While the "process" which is shown in this video does present a way to do science, it is, unfortunately a VERY slim example for science in general, and almost non-existent for the process of geology. Due to the nature of geology as a HISTORIC science (looking at signs of the past, in the present and developing a specific story to explain those signs), there is very little "testing" of hypotheses, especially by experimentation as demonstrated in the video. This process may, in part, be satisfactory for the experimental science (chemistry and physics), it does a great disservice to the historical sciences (geology, cosmology, evolutionary biology), because the knowledge developed is a different kind of knowledge, it's purpose is different. IN the experimental sciences, the goal is to achieve a certain "rule" - like if this happens, then that will happen because of it." We might call these rules, "laws of nature" (though there are big problems with that metaphor as well, but diverge from this post). Historical sciences are not about developing universal rules, but explaining the RESULTS of a complex system of contingencies and variable that culminated in a product (like an ash layer at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary). We could interpret that data (the ash layer) in multiple ways, but can never test it like that in the video because we cannot reproduce the ash layer. We could say that it was caused by an impact of a bollide and "test" it by looking for a crater, but if we don't find a crater, does that mean the test fails and it is not the effect of an impact? No. It means that there are many, many contingencies and variable that have not been controlled through history, all of which play a role (big or small) in the final presentation of the sign. How we develop explanations is by seeing which data and how well our ideas explain the data. Better explanations explain more of the data and become our favourite answers. They are neither universal, nor "factual", because they reside in singular instances and for the most part were not witnessed. It's unfortunate that this is the "fallback" position for teaching science and leaves the very dynamic and UNPREDICTABLE path to scientific knowledge development (please don't use "discovery" for its positivistic implications. Knowledge only exists as a creation of the mind, not outside of it.). I would recommend reading the following literature to gain a more nuanced understanding of the nature of science and its processes: References Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating Knowledge of the Nature of (Whole) Science. Science Education, 95(3), 518-542. Allchin, D. (2012). Towards clarity on Whole Science and KNOWS. Science Education, 96, 693-700. Allchin, D. (2013). Teaching the nature of science: Perspectives & resources. Saint Paul, Minnesota: SHiPS Education Press. Cleland, C. E. (2013). Common cause explanation and the search for smoking gun. In V. R. Baker (Ed.), Rethinking the fabric of geology: Geologic Society of America Special Paper 502 (pp. 1-9). Denver, CO: Geologic Society of America. Frodeman, R. (1995). Geological reasoning: Geology as an interpretive and historical science. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 107, 960-968. Rudolph, J. L. (2000). Reconsidering the 'Nature of Science' as a Curriculum Component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(3), 403-419. Rudolph, J. L. (2005). Epistemology for the Masses: The Origins of "The Scientific Method" in American Schools. History of Education Quarterly, 45(3), 341-376. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El_Khalick, F. (2012). A series of misrepresentations: A response to Allchin's whole approach to assessing nature of science understandings. Science Education, 96, 685-692. Turner, D. (2013). Hisotrical geology: Methodology and metaphysics. In V. R. Baker (Ed.), Rethinking the fabric of geology: Geological Society of America Special Paper 502 (pp. 11-18). Denver, CO: Geological Society of America.
+Glenn Dolphin I believe that this video is intended for introductory (non-major) geology students who probably don't remember the scientific method from high school. This is the level that we have to start with these students. The rest of the semester is devoted to learning how geologists do science. Your level of detail is way beyond the level of the students that I teach in intro physical geology on the first day of class (when the scientific method is introduced).
In archaeology-- a "historical science"-- there are in fact experiments that can be done to test a hypothesis of what may have happened. For instance: you may build a roundhouse using the same materials available to the natives in the past and do various things to it and see how it collapses to determine if it was an earthquake, demolition of sorts, or lack of upkeep. My point is even in "historical sciences" you can do experiments to get a better understanding
+Glenn Dolphin everything you say is interesting but seems to be refuting something that wasn't said in this video? This is just an intro to the scientific method.
Today, when discussing science, one should include the words "venal" and "money." _"Money, money, money, must be sunny, in a venal-scientist's world..."_
Thank you for the moral education at the beginning. Unsolicited lectures are a great joy.
