The Scientific Method- Do Scientists REALLY Use It?

I began learning about the scientific method in elementary school. Although a few steps are often added or dismissed, the scientific method follows a general pattern:

1. Observe a phenomenon and develop a question

2. Research the topic

3. Create a hypothesis

4. Design and perform an experiment

5. Collect data and draw conclusions

6. Share the results

I remember thinking the scientific method was not important. At first, I doubted that scientists even used it. After discovering that science was not my strongest subject, I doubted that ANYBODY would use it. However, I have been proven wrong.

I asked two of the best scientists I know if they follow the scientific method when they conduct experiments. Dr. Finney was a physics teacher at my high school. Dr. Keim is my current psychology teacher (psychology is indeed a hard science!).

Dr. Keim expressed that most psychologists use the scientific method. Within her answer, she explained two main ways in which psychologists work with it. One is inductive reasoning, in which one starts with data and ends with theory (this is used to form a hypothesis or theory). The other is deductive reasoning, in which one starts with theory and collects data (this is used to test hypothesis and reasoning). However, Dr. Keim stated that the most difficult part for her has been getting her discoveries published in the scientific world, as it must be reviewed and revised many times. She is currently in the process of doing this, and it has been going on for years.

This image displays a more web-like
view of the scientific method

Dr. Finney has an elaborate view on the scientific method. She says that the scientific method should not be viewed as linear (as it is usually taught in general science classes); it should be seen as a circular or web-like procedure. She often develops a question, but realizes through research that she must change the question before moving on. Through experimentation, Dr. Finney might see something and form another question. In this case, the experimental stage acts as the observational stage for another experiment. She also might find that she is unable to draw a conclusion from the experiment she designed or the experiment is not as repeatable as she expected it to be. Once a conclusion is drawn, she may decide to narrow her focus before reporting her results. The scientific method cannot possibly be used as a simple step-by-step procedure because science is such an intricate subject.

Dr. Finney also highlighted her tendency to apply the scientific method to everyday life because it provides a logical and systematic approach to all issues.

Through discussing the scientific method and its use with REAL scientists, I have found that it is a necessary part to any experiment. Psychologists (like Dr. Keim) follow the scientific method to observe humans. Other scientists (like Dr. Finney) apply the method to all of their experiments. As Dr. Finney said, it can also be used for problem-solving in our daily lives.

Great… There’s another reason to pay attention in science class.

All information was provided by Dr. Finney and Dr. Keim, respectively.

Analysis of “Welcome to the Age of Denial”

Adam Frank has an interesting approach to science in today’s world, which he expresses in his article "Welcome to the Age of Denial". He states that people do not celebrate scientific discoveries anymore; they just criticize these discoveries. He supports this with a statistic that shows the creationist population in America has risen, which is shocking because I often feel I do not know many people that believe in God and his creation. However, I have taken into consideration the fact that I have recently entered college, and this is a time in which my beliefs will be tested. Many people are exposed to several different beliefs as they enter college, causing them to feel lost and alone in their original faith. I immediately began to analyze the statistic; I checked the date on the article to see how recent it was, and I also considered the size of the population observed for this statistic. I’m sure hearing this would make Frank’s ears bleed.

            He says he is sending his students into a world that is skeptical about science, and he has a negative attitude about this. I agree with the fact that our society does not simply accept scientific studies now, but I do not think this is a bad thing. Galileo was ostracized for challenging the teaching that the earth was the center of the world, but he was ultimately correct. We need people like Galileo in this world to question our teachings and studies. This will either break down a belief or make it stronger. Either way, we will continue to move forward.

            Although Frank seems to consider the skeptical part of society as a point of concern, I disagree. Criticism is healthy; it forces people to dig deeper and search for more answers. In fact, we are discovering more through the small, scientific battles that are absorbed by the media. The people in the general public read the articles that show up on their homepages because they are interested in the latest “scientific discovery”. These discoveries go back and forth; somebody questions a theory, and somebody else fires back defensively. The only thing we should do about this shift in society is allow it to happen. We could even contribute to the skepticism, thus becoming better critical thinkers ourselves.