The Scientific Method Beyond the Lab

In his last interview, Carl Sagan famously said

“Science is more than a body of knowledge. It’s a way of thinking; a way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility. If we are not able to ask skeptical questions to interrogate those who tell us that something is true — to be skeptical of those in authority — then we’re up for grabs for the next charlatan, political or religious who comes ambling along. It’s a thing that Jefferson lay great stress on. It wasn’t enough, he said, to enshrine some rights in a Constitution or Bill of Rights. The people had to be educated and they had to practice their skepticism and their education.”

This way of thinking propels society forward. This is why we teach the ‘scientific method’ in school. The scientific way of thinking supports the development of skills and dispositions that are useful (and increasingly necessary) throughout academic life and beyond. What I want to talk about very briefly is how important and I believe underrepresented this mental model is in the ‘non-STEM’ or liberal arts disciplines.

There’s a lot of noise out there — ideas and opinions are a dime a dozen. How do we tell which ones are well thought out and which ones are nonsensical proselytizing? The urgency of this question is why it’s so important is that educators actively promote a method for evaluating ideas in the realm of liberal arts that is equally as rigorous (if imprecise) as that which we have come to expect from our scientists. In a recent article for Humanist magazine, Lawrence Krauss hit the nail on the head:

“The most important goal in educating our children should be to encourage them to question everything, to not be satisfied with unsubstantiated claims, and to be skeptical of a priori beliefs, either their own, their parents’, or their teachers’. Encouraging skeptical thinking in this way, as well as directing a process by which questions may be answered — the process of empirical investigation followed by logical reasoning — helps create lifelong learners and citizens who can responsibly address the demands of a democratic society.”

In encouraging hypothesis testing across all disciplines we are teaching students that it’s important to learn to be wrong, but to do so with a purpose. That is, to postulate an opinion or idea based on known facts and test these ideas through further research, collaboration and discussion. It is particularly challenging to apply this way of thinking when asking philosophical, political or economic questions that are often wrought with cultural and personal biases. The inherently polarizing nature of these intellectual pursuits is precisely why we must teach the next generation that it’s okay to be wrong, necessary to challenge others’ assumptions and healthy to leave our own open to criticism. If we can teach this to students before their predispositions (whether instilled by family, friends, or society) are etched in stone, we can help everyone to think a little more like a scientist. The humility that stems from these efforts will benefit us all.

This is one of the reason’s why we’re building Parlay.

That’s all for now,

Bobby