Norman Edmund’s Educational Blog

There has long been a debate about whether we should have ability grouping in K-12 education. The general opinion is that it shouldn’t be done. An article in Education Week (February 8, 2006) reporting on a study said, “Among language-minority children who primarily speak Spanish at home, ability grouping boosts school performance in early grades.”

We need a mini-institute about ability grouping at a university to constantly study and advise educators about what is best. It is of importance in making sure that our gifted students are properly educated, since they will be the leaders of tomorrow.

Most of the organizations I challenged would love to receive $100,000 to aid their activities.

The trouble is, I claim, they know they can’t prove me wrong.

If an organization didn’t want to set a precedent by accepting a public challenge, it should have started an internal investigation into the correctness of its policy of ignoring the scientific method. I heard of none that did this.

If one organization didn’t want to take the responsibility of accepting the challenge, they could have combined to investigate my claims.

“Deep, Dark Secret”

At various times I have made the claim that those perpetuating the blunder have been keeping their claims that the scientific method doesn’t exist a “deep, dark secret.” There have been no public discussions, debates, or detailed explanations of the reasons they claim the scientific method doesn’t exist.

I wrote to the editors of publications put out by the organizations I challenged with a request that they call the challenge to the attention of members.

NOT ONE DID SO!

So the great harms of the blunder continue!

In my book End the Biggest Educational and Intellectual Blunder in History I challenged 17 organizations that I had previously challenged, but this time I offered $100,000 to one that would accept the challenge and prove me wrong.

Thinking about it now, I should have dropped the government agencies and added a few others, such as the American Educational Research Association.

None of the 17 organizations has accepted my challenge:

Havard University
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)*
U.S. Department of Education
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)*
National Science Foundation (NSF)
National Science Teachers Association (NSTA)
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD)*
U.S. Department of Labor
Educational Testing Service
Carnegie Corporation
History of Science Society*
National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST)
Sigma Xi Scientific Honor Society
National Association of Scholars
American Psychological Society
American Psychological Association
Cognitive Society

*These organizations acknowledged receipt of the challenge.

All the organizations with publications were asked to report to their members the receipt of the challenge; none did so. This continues to keep the blunder a “deep, dark secret.”

Tomorrow - the significance of the non-acceptance of my challenge.

I’ve received a few letters of encouragement, but on the whole people are indifferent or adverse to admitting that a huge blunder about the scientific method has occurred. Change requires them to make substantial alterations to their thinking and activities.

Tomorrow I will report on the results of my challenge to the organizations listed in my book

Robert Millikan (1863-1953). A foremost scientist in his day, Millikan is famous for his oil drop experiment. In his speech before the New York Herald Tribune Forum in October 1938, he said:

“In this progress made by science lies all our hope for the future in the field of human betterment (justice); for the rational, objective, experimental, scientific method which first began to establish its effectiveness in a large way in astronomy and physics about three hundred years ago and then was applied with amazing results in rapid succession in engineering, in chemistry, in geology, in biology, in medicine, is a general method for discovering truth, the only one that has thus far been found, and it is just as applicable to the social as to the natural sciences, though the technique is different. In the social sciences it is historical and statistical; in the natural sciences direct laboratory experimenting predominates. Until the method as been used in the social sciences the word justice has no meaning save for the demagogue who uses it to stir irrational emotions and thus win unintelligent votes.”

Nobel Laureate Simon Newcomb (1835-1909). Newcomb recommended scientific method in numerous speeches and articles. In an article entitled “What Is a Liberal Education?” (Science, April 11, 1884), Newcomb said, in reference to the small minority who received a higher education in those days:

“Our duty to that generation is to so use and train this select body as to be of most benefit to the men of the future. What is the training required? I reply by saying that I know nothing better for this end than a wide and liberal training in the scientific spirit and the scientific method.”

John Dewey (1859-1952). Dewey has been called America’s most influential philosopher and educator. In How We Think (1933) he said:

“Scientific method includes, in short, all the process by which the observing and amassing of data are regulated with a view to facilitating the formation of explanatory conceptions and theories.”

