Read Online Scientific Method in Brief Hugh G Gauch Jr Books
Read Online Scientific Method in Brief Hugh G Gauch Jr Books
Product details
|
Scientific Method in Brief Hugh G Gauch Jr Books Reviews
- Hugh Gauch Jr. is a researcher who specializes in agriculture and he has made a wonderful contribution to science by writing this book. This book follows much of his previous work on the scientific method called Scientific Method in Practice which was the longer version of this text. "Scientific Method in Brief" is based off of that one pretty much. The intended audience for this book is scientists and nonscientists who are undergraduates or going for graduate degrees. It is for those who wish to get a more complete and systematic understanding of the scientific method as it is done by actual scientists in real time in the real world. One unique feature of the book is that it relies a lot on the position papers on science from leading scientific organizations like American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE), National Research Council (NRC), National Science Foundation (NSF) and a few others. It also includes insights from studies on science education and how a few changes in how science classes are taught from elementary schools to universities can make a significant difference in increasing comprehensions and appreciation of science. As the book clearly notes, the scientific method only needs to be mastered once and though most science majors and graduate students never really get taught explicitly on the scientific method or other dimensions of science (philosophy of science or the history of science, among a few others) in their scientific training, formal learning about the scientific method can make them better researchers and better teachers and increase comprehension of science and how it interrelates to the humanities and everyday experience. One of the best things out of this book is that it makes science very relatable to nonscientists without sacrificing scientific rigor while defending mainstream science at the same time.
Here are some things the book discusses (this list is not exhaustive)
Preface
"Satisfactory study of scientific method simply must be coherent and systematic because the components of scientific thinking have multiple aspects that interact deeply. For instance, science's presuppositions have multiple roles, rendering evidence admissible and thereby conclusions attainable, engendering fruitful interactions with the humanities, and largely determining the forum worldviews in which science makes sense. Likewise, deductive logic and inductive logic are each a substantial topic, but in addition, they must interconnect and interact in scientific thinking. Consequently, the general principles of scientific method cannot possibly be learned adequately as bit and pieces gleaned from routine science courses and books. Likewise, extensive empirical evidence from science educators shows what many scientists might find surprising, that research experience is remarkably ineffective for learning the general principles of scientific method. Effective pedagogy for the general principles of scientific method offer but one choice systematic study." (XV); this book emphasizes both the relations between the sciences with the humanities and defends a distinctly mainstream vision of science and its methodology
1 - Introduction
Scientific methodology has 2 components general principles of scientific method and research techniques of a given specialty; the intended audiences of the book are undergraduates to professionals in the sciences and humanities; the scientific method was synthesized between the 1200s AD to 1600s AD by numerous people; all sciences share a similar core of principles of scientific method (hypothesis generation and testing, deductive and inductive logic, parsimony, presuppositions, domain and limits); beyond the methodology, practical issues are shared across sciences (relating science to the humanities, implementing science education, ethics); 3 kinds of general principles principles that are relatively distinctive of science, broader principles of rationality, foundational principles of common sense; assuming that general principles of scientific method exist is controversial; American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) says the scientific method is often misrepresented as a fixed sequence of steps when in reality it is a highly variable and creative process; AAAS views scientific methodology like the thesis of this book - combination of general principles and specialized techniques; major scientific organizations like American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE), National Research Council (NRC), National Science Foundation (NSF), National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) and counterparts of these in many other nations give scientific method a prominent position; AAAS says science is clearly one of the liberal arts; in antiquity liberal arts included some science; "Many of the broad principles of scientific inquiry are not unique to science but also pervade rational inquiry more generally, as depicted in Figure 1.2. 