> > I think the scientific method should be taught
> >as a process apart from any ties to any
> >conclusions derived that have been derived from
> >it. Many schools supposedly do this, but I went
> >to some great schools that still botched the job.
>
> They sort of tried this at my school. But, seriously. We can't exactly make students derive all of classical physics from first principles. Teaching "what" to think is every bit as important as teaching "how" to think. Facts are facts. You learn them by rote if you need to know them.

Physics is actually a lot more like math, in the sense that it is largely a theoretical domain with amazingly practical use in describing the way the universe works. It defines its own terms, and therefore, by its very nature, cannot be wrong.

For example, when Newton was proved wrong by QM, he wasn't actually wrong. Newtonian physics is a mathematical system that is internally consistent, *and* continues to have practical application in the universe. Yet, when you get right down to the nitty gritty, the universe just doesn't follow Newtonian rules with flawless precision. But so what? If the activity you are doing is done in the domain of Newtonian physics -- that is, the Newtonian rules of physics are your premises upon which you build your research and experimentation -- then he's right, and you're right for anything you come up with. Period. Of course, we continue to refine our findings in the field of physics, because we continue to run into situations (micro instead of macro, for a trivial example) where our existing formulas fail to accurately describe the universe. But it doesn't mean we are suddenly unable to calculate how long an apple will take to hit the ground without QM.

Biology is a totally different arena. It's not about the rules of the universe. It's not about what *can* happen. It's about what *did* happen, what *is* and *was*. In physics, a theoretical apple can fall from a tree at an acceleration of 9.8 meters per second squared. You're right. In biology, if the apple was really an orange, or if it didn't fall from the tree at all, you're wrong. Period. There's no theoretical domain in which you're right. There's no reasoning that the apple must have fallen, because if it did fall, it would have fallen in a manner consistent with physics. It just plain didn't freaking fall.

> Can you name one other bit of commonly accepted (by scientists) science that you would want taught this way?

Yes. All of them. Again, I don't think you are understanding the method of education I'm proposing.

Let's just take physics as an example (although for the reasons outlined above I'm ok with a "facts are facts" approach with physics and chemistry). YOU tell ME why a student who doesn't learn the following isn't getting the best possible education:

1. How to use the scientific method to draw conclusions about physics.
2. All the major conclusions that have been drawn by scientists about physics.

I'm not saying go through each and every single physics finding and don't let the kids accept it until they prove it for themselves! I'm saying, give them the skills they would need if they wanted to do so!

Right now, I think all we're doing is piling on facts to memorize, and they come out of school with all kinds of rote trivia memorized (which they forget a year later) and yet are utterly incapable of actually thinking for themselves.