Problems With the Scientific Method

Although the Scientific Method has its place in our history books, in many cases the principles behind it do not work in the laboratory. For example, in the field of Anthropology, the Scientific Method does not even apply, as there are no experimentation, only observation, to be done in the act of studying the peoples of the world. Another example is in the field of Experimental or Quantum Physics, where often there is no hypothesis, only a 'curiosity' to see what happens under certain circumstances. For this reason, the Scientific Method does not hold for science as we know it today. Many scientists acknowledge this idea. According to Nobel Prize winner Peter Medawar, "Ask a scientist what he conceives the scientific method to be and he adopts an expression that is at once solemn and shifty-eyed: solemn, because he feels he ought to declare an opinion; shifty-eyed because he is wondering how to conceal the fact that he has no opinion to declare." This idea brings light to the fact that even though the Scientific Method is regularly taught in schools and is expected of by scientists to follow, the principles behind it do not always work out.

For example, great discoveries often come about when scientists notice anomalies. They see something interesting during while reproducing older research and that may trigger some new research. Or sometimes scientists notice something unexplainable in nature. The Russian novellist Isaac Asimov said it well: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...' " This quote suggests that many important scientific discoveries come not from proposing hypotheses or even from performing experiments, but instead comes from learning to see what no one else can. Thus it can be said that scientific discovery comes from something resembling 'informed messing around,' or unguided play, rather than strictly following the rules set by the Scientific Method. Yet 'The Scientific Method' listed in textbooks says nothing about unguided play, and as a result, educators treat science as deadly serious business, and 'messing around' is often dealt with harshly.

An example of the Scientific Method being pushed too harshly is in the texts The Scientific Method Today by Norman W. Edmund. Upon looking through the book, one may notice that he takes a pseudo-elitist stance on the Scientific Method, even going as far as to say that by not following the steps of the 'Master Method' precisely one is not properly conducting science. According to Edmund, "If you do not teach any formula (set out method) when using problem-based learning programs (as opposed to using the Scientific Method), you fail to a great extent getting transfer of learning." Essentially what this means is that theres is no way to teach science properly except under the guidelines of the Scientific Method.

In reproducing many of the older and more basic experiments, the Scientific Method does still need to be used, though. Thus, the Scientific Method does not simply need to be abolished. However, there needs to be an acknowledgement that its principles do not and will not always apply to every aspect of science as is often the implication. Also, there needs to be more leeway in the ways we approach the methods behind science, both in and out of the classroom.

<- Previous | Next ->