'All sciences share certain aspects of understanding - common perspectives that transcend disciplinary boundaries. Indeed, many of these fundamental values and aspects are also the province of the humanities, the fine and practical arts, and the social sciences' (AAAS 1990xii; also see p. 11)" (7-8); "Because the general principles of science involve a wider world of ideas, many vital aspects cannot be understood satisfactorily by looking at science in isolation. Rather they can be mastered properly only by seeing science in context, especially in philosophical and historical context." (9); there is an interesting paragraph from AAAS on science being within the liberal arts tradition; "Indeed, concepts that are rich in philosophical content and meaning pervade science, such as rationality, truth, evidence, and cause. And deductive logic, probability theory, and other relevant topics have been addressed by both scientists and philosophers. Accordingly, an adequate understanding of science, for science and nonscience majors alike, must see science as one of the liberal arts. A humanities-rich vision of science surpasses the humanities-poor vision." (10); currently the humanities are in turmoil and controversy; very few science majors and science professors have ever taken a course on the scientific method, logic, history of science, or philosophy of science so their conceptions are often variable and incomplete; the best answers for the benefits of studying scientific method come, not from scientists or philosophers, but from science educators - 6 benefits produces better comprehension, greater adaptability, greater interest, more realism, better researchers, and better teachers; author's influences on how he got into looking into the scientific method (he was never taught about it in his scientific training); 7 streams of relevant literature genres to getting a rich understanding of scientific method scientists themselves, statistics, philosophy of science, history of science, sociology of science, science education, position papers from AAAS, NAS, NSF and other scientific organizations; numerous position papers/publications and education standards from numerous organizations are listed (16); the current situation for teaching scientific method in universities is pervasive neglect; there is currently a discrepancy between the AAAS' humanities-rich vision of science and the humanities-poor current situation in academia and education; 2 major developments in the mid 1800s on conceptions of science invention of the word "scientist" in 1834 by analogy from "artist" and a new meaning of the term "science" to mean physical and experimental, but excluding the metaphysical and theological; the distance gap between science and the humanities reached a peak in the 1920s and 1930s, but it turned around in 1959 with Karl Popper's works; for 22 centuries scientists were "philosopher-scientists" and only the 20th century produced more scientists with less understanding of scientific method
2 - Four Bold Claims
4 constantly used concepts in science rationality, truth, objectivity, and realism; rationality regulates belief and guides action and is simply good reasoning (same as in philosophy); science is only one source of rational method as it deals with physical objects mainly, but other sources of rationality also exist; truth is a property of a statement - that it corresponds to reality (Aristotle's correspondence theory of truth); coherence theory of truth; pragmatic theory of truth; on objectivity and how it allows for people and scientists to have common beliefs irrespective of political, cultural, and religious worldviews; "Any attempt to eliminate physical objects from science's picture of the world and any attempt to eliminate the human persons from science's picture of the world must alike lead to absurdity." (28); realism is a philosophical theory that states that human thoughts and the physical world exist and that human endowments render the physical world as intelligible and reliably knowable; belief in reality is universal (scientist or non-scientist); antirealism positions are Idealism, Constructivism, Instrumentalism, Skepticism; relativism; ordinary science is thoroughly tied to realism and without it science perishes; "The full force of science's claims results from the joint assertion of all four rationality, truth, objectivity, and realism. Science claims to have a rational method that provides humans with objective truth about physical reality." (29); science can be seen as either a refinement of common sense or as an unnatural and counterintuitive enterprise relative to common sense; science has continuity in common sense, but it also has instances where it goes beyond common sense and even has bizarre instances where counterintuitive findings actually confirm common sense
3 - A Brief History of Truth
