Re: paleonet Using article on Dini to teach scientific method

["Niko Malchus" <nikolaus.malchus@xxxxxx>]

Hi Raymond, and Paleonetters

I suppose You expect some reaction as You posted this on paleonet and not to
Jere personally.

There could certainly be said much more, but just some short comments.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Raymond Gildner" <gildnerr@ipfw.edu>
To: <PaleoNet@nhm.ac.uk>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 8:33 PM
Subject: paleonet Using article on Dini to teach scientific method


snip

In Geology 100 lecture, I explained that historical sciences like geology
uses a different definition of experiment than do sciences like chemistry or
physics. In chemistry and physics, an experiment is a contrived situation.
Still, it is not the experiment that is used for analyzing an hypothesis,
but the results of the experiment.

1) I think that, as You design the experiment specifically to test a
hypothesis (contrived), it is in fact part of the analysis. A different
design - another result. Depending on the design, You will experience light
as wave or as discrete entities.

snip

I tell them that "repeatability" in the historical sciences refers to
repeated observations from the natural world. It doesn't mean that we
repeatedly make mountains, but that we observe the same things in different
mountains. It doesn't mean that we repeatedly make stars, but that we can
observe the same things in different stars. "Prediction" in historical
sciences doesn't mean that we have to make a new mountain, but that we have
to look for our expected results in the mountains that are already here.
This is, I feel, rather simple and straightforward stuff.

2) Simple? How long did You think about this matter, and how much time did
You give Your students? :-) Even though predigested for the students, they
may still have a disadvantange here.

In the exam, I asked them to critique a passage from the Townhall.com
article
(http://www.townhall.com/columnists/maggiegallagher/mg20030206.shtml). The
question I wrote was:

snip

I was hoping that the students would seize upon the use of the phrase
"repeatability." About 20% did. The my disappointment, more answered that
there must be some repeated and repeatable experiments, or it wouldn't be
believed by science.

So I'd have to say that their answers to the question showed that I failed
to teach them the meaning of "experiment" and "repeatability" as used in
historical sciences. I'm not giving up, though!

3) How about letting them design two analogous experiments, one physical
(e.g.) and one concerning historical science.

Cheers,

Niko





------------

Raymond F. Gildner
Department of Geosciences
Indiana University-Purdue University Ft. Wayne
gildnerr@ipfw.edu