University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana

Biological Sciences Faculty Publications Biological Sciences

8-2012

Distorting the Process of Scientific Inquiry

Richard L. Hutto University of Montana - Missoula, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/biosci_pubs

Part of the Biology Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y

Recommended Citation Hutto, Richard L., "Distorting the Process of Scientific Inquiry" (2012). Biological Sciences Faculty Publications. 265. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/biosci_pubs/265

This Editorial is brought to you for free and open access by the Biological Sciences at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Biological Sciences Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Viewpoint Distorting the Process of Scientific Inquiry

Richard L. Hutto

here is beauty in the scientific Standards are expected to emerge are explanations; statistical hypotheses Tmethod, but that beauty can from the Framework for K–12 Science are not. Research hypotheses can be become distorted if parts of the pro- Education (National Research Council considered guesses, but those guesses cess are misrepresented, misplaced, or 2012). are still explanations of a pattern; they missing altogether. Unfortunately, such The general nature of the scientific are not, as is frequently taught, guesses distortion is becoming more common. method is well described. Even its about the outcome of an experiment. Specifically, students and practicing Wikipedia entry nicely summarizes Another source of confusion involves scientists alike are dwelling excessively that scientists “propose hypotheses the use of the word prediction. Pre­ on statistical hypothesis testing at the as explanations of phenomena and dictions are not guesses about which expense of research hypothesis testing. design experimental studies to test hypothesis is the most likely explana- Many are even using the word pre- these hypotheses via predictions which tion, nor are they guesses about the diction in association with statistical can be derived from them” (http://en. ­outcome of an experiment; they are hypothesis testing, where it does not wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method). logical consequences that follow neces- belong. Consequently, these distor- The process of scientific inquiry is sarily from a stated research hypothesis, tions are converting a process designed a logical procedure that involves the and they can be observational, com- to help explain natural phenomena following four steps: (1) Find some- parative, or experimental in nature. through the use of strong inference thing interesting to talk about by Simply put, if a prediction is not part (sensu Platt 1964) into a process that using statistical hypothesis testing to of an if–then series, it does not belong. is little more than an empty exercise in expose an observation or pattern that Just to illustrate that distortion of fact finding. is unlikely to have arisen from chance the scientific method occurs at an The reasons for an emergence alone; (2) suggest alternative explana- early age among students, consider the of such distortions in the scientific tions (research hypotheses) for why nature of most science-fair projects. method are unclear, but there are at the nonrandom pattern exists; (3) use They represent independent work, but least two issues that are likely to have if–then logic to generate a series of relatively few projects can be classified played a role. First, there has been a predictions that follow logically and as science, because most do not involve concerted effort to downplay the lin- necessarily from each hypothesis; and the last three steps outlined above. ear, stepwise nature of the scientific (4) distinguish among the alternatives Most science-fair participants provide method (National Research Council by testing the predictions that were a purpose or stated question (e.g., Can 2011). Indeed, a clear outline of the generated in step 3. I build a bridge? Can a hovercraft lift steps involved in the process of scien- So how has such a simple process extra weight? How many licks will it tific inquiry is surprisingly difficult to become distorted? It is an unfortunate take to get to the center of a Tootsie find these days. This change in empha- coincidence that any explanation for Roll Pop? Can I grow plants without sis may have left people comfortable a phenomenon is called a hypothesis, soil?), but these questions alone are practicing only the initial fact-finding which is precisely the same word one not at all suited to scientific inquiry, step and then passing that off as sci- uses to label alternative outcomes (the because they do not represent attempts ence. Second, similarities in the termi- null and alternative hypotheses) in to explain anything. Actual “hypothe- nology associated with statistical and a statistical test. To avoid the risk ses” that I observed in association with research hypothesis testing has not of confusing the process involved in these questions (e.g., respectively, I bet only caused confusion but has misled scientific inquiry, potential explana- I can; a hovercraft should be able to lift people into thinking that statistical tions for nonrandom patterns should 400 pounds off the ground; it should hypothesis testing is the same thing be termed research hypotheses so that take 277 