This short history focuses on 4 critical focus time periods Aristotle around 350 BC, Augustine around 400 AD, Medieval scholars around 1200 AD, and philosopher scientists from the past few centuries to the 1960s; inputs for scientific truth emphasized by different schools in the past Rationalists (logic/reason), Empiricists (evidence/experience); Skeptics (presuppositions-worried version), Mainstream scholars (Presuppositions-confident version), Logical Empiricists (logic + evidence); Gauch's input model is PEL = presuppositions (confident version) + evidence + logic and this view of science is shared by philosopher-scientists like Albertus Magnus, Robert Gosseteste, Isaac Newton; Aristotle's correspondence theory of truth is most compatible with science, he had a deductive scientific method that championed geometry, but also had a cyclical inductive-deductive method since some truth could only be extracted by observations mainly (i.e. astronomy); Aristotle did not push much for tinkering and experimenting with nature to test her limits and instead preferred to study nature as is (undisturbed not artificially forced); Saint Augustine used Aristotle's logic and advocated Aristotle's conceptions of objective truth and in doing so allowed those teachings to continue throughout the medieval period; Augustine countered the antirealism of the skeptics of his time; medieval scholars like Grosseteste, Ockham, Auvergne, Magnus, Aquinas, Bacon, Scotus incorporated 5 great new ideas to scientific methodology experimental methods, powerful logic, theory choice, science's presuppositions, scientific truth; Grosseteste was the principle figure in this period; Roger Bacon emphasized 3 prerogatives conclusions reached by induction should be submitted to further experimentation, experimental facts had priority over initial presuppositions, research should be extended to new problems with practical value (to benefit humanity); William of Ockham enhanced theory choice by "Ockham's razor" as a principle of parsimony; Albertus Magnus grounded science in common sense and in doing so granted science intellectual independence from worldview presuppositions and theological disputes (Thomas Aquinas followed Magnus on this); the 13th century made the greatest number of advances on the scientific method in any time period and paved the way for modern science; numerous advances and controversies since the 1500s and knowledge and the physical world discussed; Newton had a similar broad view of science as was understood in the middle ages; Hume on mental perceptions of objects; Kant; 20th century logical empiricists excluded presuppositions (metaphysics) and this created massive problems; Thales of Miletos (625-546 BC) may be the first scientists in the West; water is used as a discussion example
4 - Science's Contested Rationality
Focuses on attacks on science's rationality - 4 deadly threats elusive truth, theory-laden data, incommensurable paradigms, and empty consensus; the humanities can be "auditors" of science along with scientists because science is a liberal art; the demarcation problem; Popper's "falsifiability" criterion as elusive truth; Kuhn's "paradigm" concept and science as being "arational"; Feyerabend's view on science as being only a product of consensus of scientist's current beliefs and seeing science as nothing special; responses to all 4 attacks from leading journals "Science" and "Nature"; 7 lines of evidence showing the science has a good grip on reality steadily improving precise predictions, increasing accurate/extensive data, increasing specific and comprehensive theories, interlocking diverse evidences, progressing over time in explaining nature, making reproducible experiments, and science based technologies work; some fields in the humanities did undermine science in the 1960s and caused the "science wars" in the 1990s (starting in 1987); though scientists have often cited Popper and Kuhn, most scientists have superficial understandings of their views - which espouse skepticism and undermine science's traditional claims of rationality, truth, objectivity, and realism; AAAS' position in all of this is a mixed nuance of positives and negatives by adhering to rationality, truth, objectivity, and realism while also acknowledging limits, tentativeness, and how not everything is science is certain
5 - Science's Presuppositions
A presupposition is a belief that is required to reach a conclusion, but is impossible to be proven, however, this does not necessarily mean the belief is shaky or arbitrary; many presuppositions and metaphysical assumptions are taken for granted by scientists routinely, but they are still necessary to reach any scientific conclusion; "Presuppositions cannot be proved by logic or established by evidence; rather, they can be disclosed by philosophy and accepted on faith." (73); discusses a history of presuppositions in science; AAAS says science presupposes that there are regularities and patterns in nature that are comprehensible through human intellect via systematic study; Gauch's PEL model of scientific method is exemplified and has an inert component of "archive"; presuppositions make arguments meaningful and without them no conclusions can be reached; "Evidence has a dual nature, admissible and relevant. First, evidence is admissible relative to the available presuppositions. Hence, given common sense presuppositions about the existence of the physical world and the general reliability of sense perceptions, it is admissible...whereas without