While the "process" which is shown in this video does present a way to do science, it is, unfortunately a VERY slim example for science in general, and almost non-existent for the process of geology. Due to the nature of geology as a HISTORIC science (looking at signs of the past, in the present and developing a specific story to explain those signs), there is very little "testing" of hypotheses, especially by experimentation as demonstrated in the video. This process may, in part, be satisfactory for the experimental science (chemistry and physics), it does a great disservice to the historical sciences (geology, cosmology, evolutionary biology), because the knowledge developed is a different kind of knowledge, it's purpose is different. IN the experimental sciences, the goal is to achieve a certain "rule" - like if this happens, then that will happen because of it." We might call these rules, "laws of nature" (though there are big problems with that metaphor as well, but diverge from this post). Historical sciences are not about developing universal rules, but explaining the RESULTS of a complex system of contingencies and variable that culminated in a product (like an ash layer at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary). We could interpret that data (the ash layer) in multiple ways, but can never test it like that in the video because we cannot reproduce the ash layer. We could say that it was caused by an impact of a bollide and "test" it by looking for a crater, but if we don't find a crater, does that mean the test fails and it is not the effect of an impact? No. It means that there are many, many contingencies and variable that have not been controlled through history, all of which play a role (big or small) in the final presentation of the sign. How we develop explanations is by seeing which data and how well our ideas explain the data. Better explanations explain more of the data and become our favourite answers. They are neither universal, nor "factual", because they reside in singular instances and for the most part were not witnessed. It's unfortunate that this is the "fallback" position for teaching science and leaves the very dynamic and UNPREDICTABLE path to scientific knowledge development (please don't use "discovery" for its positivistic implications. Knowledge only exists as a creation of the mind, not outside of it.). I would recommend reading the following literature to gain a more nuanced understanding of the nature of science and its processes:
References
Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating Knowledge of the Nature of (Whole) Science. Science Education, 95(3), 518-542.
Allchin, D. (2012). Towards clarity on Whole Science and KNOWS. Science Education, 96, 693-700.
Allchin, D. (2013). Teaching the nature of science: Perspectives & resources. Saint Paul, Minnesota: SHiPS Education Press.
Cleland, C. E. (2013). Common cause explanation and the search for smoking gun. In V. R. Baker (Ed.), Rethinking the fabric of geology: Geologic Society of America Special Paper 502 (pp. 1-9). Denver, CO: Geologic Society of America.
Frodeman, R. (1995). Geological reasoning: Geology as an interpretive and historical science. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 107, 960-968.
Rudolph, J. L. (2000). Reconsidering the 'Nature of Science' as a Curriculum Component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(3), 403-419.
Rudolph, J. L. (2005). Epistemology for the Masses: The Origins of "The Scientific Method" in American Schools. History of Education Quarterly, 45(3), 341-376.
Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El_Khalick, F. (2012). A series of misrepresentations: A response to Allchin's whole approach to assessing nature of science understandings. Science Education, 96, 685-692.
Turner, D. (2013). Hisotrical geology: Methodology and metaphysics. In V. R. Baker (Ed.), Rethinking the fabric of geology: Geological Society of America Special Paper 502 (pp. 11-18). Denver, CO: Geological Society of America.
+Glenn Dolphin I believe that this video is intended for introductory (non-major) geology students who probably don't remember the scientific method from high school. This is the level that we have to start with these students. The rest of the semester is devoted to learning how geologists do science. Your level of detail is way beyond the level of the students that I teach in intro physical geology on the first day of class (when the scientific method is introduced).
In archaeology-- a "historical science"-- there are in fact experiments that can be done to test a hypothesis of what may have happened. For instance: you may build a roundhouse using the same materials available to the natives in the past and do various things to it and see how it collapses to determine if it was an earthquake, demolition of sorts, or lack of upkeep.
My point is even in "historical sciences" you can do experiments to get a better understanding
+Glenn Dolphin everything you say is interesting but seems to be refuting something that wasn't said in this video? This is just an intro to the scientific method.
Today, when discussing science, one should include the words "venal" and "money."
_"Money, money, money, must be sunny, in a venal-scientist's world..."_
Yea CO2 right now is probably at 1% or something
um hi😂😂😂