagram suggests that a scientist trained in the scientific method knows how to do this, as well as how to draw the right conclusion and understand how these conclusions lead to a scientific discovery. An amateur, it is assumed, would not only butcher the method, but might bring some possible harm to others in the process.

Impression #2: Science is Objective
Little in the diagram suggests that any part of the "human element" — emotion, spirituality, creativity — is actually involved in the process of science. In fact, one concludes from the diagram that science is a completely rational endeavor, that the better able scientists are at adhering to logic — in a way that would make Sherlock Holmes proud — the more scientific theories they will discover. Any scientific "truths" discovered are automatically regarded as authoritative precisely because of their presumed objectivity.

Impression #3: Science is Conclusive
Any investigation that follows the scientific method requires that a definitive conclusion be drawn. One might even presume that the hallmark of good science is a solid conclusion, especially the kind that makes a great headline and captures public interest. Solid conclusions are the scientific truths that can be further tested and eventually become the principles that science is based on. Hence, the impression is that a solidly stated conclusion is supported by strong data and, therefore, the data do not need to be scrutinized. It is further assumed that the stronger the conclusion, the less disagreement there should be among scientists about the discovery.

Impression #4: Science is Methodical
From the diagram, there's a sense that if scientists observe correctly, construct good hypotheses, conduct the right experiments, and draw the most accurate conclusions from the data, scientific discoveries, and ultimately theories, are to be expected. The fact that the diagram is labeled The Scientific Method, rather than Guideline, Plan, Strategy or Rationale, further bolsters this perception. A method implies an orderly and systematic nature to a process that ensures the target is always reached. An investigative path that differs from the method, then, appears as a deviation from the "proper" way of doing things.

A Clearer View of the Methods of Science

An exhaustive and detailed analysis of the history of science is beyond the present article. However, we can arrive at a few basic truths about scientists by a simple examination of everyday experience and common sense. These observations (detailed below, and corresponding to the respective "impression" above), will help us dispel some of our impressions of science as the ironclad institution of modern society, which we conclude when we tend to accept the aforementioned misconceptions.

Observation #1: Science Is a Way of Thinking About Problems
The idea that the reasoning in the scientific method is something that has to be uniquely learned is not entirely true. Humans demonstrate varying degrees of objectivity. Granted, there are those who excel in the area of logic and rational thinking by being inherently talented and/or acquiring these skills through education. But can the logical thought processes that are key to daily survival be that different from those of science? While it may be true that the subject of thought is drastically different (e.g., thinking about heat processes in a microwaved cheese sandwich versus those of a thermonuclear reactor), there is surprisingly great similarity between the rational reasoning of a scientist and an amateur. Though there are techniques and specific skills unique to science, much of the mental component of science is active in nonscientific fields.

Observation #2: Science Is a Human Endeavor
Scientists, first and foremost, are human beings — not robots or Vulcans. As important as objective and rational thoughts are to humans, so are subjective and irrational ones. In actuality, even the most rational scientific investigations can have, peppered within them, bits of subjectivity that ultimately aid significantly in scientific discovery. This isn't hard to imagine, since everyday reasoning often involves an interplay between objective and subjective decision-making. Can scientific reasoning really be that different?

Observation #3: Science Is the Best Explanation for Natural Phenomena
Benjamin Franklin once said, "In the world nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes."¹ Watch the news long enough and you will see either conflicting scientific findings, disagreement between scientists, or even retraction of a discovery (cold fusion, anyone?). As much as our culture believes science to be absolute, it just isn't. As in many everyday experiences, scientists arrive at conclusions by looking at the best explanation for events, not the only explanation. Furthermore, we gain knowledge about our world through a combination of arithmetic, statistical and probabilistic analysis. Only looking at one of these aspects often leads to missing the "big picture" and hence, erroneous conclusions.

Observation #4: Science Is the Knowledge of the Natural World Acquired by Any Means
In science, as in everyday life, a destination doesn't necessarily have just one path. There may be a best path, but often that is a matter of perspective. The reality is that scientists approach problems both inductively and deductively. Scientists are inspired to investigate particular phenomena for a variety of reasons — from an honest desire to uncover the secrets of matter to a purely entrepreneurial drive to invent for profit. Many discoveries have been made through competition or even serendipidity. To suggest the singularity of a scientific approach by describing the process as a "method" leads to a great misconception.

Seeing Through a Glass, Darkly

The impressions students derive from the Scientific Method are not entirely wrong. In fact, it would be an even greater misconception to write off science as ineffectual because it fails to meet the high standards one concludes, however erroneously, about the method of science based on this diagram alone. Without keeping these misconceptions in check, though, it is easy for ideas about science's grandeur as the modern savior of the world to pervade one's worldview. The danger is that science seems more absolute and powerful than other human endeavors.

C O F F E E  S H O P

---

After reading this article, do you think you've had any misconceptions about science? If so, what are they?

Join the discussion!

We should never, in our worldview, adopt these misconceptions and elevate science to a deity-like state. If we do, we'll find it difficult serving two masters. It is important, within our worldview, that we reserve the stage for God alone. At the same time, a realistic perspective about the process of science can help anyone appreciate the amazing things scientists have accomplished in the past, as well as what's to come in the future.