it...a claim would not be meaningful or admissible. Second, evidence is relevant relative to the stated hypotheses, bearing differentially on their credibilities." (one hypothesis is more believable than other proposed hypotheses) (82); AAAS' view of science corresponds with the PEL model; Figure 5.2 has a diagram of how PEL works in scientific inquiry (84); the opponent of common sense is skepticism; insincere skepticism of "maybe or maybe not" is damaging to science; on reality checks; presuppositions underlying reality checks are ontological, epistemological, and logical presuppositions; mainstream science's basic presuppositions statement; some have argued that science has overthrown some common sense ideas (objects are mostly empty space, time is not constant and depends on the speed of the object relative to the observer), but this is erroneous since these are not presuppositions of science - they are conclusions from science; "Science can overturn common-sense expectations and beliefs, but not common-sense presuppositions." (89); there are many worldviews, but common sense is universal; skepticism and reality checks are incompatible; true skeptics are rare in science circles; Figure 5.3 is a model for justification in science; there are at least 7 functions presuppositions serve in science essential to reach any scientific conclusion, for full disclosure of arguments, rendering evidence admissible, connecting science with common sense, defending science's rationality, framing sensible questions and eliminating wild hypotheses, demarcating science in a worldviews forum; "And mainstream science follows main stream philosophy in granting reason the double office of regulating belief and action, thereby fostering sincerity and confidence." (94);
6 - Science's Powers and Limits
AAAS and NRC say everyone should understand the limits of science; some limitations are that science can never observe or know everything about the physical world, funding is often mission-oriented and not oriented to science's goals and science cannot prove its own presuppositions; AAAS has contradictory views on science and the big questions involving purpose and meaning; "methodological naturalism" conception, though being only 3 decades old, is a common convention in science; science has impacted worldviews in some cases; in practice methodological naturalism is inconsistently implemented; worldview discussions are minor but constant in the sciences; "Whereas mainstream science can and does have some worldview import, prominent variants of fringe science are problematic, particularly scientism and skepticism. They are opposite errors. At the one extreme, scientism says that only hard, no-nonsense science all of our dependable, solid truth. At the opposite extreme, skepticism says that science produces no final, settled truth. Yet, curiously, these opposite errors support exactly the same verdict on any worldview inquiry appealing to empirical and public evidence. On the one hand, scientism automatically and breezily dismisses any worldview arguments coming from philosophy, theology, or any other discipline in the humanities because such disciplines lack the validity and authority that science alone possesses. On the other hand, after skepticism has already judged all science to be awash in uncertainty and tentativeness, ambitious worldview inquiries are bound to receive this same verdict of impotence." (99-100); some scientists explore worldviews, other exclude worldviews, and others have no interests or opinions on worldviews per se; empirical and public evidence have a prominent role in the humanities; scientism is renounced by mainstream science and is discredited by the appeals to empirical evidence found in the humanities; natural theology is an example of using empirical method to address worldview questions by means of evidence; natural theology uses the PEL model and differs from other fields like revealed theology; avoidance of circular reasoning in worldviews inquiries is important; many times there are agreements on the facts, but on interpretations is where disagreements occur; there is a subtle amount of circular reasoning in worldview inquires sometimes; history is another field which uses evidences and impacts worldviews; "Many persons believe in miracles, either from direct observation or from dependable reports from trusted family and friends, as well as from historical miracle reports in a scripture that is trusted and authoritative within a given religious tradition. And many other persons have encountered nothing whatsoever that seems beyond the ordinary workings of the physical world." (as such, worldview convictions are controversial in science) (105); because convictions are controversial, it is inappropriate for scientific organizations to take a position on which worldview is true or not; 5 boundaries of limits and powers of science can provide reliable information on the physical world, it cannot explain everything about the physical world and cannot prove its own presuppositions, it is worldview-independent but can have import on worldviews, scientific organizations cannot support one worldview over another, and considerations for worldview choice should be evidences from science, humanities, and individual experiences; there are personal rewards from studying science
