I am exhausted by the constant necessity of defending discovery and exploration science as being as legitimate as (and, in my opinion, far more influential than) “the” scientific method of testing very focused hypotheses. I am especially tired of having to reassure my graduate students that, despite what other faculty insist on implying, what they are doing is good science. As you can imagine, I am thrilled to see that the excellent resource site Understanding Science (a follow-up to their equally wonderful Understanding Evolution) agrees with me.
The alternative that they propose is pretty complex, but so is the real world.
If you’re one of those people who thinks there is one scientific method and that it involves only testing hypotheses, then you owe it to yourself and to your (and my) students to read this resource.
Thanks for the link! I will print this out and put it on my lab door. And I might translate some version of it for a patients association I need to address in November, among whom a significant faction (I do not use the “r” on purpose) don’t see the use of supporting basic research with their fundraising.
I love that figure, ever since they put it up. I try to teach the scientific method in a more complex way (in my BIO101 for adults class) as well
I also suggest people read: Brandon, RN, Does biology have laws? The experimental evidence. PSA 1996, vol. 2, 444—457.
I clearly remember being taught the simple “scientific method” four years in a row in my undergrad courses. Only to discover that yep, the real process is more like that mammoth of a flow chart…still freaks me out.