We've Been Teaching Scientific Research All Wrong - Here's The Right Way.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 чер 2024
- How we teach the scientific research method in elementary school in high school is wrong. We teach about the scientific research process in terms of gathering and developing hypothesis. Based on theory, testing these hypothesis, and then disclosing this information to the outside world.
An alternative way to think about the scientific research process is building credibility and legitimacy for an idea that you might have. It is also about building credibility and legitimacy for the specific scientific researcher.
It often has to do with the scientific research process, and how we understand it, and more to do with, dealing with critical reviewers that are doubtful of any new idea. 
Having worked in both physics and medical research, I have found that they have DIFFERENT concepts of "science". Both seek models that can interpolate and extrapolate from experimental results, but medical research often seeks an "understanding" that can never be achieved because the working of biological systems are more complex than the human mind can imagine, while physics is about tiny subsystems that CAN be understood. "All models are wrong, but some are useful.
Medical research is "done" when it points the way to a cure, and physics research is "done" when they run out of things they can't explain. Ultimately, it gets down to your goal.
The highest form of the "scientific method" is performing experiments to support one of multiple competing models.
This advice is valuable across so many creative professions. What a great way to frame up this need. Thank you!
Thanks for this video, I think it came at the right time in my PhD research since I have been receiving a great push back with my research methodology. It went to a point of insults and attacks which I found unacceptable.
I think, it is more enriching when we have an intellectual and robust disagreement than personal attacks. It allows the other party to draw back and think deeply and critically of their work.
One said, when one attack you, it is because they do not have anything to critique but use emotional and biased thoughts of you as an individual than the actual work that you are doing.
Centuries of biases like racial discrimination, ulterior motives of money, etc. It really makes one realize how much has been lost because of the modern scientific process and those that compose the processes having biases, consciously or subconsciously. The involvement of companies, governments, etc. manipulating and financing scientific studies has really taken over in many fields... the pharmaceutical companies are a great example. Science, without the philosophy, can only help you understand WHAT is happening, almost never WHY.
If you say that science is doubting, you miss the point that it is also highly protective of its orthodoxies, for good reasons. I don’t think you will have science if the main point isn’t to also defend what is generally accepted in the scientific community.
Same applies to many aspects of day life :)
being critical and doubting are different things. you are describing a critical process
credentialism is useful for laymen/advancing the field, but groupthinky.
I do like that you are presenting research as an adversarial process a-la law. although leaning into the personal aspect, with all the egos and credentialism etc has real downsides. Encourages bad-faith action by careerists.
It's funny, because this feels like an appeal to social authority and an abdication of any desire to reveal something with actual truth value.
feels like career advice, rather than something good for the field or humanity. "how to be credentialed like me"
PROFESSOR OF WHAT, EXACTLY????
It's not important to be right today, but 500 years from now! Unfortunately many are more interested in fame and fortune. And to achieve that, you need to kiss a lot of a**, not being right!
Yes, except it is a bad thing. You seem to embrace it as a political religious tool.