Nobel Laureate Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988). Feynman is often called the greatest physicist who ever lived. In his famous lectures on physics, he said:

“Observation, reason, and experimentation make up what we call ’scientific method.’”

Philosophers of science have contributed a great deal to the development of the scientific method. I drew heavily on their work in my research. However, their greatest contribution has been to the logical methods used in its ingredients. Since the scientific method must be viewed as just a guide as to how scientists and other researchers actually do the full range of their work, I did not find that philosophers were the ones with the formulas closest to actual practice.

In Insights and Illusions of Philosophy (1965), Jean Piaget says:

“From these premises Jaspers draws the following conclusions, which are precisely ours: ‘In philosophy there is no consensus of opinion, establishing a definitive knowledge. . . Contrary to science, philosophy under all its forms ought to dispense with a consensus of opinion, this ought to be implicit in its very nature.’”

It is not surprising then that Hodson writes in his essay “History, Philosophy and Science Teaching” (1991), discussing the movement to teach processes of science:

“Implicit in such a change is the assumption that a distinctive scientific methodology can be described. A consideration of the extensive literature in the philosophy of science (notably the work of Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend, Laudan, and Putnam) reveals that such an assumption cannot be sustained. There is no general agreement on what constitutes scientific method.”

It is probably a safe conclusion that philosophers will never agree about the scientific method, for it is easily possible to claim, on philosophical grounds, that it does not exist, or it is this, that, or something else.

However, it does great harm when they express the opinion that the scientific method does not exist. This opinion is then reflected in grade schools, which interferes with teaching a practical description of the scientific method based on its being a flexible guide to the stages through which researchers normally go.

Hodson continues with:

“However, the realization that science has no one entirely rational method does not mean that we must assume it to be a mere jumble of irrational goings-on. Our inability to identify a single, simple method applicable in all situations does not mean that science has no methods, and we would do children a gross disservice if we implied that the world of the scientist is totally anarchic - a disservice just as great as the suggestion that science is propelled by a single all-powerful method.

My research has shown that, because of the claims of Conant, Popper, and others that the scientific method does not exist, the teaching of science in grade schools has been an anarchic situation, jumping from one reform program to another for lack of the base of the scientific method. Since children have been taught no method or guide in national reform programs, what else can they think that science is - other than a mere jumble of goings-on? The main reason we have not attained scientific literacy is that we are not adequately teaching the scientific method, also called the general pattern of the scientific method (of which SM-14 is an example).

Does responsibility for the study of the scientific method belong to psychologists? In Scientific Method (1968), Weatherall says:

“Science, in fact, is what scientists do. Study of scientific method is the study of how they do it, and is properly a branch of psychology, particularly important to all practising scientists and to anyone who is interested in scientists and science.”

In my research, I didn’t find psychologists to be the best source of formulas. However, one of the better books I found on the subject was by a psychologist, Carlo Lastrucci. His book, The Scientific Approach (1967), is still in print and is available at www.scientificmethod.com.

The Wikipedia encyclopedia says:

“A profession is an occupation that requires extensive training and the study and mastery of specialized knowledge, and usually has a professional association, ethical code and process of certification or licensing. Examples are law, medicine, finance, the military, nursing, the clergy and engineering.”

There is no standard definition of a modern professional, however. Beyond the classical examples (lawyers, doctors, etc.) there are many groups that claim status as a profession, and many who would dispute that status.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the five hallmarks of a profession are

a national organization that speaks on its behalf
a code of ethics
a body of knowledge
research that develops the field
a credentialing organization that sets standards for the profession

Yesterday I discussed what it takes to be a science. Now I propose what a profession is:

A group of practitioners in a specialized area of knowledge. The practitioners are educated, trained, study, and practice in this subject area.

The practitioners are familiar with and use in their research and work the scientific method - the complete method of creative problem solving and decision making for all fields.

