Many folks attend universities, get degrees and assume that is the end of knowledge acquisition. Rarely do they think of how that body of knowledge they acquired came to be. Even more rarely do they apply the principles used to consolidate that knowledge to their own thought processes.
This is equally true of those that study the sciences or the arts. This is equally true of folks who secure admissions to the much vaunted Ivy League universities or the less-hyped local universities.
That said, the scientific method has been the cornerstone of education for centuries now. It's application has produced most of the scholarly knowledge we have today. It is based on open, rational, logical thought that analyses a subject from all currently possible angles, postulates hypotheses and tests those hypotheses through experimentation and other methods. The whole process fosters objectivity (a willingness to view a subject without preconceived notions about it) over ideology (where a "researcher" comes to a conclusion and then gathers "evidence" to prove his or her point) And above all, the process requires research to be repeatable (ie. able to be performed by others and come to similar conclusions or refute the findings - the ability to refute the original researcher's findings being central to the theme of objectivity). And the beauty of the whole process is that scholarly publications of this nature are peer-reviewed for logical fallacies and errors.
The scientific method, however, does not preclude ideologues from finding their way into reputable institutions of learning as the following post demonstrates. Neither does it prevent shoddy work from emanating from such institutions. The post refers to a dissection of a Harvard PhD thesis. The following sentence, which I feel is one of its most poignant lines, encapsulates the scientific method:
"Remember that in good science, we work to prove our hypothesis WRONG, not to substantiate a pre-formed idea."
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/05/30/race-iq-immigration-harvard-thesis-richwine/
This is equally true of those that study the sciences or the arts. This is equally true of folks who secure admissions to the much vaunted Ivy League universities or the less-hyped local universities.
That said, the scientific method has been the cornerstone of education for centuries now. It's application has produced most of the scholarly knowledge we have today. It is based on open, rational, logical thought that analyses a subject from all currently possible angles, postulates hypotheses and tests those hypotheses through experimentation and other methods. The whole process fosters objectivity (a willingness to view a subject without preconceived notions about it) over ideology (where a "researcher" comes to a conclusion and then gathers "evidence" to prove his or her point) And above all, the process requires research to be repeatable (ie. able to be performed by others and come to similar conclusions or refute the findings - the ability to refute the original researcher's findings being central to the theme of objectivity). And the beauty of the whole process is that scholarly publications of this nature are peer-reviewed for logical fallacies and errors.
The scientific method, however, does not preclude ideologues from finding their way into reputable institutions of learning as the following post demonstrates. Neither does it prevent shoddy work from emanating from such institutions. The post refers to a dissection of a Harvard PhD thesis. The following sentence, which I feel is one of its most poignant lines, encapsulates the scientific method:
"Remember that in good science, we work to prove our hypothesis WRONG, not to substantiate a pre-formed idea."
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/05/30/race-iq-immigration-harvard-thesis-richwine/
No comments:
Post a Comment