Reply to comment

I knew the mini-lecture given by Professor Grobstein this past Friday to a group of student researchers at Bryn Mawr College was going to be interesting, but I didn't expect it to be so controversial.  Paul invited the students present (not many, only about 15) to participate in an open-ended dialogue about traditional, linear science vs. "loopy" science, a field with anything but definite answers and the acceptance that absolute "truth" is not attainable and therefore non-existent.  Many of the students agreed with him when he said the traditional scientific method is too restricted to allow full discovery because it relies on conclusions that, once reached, are accepted and not questioned further.  They also agreed when he discussed ways in which science can become more "open" by treating it as an ongoing process based on the observations of all, not just the "hard facts" that are "proven" by a few.  

However, the agreement stopped there.  Quickly the students in the audience became defensive when told that the research they are conducting--"hard" research dealing with chemistry, biology, physics, etc.--will not culminate in "truth."  Their projects, the hours of hard work that they have poured into their collection and analysis of data, will not end in an answer that can be considered "the last word."  One student, a chemistry researcher, argued that the process by which she mixes prescribed chemicals in the same proportions every day, always getting the same results, is truth because of its consistency.  When she was told that "truth" as she described it can never actually be attained because it would require infinite proof of consistency.  The sun rises every day, and we take this to be "true."  But just because the sun has risen every day without fail does not mean that the possibility of it not rising tomorrow is not there.  And if it were to not rise tomorrow, well our preconceived notions about the rising sun as "truth" would be shattered; if those chemicals that the student mixes were to one day yield a completely different result, her notion of chemical "truth" would be majorly challenged.  And so, because infinite consistency cannot possibly be measured, we can never know absolute "truth."  While results that are repeatable are useful, they should not be considered final.

It was almost as if the student researchers could not see past their current work and into the the future of scientific inquiry that we've been exloring so far this summer.  As Paul said in an earlier meeting, this new view of science as something open and co-constructed is met with opposition because "people don't want to be deprived of certainty and authority."  We are scared of what we do not understand, of what is new and unusual. 

What was even more interesting was the interaction that took place in a neighboring conference room after the lecture, where my two colleagues and I gathered with the other student researchers to talk about the lecture over pizza.  It was clear that not many of the other students took what Paul had to say seriously, even though they had agreed with his "new" definition of the scientific method as something more flexible than that of traditional science.  Their incredulity quickly filtered down to me, Jenna and Kate.

"So, what exactly are you doing again?"

We explained once more our research efforts, including our work with Serendip and how we were making connections between the brain, science and education.

"...But are you doing anything?"

And so, it seems, thought is not considered a true scientific endeavor by those heavily steeped in the world of chemicals and glassware.  Why, I don't know.  Thought is the basis for all scientific action.  What scientific discovery would have been possible without the bright idea of one, or the collaborative efforts of many?  Even scientists must "think before they act."  The disrespect and closed-mindedness of the student researchers was sad not only because of its personal implications but because it demonstrated a lack of acceptance of the "new" scientific method they had supported minutes prior.  The process of thought is parallel to that of scientific work--both involve exploration through experimentation and a revision of prior ideas.  Just because one takes place in the brain and the other takes place in a lab does not mean the former should be discounted or considered any less important to the progress of humanity.