August 17, 2006

• Interesting. If you microwave water, you may end up double-blind? Also, microwaving removes the natural harmonics. This can be prevented by crystals and praying.
• It may be that the girl's parents felt that she would learn a far more valuable lesson about the scientific method by not interfering in her experiment than by ensuring that her experimental sample be statistically sound. To fail is to learn. Whether or not microwaved water actually hurts plants is beside the point.
• i think both accounts are neat. i wish my science classes had been half so well-conceived. thanks koant!
• My science fair projects were always terrible. One year I was going to study moldy bread, and I couldn't even get the bread to mold.
• This reminds me of my 6th grade bean plant science project where I discovered that very weak magnetic fields have no impact on growth. Yay for no results and first place anyway!
• I did one on the jet stream that used a fan and some dry ice smoke to simulate, well, you know, the jet stream. No ribbon.
• Way cool! You can sprout a soybean in Plaster of Paris...
• welcome back Koant!
• The only science project I can remember doing consisted in seeding a soybean and watching it grow. And that was it! Mine didn't take up so I didn't have much to show. - @Fes: I don't know, the grandfather at least doesn't seem to realise that the experiment doesn't demonstrate anything. And when commenting about double-blind experiments, he ends up suggesting some Backster effect. So I don't think he quite understands what the scientific method is. Thanks petebest!
• Nice post, Koant! Scientific method-- it ain't obvious. I never did science fair when i was a kid, i couldn't think of anything to do (snif). But if I could go back in time, I would do this one on therapeutic touch. The experimenter Emily Rosa got her results published in the Journal of American Medical Association and she was all of 9 years old when she did the experiment.
• True, the scientific method is not obvious, and that's why it should be taught more often, including to adults. Thanks for the story, I'd never heard of this experiment.
• I've had the opportunity to judge several science fairs, and even at the high school level, I find that most teachers are not equipped to guide students in the scientific method. Of perhaps 100 student projects at a 10th grade science fair, 2 might come close to the basic "hypothesis, prediction, experiment (w. control), analyze, repeat, draw conclusion" In general, when they failed, they failed along the lines of analyzing the data to fit the prediction, or not having proper controls. Nobody ever bothered to repeat anything to see if their previous results were a fluke. We had one student with an outstanding experimental setup. He had predicted that "killer yeast strains" in the absence of prey, would grow better than prey strains under the same conditions "because they are tougher". And when he found in fact that they did not, he claimed straight faced with full cognitive dissonance that he had proved his prediction correct. When in fact had he revised his hypothesis in line with the experimental facts, and kept going , he would have eventually found that the killer yeast was expending energy on making a toxin, even when it was unnecessary. Drove me nuts. Thats why I don't judge local science fairs anymore.
• Sorry for the double comment. The thing that I took home from all this was that the teachers who were mentoring these students, even the good ones, were not teaching them to trust the data. It was more important to be right in spite of the data *because then I'll give you a good grade* than to get to the truth of the matter. I really blame the teachers for this one. They have a tought job, but science is not an activity where you are judged on whether or not you can give the right answer. You're judged on whether you asked an appropriate question and found a way to test whether or not you were right. There's no final authority to turn to but the universe, and kids are being taught to believe what they are told, not what they see with their "lying eyes"
• I agree, Mord. Remedial science classes don't emphasize proper science because they are emphasizing the successful results of science. It's a litany of facts, and not an appreciation for the process.
• I don't remember even being INTRODUCED to the practical workings of the scientific method until the tenth grade.
• Ditto here. For me it was in Grade eleven when our chemistry teacher had us repeat some of Faraday's experiments with candles. It was only then that I found out how hard the scientific method really was. Guess that's why it took humans so long to develop it. Mord, what you describe is depressingly common. It's what educator John Holt called "answer-giving" in his book "How Children Fail" . The school system rewards it in children. Give the right answer and you get a good grade. It would be a good thing if more people knew about the scientific method. But how do you go about accomplishing it? (One way would be broadcasting Koant's post to a wider audience!)
• I didn't know there was a name for it, but its a good one. By the time I see these students in college, much of the damage I think is already done. They are inclined simply to regurgitate facts rather than think about how we know what we know. I have yet to see epistemology a requirement for a bachelors degree in anything. The classes that students consistently rate as "the hardest most impossible course with the worst instructors" are the ones where the instructor refuses to give the answers to the test before-hand. Cell-biology in particular comes to mind, because the professor I worked with gave tests whose questions were in the form of "these are the observations we have made, devise a test to distinguish between the following possibilities" Anyway, those kinds of questions are the ones people need to be hit with earlier on. Rote memorization has its place, but learning how to solve problems when the answer isn't available to you is probably more important.
• well, maybe a B.A. in philosophy
• I'd also vote for a mandatory course on human cognitive errors.
• The best class I've ever taken was one on critical thinking. The book was excellent, and I'd recommend it to anyone.
• That book didn't happen to be this one did it? I picked up a copy at a used book sale and i was pretty impressed with it.
• No, it's this one. Good read.
• Oh. That looks good. Although there's also that one.
• But if we're dealing with the general public on science education, this one might be our best reference.