The group follows a code of ethics.

The group has one or more national organizations representing the practitioners. There are usually publications to aid in promoting the welfare of members and in originating, extending, refining, applying, and accumulating knowledge in the specialized subject area.

The group may have membership standards and/0r be subject to certification and licensing requirements.

It is not well understood that a professional should be well versed in the scientific method due to the blunder and misunderstandings. The misunderstandings should end in the coming years as more information is published about the blunder.

Ask yourself why anyone should be considered a professional who is not familiar with the complete method of creative problem solving and decision making.

A science is best described by what has been developed over the centuries and what exists in the natural sciences today. (There are sciences that are not natural sciences.) It would help in the teaching of science if we had an official teaching description of a science. The description should be one the public can easily understand. Here I present my proposed description.

Feature 1. A community of specialized practitioners exists. This will be in a particular subject area. There can be many sub-specialties in the general subject area. The name of the science is patterned after the subject area.

Feature 2. The practitioners conduct inquiry. This is done in their areas of expertise following the method of inquiry more commonly called the scientific method. They originate, extend, refine, and apply knowledge following the mental activity stages of the scientific method usually aided by physical activities.

Feature 3. Creative, non-logical, logical, and technical methods. Techniques (old or new) generally used in problem solving or specific to a specialty are used at the various stages of mental activity to actually accomplish results.

Feature 4. Procedural principles and theories. Those of the scientific method, including a general code of ethics, are followed.

Feature 5. Practitioners apply the personal attributes and thinking skills in their efforts that are required to accomplish results.

Feature 6. There are usually professional organizations that represent the practitioners. These may have a special code of ethics, standards, membership requirements, licensing requirements, etc. They have their own professional journals.

Feature 7. Research papers are presented. These are prepared and presented to journals, conferences, and on the internet. They may be accepted, rejected, or returned for revision. This system of peer review, while not perfect, has been the best system found to date. In theory, peer reviewers follow the scientific method in their reviews to the extent that time permits.

Feature 8. After publication, fellow practitioners may accept, reject, question, or apply the research. The ability of others to duplicate the claims of the research papers is of critical importance to their final acceptance.

Feature 9. The objective is to find “the truth.” While practitioners are often said to be “seeking the truth,” the truth can be subjective. In practice, what occurs is “on the evidence available today, the balance of probability favors the view that. . .”

Feature 10. Cumulative body of knowledge. Through the scientific method system, a cumulative body of knowledge that is reliable to varying degrees is presented.

Short Description

A science may be made up of many specific subjects with a group of practitioners specializing in a subject and following the scientific method system.

On January 23, 2002, Congress passed HR 3801, with the official short title of Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002.

A brief search of the internet didn’t turn up anything helpful in defining education sciences. Historically, Dewey and others used the term “science of education,” but I don’t recall the use of the term “education sciences.”

However, almost any subject can become a “science” if properly researched. Tomorrow I will report on what it takes for a subject to become a science. If any of my readers have ideas on what education sciences might be, please let me hear from you.

An interesting article appeared in The New York Times on January 5, 2006. It is “Pity the Scientist Who Discovers the Discovered” by Gina Kolata. It explains how many scientists discover something only to find that other people have discovered the same thing. Often the discoveries have appeared in the literature, but under other names and descriptions.

Within a year or two of starting my research on the scientific method, I discovered the misunderstandings about the scientific method that had spread among our top educational leaders to such a great extent that it was not included in any national science education program. After a few more years of trying unsuccessfully to correct the misunderstandings, I began to describe the situation as The Biggest Educational and Intellectual Blunder in History.

I have had to ask myself constantly whether I am right or wrong. However, the more research I do the more apparent it becomes that a huge blunder has occurred.

I am sure that others discovered that a mistake has been made, but I have not found anyone else actively campaigning to correct it. Thus, I have felt very lonely and need others to actively support a correction of the blunder.

Please tell you friends about the blunder. If you would like a list of people to write to about the blunder, please send me an email.