Re: Michael Crichton dies

[Martin Baeker <martin.baeker@tu-bs.de>]

> I would not be so pretentious as to say that only those who do pure research
> understand the scientific method (there are many opportunities for such
> exposure in formal education as well as books and journals that deal with
> science as a method, albeit some of varying degrees of quality).  That said,
> the applied sciences make very little direct use of it.  The scientific method
> is used to discriminate between competing explanations of nature (so pure
> research and publishing are the bulk application of the scientific method)
> while applied sciences use knowledge garnered _already_ and use it to solve
> technological, health, and economic problems.

I strongly, most strongly disagree. The scientific method is used by
every engineer, doctor and, in fact, by everyone every day. When a
doctor thinks about what illness you have and orders a blood test,
that's the scientific method. (Two hypotheses, one of which gets
excluded by the test.) When the car mechanic toots the horn to check
whether the battery works, that's the scientific method (read Robert
M. Pirsig on that example).  When I'm cooking and asking myself
whether I should add some thyme to the gravy, I'll take out a spoonful of
gravy, add some thyme and try it.  When my daughter plays
hide-and-seek and looks under the bed to see whether what she seeks
for is there, that's the scientific method.

Granted, we all use it most of the time without knowing it, but the
scientific method is nothing but formalised common sense: Formulate a
possible explanation (hypothesis), think about how you could verify or
falsify it (if the battery is dead, the horn won't sound), do the
experiment. Use the newly gained knowledge to formulate the next
hypothesis etc.

We will not do science a favour if we suggest that the scientific
method is complicated and difficult and only understood by the most
arcane theorists in their ivory towers. The scientific method is
ingrained into our very brains - we cannot but think causally. In
everyday life, its application is simple enough that we all do it
subconsciously. 

That's not to say that some formal training on common pitfalls or
fallacies is not useful and necessary, but again , the logical
fallacies you can make in developing a new scientific theory are the
same you can make in everyday life, only perhaps in a more complicated
setting.

Martin.

                   Priv.-Doz. Dr. Martin BÃker
                   Institut fÃr Werkstoffe
                   Technische UniversitÃt Braunschweig
                   Langer Kamp 8
                   38106 Braunschweig
                   Germany
                   Tel.: 00-49-531-391-3073
                   Fax   00-49-531-391-3058
                   e-mail <martin.baeker@tu-bs.de>