The chapter “Thinking Scientifically,” from Natalie Angier's book, The Canon, analyzes the advantages of the application of scientific processes in daily life. This is first done through a description of science as a dynamic state of mind, rather than a list of facts to be memorized and regurgitated. In what amounts to a minor attack on the way science is regularly taught, Angier quotes David Stevenson, saying “Many teachers who don't have a deep appreciation of science present it as a set of facts...What's often missing is the idea of critical thinking, how you assess which ideas are reasonable and which are not,” (Angier, 19). This—the mode through which science is taught, and the subsequent ways which students believe it can or cannot be
…show more content…
This latter method, however, is terribly inconsistent with the nature of science. That being, of course, that “science is a state of mind. It is a way of viewing the world,” (Angier, 19) through which one can learn more about the workings of his or her own life. This is quite similar to the game of Mastermind, which was played in ISP and which Scott Strobel uses as an analogy for the way science works. Save cases of pure luck, it is essential to exercise critical thinking techniques—scientific techniques—in order to be successful within the game. Simply observing what has occurred in previous moves and factualizing it is not an advantageous strategy. Rather, one must observe previous moves to analyze trends and make educated evaluations of those trends which can then be tested, serving as a direct parallel to the scientific method. Furthermore, it can be rather beneficial to attempt to isolate changes—similar to isolating variables—in order to garnish a more complete picture of the game—or the scientific research, in which case the isolation of variables is not simply beneficial but is …show more content…
Alex Filippenko furthers this with “the rules of science are quite strict...I get messages every day from people who have ideas that sound interesting but that are terribly incomplete. I tell them, Look, you have to formulate your proposal much more coherently, in a way that explains not only the one new thing you're concerned with, but that is consistent with everything else we know, too. Any new, revolutionary idea has to be able to explain the existing body of knowledge at least as well as the ideas we already accept,” (Angier, 35). Both Angier's source Filippenko and Kahn's expert Muller coincidentally from Berkeley, their experiences share far more than a campus. They both illustrate the ultimate worst-case theorized scenario from the application of science by people who do not understand its nuances, by people who instead are stuck to misconceptions about its principles. They both illustrate the application of flagrant ignorance. When dealing purely with theorizing, it remains a fairly benign fault—save the
This latter method, however, is terribly inconsistent with the nature of science. That being, of course, that “science is a state of mind. It is a way of viewing the world,” (Angier, 19) through which one can learn more about the workings of his or her own life. This is quite similar to the game of Mastermind, which was played in ISP and which Scott Strobel uses as an analogy for the way science works. Save cases of pure luck, it is essential to exercise critical thinking techniques—scientific techniques—in order to be successful within the game. Simply observing what has occurred in previous moves and factualizing it is not an advantageous strategy. Rather, one must observe previous moves to analyze trends and make educated evaluations of those trends which can then be tested, serving as a direct parallel to the scientific method. Furthermore, it can be rather beneficial to attempt to isolate changes—similar to isolating variables—in order to garnish a more complete picture of the game—or the scientific research, in which case the isolation of variables is not simply beneficial but is …show more content…
Alex Filippenko furthers this with “the rules of science are quite strict...I get messages every day from people who have ideas that sound interesting but that are terribly incomplete. I tell them, Look, you have to formulate your proposal much more coherently, in a way that explains not only the one new thing you're concerned with, but that is consistent with everything else we know, too. Any new, revolutionary idea has to be able to explain the existing body of knowledge at least as well as the ideas we already accept,” (Angier, 35). Both Angier's source Filippenko and Kahn's expert Muller coincidentally from Berkeley, their experiences share far more than a campus. They both illustrate the ultimate worst-case theorized scenario from the application of science by people who do not understand its nuances, by people who instead are stuck to misconceptions about its principles. They both illustrate the application of flagrant ignorance. When dealing purely with theorizing, it remains a fairly benign fault—save the