Re: A. Einstein and science-fairs

[Robert A Cohen <bbq@ESU.EDU>]

On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, Michael Edmiston wrote:

> [snip]

> This seems to be the primary focus of science fairs today... process.
>  That's why we have this hypothesis/experiment/conclusion stuff because
> it is the primary thing the teachers think they need to stress.   In
> fact, they stress it more than "experimental design" i.e. learning
> about controls and reproducibility.  Although the hypothesis stuff
> clearly outranks the experimental design phase (here at Bluffton) I am
> at least happy to report that the design aspect is not totally
> neglected.  In my opinion that is the most educational part of a
> project like removing stains... not that I tested a hypothesis, but
> that I designed an experiment that was able to produce an obvious,
> reproducible, definitive answer.  But that is only one aspect of
> science.  I also want to know why.
>
> I think there is little science content in a stain remover project
> UNLESS the student tries to find out why xyz is better than abc.  Was
> one a degreaser but the other was an enzyme?  Hmm, what's a degreaser?
>  What's an enzyme?  What's in spaghetti sauce?  Or another line of
> reasoning...Does it make a difference what kind of fabric is used?  If
> so, why do some fabrics bind the stain more.  Is this a natural versus
> synthetic thing?  How are synthetic fibers different than natural
> fibers?
>
> [snip]

While I agree with much of what Michael has said in this thread, I believe
that there is a lot of science in just identifying empirical
relationships.  For example, we can ask if there is a relationship between
force and acceleration.  We don't have to ask why.

As for the scientific "method", my own scientific "method" is cyclical. I
might first identify a relationship empirically (e.g., is there a
difference between stain removers?) and then see if there is some common
characteristic among the best stain removers, at which point I might come
up with a hypothesis (those with enzyme A are better) and then test it.  I
don't have a hypothesis initially (at least I wouldn't call the question
"is there a difference" a hypothesis) but it seems natural that an
analysis of the results from the first investigation would result in a
testable hypothesis.

My problem with the "scientific method" is that it implies that there is a
required starting point (a hypothesis) and that the hypothesis remains
unchanged throughout the "science". I don't mind the build-a-kit type
projects as long as the building process created some questions in the
kid's mind about how it worked, leading to hypotheses that can then be
tested.

----------------------------------------------------------
| Robert Cohen               Department of Physics       |
|                            East Stroudsburg University |
| bbq@esu.edu                East Stroudsburg, PA  18301 |
| http://www.esu.edu/~bbq/   (570) 422-3428              |
----------------------------------------------------------