--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [inversely quoting you]] >I think the phrase scientific method is more useful than the > word alone because that includes its virtues and limits.
Yes. That is the broader point I have been goofing around. That scientific method, or elements of it, can be used in many aspects of life. Its not SCIENCE per se, but can build a strong foundation for a the more traditional sciences. And a much keener interest in such. And if science was taught like that in grade and jr hi school, at least started out like that, it would get kid's attention much more. At least i would have lit up. (And maybe some teachers do go down that road.) I am suggesting teaching the basic traits of scientific method to basic problem solving in real life things. Testing various techniques to hit a baseball further, get more spin on your forehand, running further and faster with various training and diet regimes, learning more stuff faster and more comprehensively, getting more and better dates, being telling funnier jokes, knowing better when somone is full of BS, etc are all things for which elements of scientific methods can be successfully applied: defining the problem, genrating plausible hypotheses, systematically testing each, using methods to know when something is (usually) working and not just a random fluke, etc. I lost a lot of interest in science, unfortunately, in formative years, when 7th grade biology was all about memorizing a bunch of phylums and sub phylums for things I had little affinity for or knowledge of. It was so dry and unactionable. I have yet to sucessfully apply my 7th grade knowledge of phylums in real life. On the other hand, I had a 6th grade teacher (when I was in 5th grade, I got to sneak into his class, that blew our minds with talking about Gauss, Pythagoras and Einstein and the problems they were trying to solve. And building tetrahydrons without any direction (here is what I want to you build -- you find the materials and figure aout a way to do it. Pure magic to a 11 year old when you create this beautiful 3-d object from scratch an ingenuity). I couldn't get enough of it. That was a great inspiration part of getting hooked on scientific methods. Mr Costelli lit the match that ignited my imagination and motivation for math and science. It just wasn't followed up by others teachers later on teaching the TOOLS of science to solve real problems. My problems. Or neat problems that had not occurred to me. After memorizing phyllums -- I was so zzzzzed out with science, I disdained it for years. Much to my diminishment. (Thats why Wiki, and the emerging Wiki University is such a huge step in human progress, IMO. With the $100 internet able PC, and every student, world-wide having one, bad and mediocre and uninspiring teachers can be bypassed and the natural inquisitiveness of kids can find an infinite source to drink upon. Hqave you ever met a 3-4 year old for whmo 50% of their word cound is not , "why?" (more like why?????!??!!!) > Not all subjects are suitable for the scientific > method. Screeeechchtzzzzz! Say what? I agree with your distinction above -- and that, my example, the Science of Getting Laid" is not a hard Science (12 year old chuckle) but it is a hugely ripe area for applying the scientific method -- and would turn millions of kids onto scientific method -- and some onto hard science. What subject is not applicable to at least some elements of scientific method -- in their most basic forms? I am not saying its all science. There is "art". But I just don't see a huge chasm between the two.