licks; I should be able to) as research hypothesis testing. As long they are labeled as something dis- and the associated “predictions” (most as the words hypothesis and prediction tinct from statistical hypotheses. Unlike often restatements of the hypotheses) are used, people think they are doing statistical hypotheses, which usually are nonsense and are a clear indica- science! It would be timely to remind consist of two alternatives (random or tion that something is wrong with ourselves how the method of scientific not), there is no limit to the number the participants’ understanding of the inquiry actually works (Karsai and of research hypotheses that a person scientific method. Kampis 2010), because sometime in might generate to explain a pattern. Fortunately, many other science-fair 2012, the new Next Generation Science More important, research hypotheses participants provide a stated purpose www.biosciencemag.org August 2012 / Vol. 62 No. 8 • BioScience 707 Viewpoint or question that fits well into step 1 what should be an elegant, overarching will help limit those that have become (e.g., Does music type affect one’s method. Neither research hypotheses embarrassingly widespread. The con- blood pressure? Will lodgepole pine nor predictions are associated with sequences of our failure to clarify and benefit from fire? Do girls have bet- step 1 (the observation step). One does simplify the process of science for ter memory than boys? Which dis­ not guess—“hypothesize” or “predict” students are profound. Not only are infectant kills the most bacteria? Does in the lingo of those who abuse the we driving children away from science age affect color perception?), but the terms—what the answer to a statistical through our failure to describe scien- participants then introduce “hypo­ test might be. tific inquiry as a simple yet creative theses” where they do not belong (e.g., Students today have been led to process, but we are also graduating respectively, classical music will lower believe that statistical hypothesis test- students who have never experienced and rock will increase blood pres- ing constitutes the entire process of or fully understood science as a way of sure; fire helps lodgepole pine; girls science, because they have (inappro- seeking knowledge. will do better than boys; I bet Clorox priately) inserted the words hypothesis will kill the most; yes, it will). Because and prediction into the exploration Acknowledgments of this, the “hypothesis” becomes no phase (step 1) of the scientific method. I appreciate the comments, construc- more than a guess at the answer to the If fact finding (statistical hypothesis tive criticism, and encouragement yes–no question that the student posed testing) alone is considered “science,” ­offered by Fletcher Brown, Ken Dial, as the purpose of the project, which is the mere act of seeking an answer to Jared Diamond, Aaron Flesch, Anne really no more than a step-1 attempt a question would constitute science- Greene, Doug Johnson, Paul Kraus- to expose a nonrandom pattern. These based learning. Fact finding based on man, Winsor Lowe, Tom Martin, Mike “hypo­theses” are not step-3 explana- statistical hypothesis testing is a part of Morrison, Helen Quinn, and each of tions for something that has already science but is only a part of the four- the 50 students in Biology 470 at the been established as a fact or pattern in step process outlined above. University of Montana who read an step 1. For too long, students have been There may not be “one distinctive earlier draft of this essay. told that a hypothesis is nothing more approach common to all science—a than what they think will happen. This single ‘scientific method’” (National References cited represents a confusion of explanations Research Council 2011, p. 3-2), but Karsai I, Kampis G. 2010. The crossroads (research hypotheses) with predictions we cannot ignore the stepwise nature between biology and mathematics: The scientific method as the basics of scientific that logically follow from any given of the process by testing “predictions” literacy. BioScience 60: 632–638. explanation. Predictions are not gut that do not emerge from a research National Research Council. 2012. A Framework feelings about the outcome of a test; hypothesis or by testing “hypotheses” for K–12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. they are logical consequences that must that were not erected to explain some- National Academies Press. be true if the hypothesis is true. thing and still call that “science.” The Platt JR. 1964. Strong inference. Science 146: Practicing scientists are not immune sources of confusion about the process 347–353. to distorting the scientific method, and of scientific inquiry are not difficult to these instances seem to be increasingly understand, but eliminating the con- Richard L. Hutto ([email protected]) is common. The words hypothesis and fusion first requires recognition that ­director and a professor at the Avian Science prediction appear in most scientific there is a problem. Therefore, I hope ­Center, in the Division of Biological Sciences, at the University of Montana, in Missoula. studies, but they are often entirely that exposing some of the distortions decoupled from the broader context of associated with this elegant method doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.3

708 BioScience • August 2012 / Vol. 62 No. 8 www.biosciencemag.org