Re: Scientific Method

[Hugh Logan <hlogan1@BELLSOUTH.NET>]

Joel Rauber wrote:

> Leigh wrote:
> >  I find the silly
> > "scientific method" that is taught in the schools to be of
> > little value. Why does one need a hypothesis? The student
> > often expects that Nature's opinion is of secondary
> > importance because she doesn't assign the grade.
>
> Let me add another Right On!  Why is it silly; because those rigid steps
> listed in many middle school texts aren't the way the scientists I know
> proceed.
>
> I recall a quote, and if anybody remembers this please correct it and give
> the citation; I think it was from Feynman who described the scientific
> method as follows:
>
> "Trying to figure out how nature works: no holds barred".

> I think this is about as good a definition as any and more accurately
> reflects how the practitioners actually proceed.
>
> Does anybody recall the exact quote? And who it is from?

I believe the "no holds barred" quote is from P.W. Bridgeman. Since most of my
books are packed away after a recent move, I can't give more specific
information. I have a vague recollection that it might have been quoted in
_Foundations of Physics_, a high school text by Robert Lehrman and Clifford
Swartz, which  follows Bridgeman's operational approach to physics. I have
seen Bridgeman's description of science quoted on numerous occasions.

Hugh Logan