7 - Deductive Logic
Differences between deductive logic and inductive logic (both are essential to science); deductive arguments are either valid or invalid in an all or nothing basis while inductive arguments admit of degrees of strength; Figure 7.1 (Given model -> Deduction -> Expected data and Actual data -> Induction -> Inferred model; induction works in degrees and is never absolute; deduction is generals to particulars and induction is particulars to generals; discusses some history of deductive and inductive reasoning; some basics on logic and a truth table; arithmetic; common fallacies types inadmissible evidence, irrelevant evidence, fallacious logic, failure of will; "Presuppositions cut deeper than evidence." (125);
8 - Probability
Probability is deductive logic dealing with uncertainty; probability errors can be detrimental; probability concepts; 4 requirements on probability theory; Bayes Theorem and Bayesian methodology
9 - Inductive Logic and Statistics
History of induction; Aristotle's inductive-deductive method was refined by Grosseteste in his "Method of Resolution and Composition"; Grosseteste emphasized falsification to search for true causes and had a "Method of Falsification" and "Method of Verification"; Scotus provided an inductive "Method of Agreement"; Ockham provided a "Method of Difference"; Bayesian inference; Frequentist inference; debates on induction - Hume vs others
10 - Parsimony and Efficiency
Ockham's razor; history of parsimony; principles and exemplary models of parsimony; parsimony has an epistemic and ontological aspect; simplifying does not always mean that the object or concept is not complex
11 - Case Studies
Case studies on the scientific method used in philosophy (philosophy of science), electronic engineering, biochemistry and pharmacology, medicine, sociology, economics, law; the general principles of scientific method are encountered everywhere because they are universal
12 - Ethics and Responsibilities
like chapter title says - it deals with philosophical and professional ethics
13 - Science Education
Chapter focuses on the 6 benefits from studying general principles of the scientific method (better comprehension, greater adaptability, greater interest, more realism, better researchers, better teachers) and looks at numerous empirical studies and resources and how different teaching strategies affect learning and understanding of science; "Nature of Science" (NOS) is a term used by science educators; 14 typical NOS concepts from 8 nations for K-12 education is durable and tentative, relies heavily but not entirely on observation/experimental evidence/rational arguments/skepticism, no fixed way to do science, attempts to explain natural phenomenon, laws and theories have different roles, all culture contribute, new knowledge must be reported openly, peer review and replicability is important, observations are theory-laden, is creative, is historically evolutionary and revolutionary, is a part of social and cultural traditions, science and technology impact each other, scientific ideas are affected by their social and historical environments; "inquiry instruction" (teaching about reasoning, methods, processes) yields better learning than "expository instruction" (teaching merely facts and concepts); "individual interest" in science is long lasting and "situational interest" is short lived; scientific beliefs are proportional to the level of understanding of science; more understanding of scientific principles yields better researchers; Figure 13.2 lists 10 academic NOS concepts for undergraduate and graduates (much of the NOS concepts here come from Gauch's points in the book)
14 - Conclusions
Summary/conclusions; addresses the 4 woes from chapter 4 and lists them in detail
Bravo! This book deserves a wide audience. For those who are interested in learning more about other dimensions of the scientific method please check out
The Structure of Science Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation (2nd edition)
The Beginnings of Western Science The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, Prehistory to A.D. 1450
Systems Engineering and Analysis (5th Edition) (Prentice Hall International Series in Industrial & Systems Engineering) (very useful for those interested in investigating principles of engineering in creating complex systems, after all science also interacts with technology. Engineering is basically the application of science for devising and configuring novel entities, novel processes, and stretching the limits of natural phenomenon and scientific research. Its no wonder that scientists historically also were engineers to a significant degree and they often had to build their own research equipment.) - The main value of the book is to bring in what tje author calls "common sense" to avoid pitfals of philosophy of science created by sceptics to science, obseving science from distance. The parsimony discussion was essential, but lacked a bit substance. all in all a boon for reflection...
Comments
Post a Comment