James+Lopes+week+one+assignment

Dr. Terry Halwes takes an unfavorable stand on his opinion of the systematic approach to scientific analysis, otherwise called the “scientific method,” in his series of essays titled “The Myth of the Magical Scientific Method.” Halwes explains that while organization and practical planning and execution of a method to explore and understand an aspect of nature is crucial, there should not be just one system that can achieve this task. I agree with Dr. Halwes when he states, "When something surprising happens, we learn from it." It is programmed deep in the human cerebrum to be curious about foreign circumstances in nature. However, to use one “magical method” to probe this surprise is primitive. “The fact that we learn a lot from paying attention to a surprising event certainly does not depend on following the intricate procedures of some magical "scientific method." **//Infants//** do that; **//Pigeons//** do that. Hundreds of millions of years of evolution prepared animals to pay special attention to novel events, and we're all **//very//** good at it.”

Well into the essays I started to notice a trend with Dr. Halwes ideas. It seemed that he was more annoyed that the scientific community gave a name to the systematic process to state, research, observe, test, and conclude on an event in nature. “The gist of the argument presented there is this: Scientists actually use quite a lot of methods -- there is no single method that all scientists use, and most of the methods they do use are not all that special.” Although I can see where Dr. Halwes is coming from, he overreacts in stating that we should just organize the proper way of observing the world into a “method.” “Eventually, I think we will have something like a "natural history" of scientific methods, which may provide the basis for some truly profound understanding of scientific learning.” A collection of methods used to conduct the observation of natural phenomena? Maybe a little extreme, I don’t know.

In reality the purpose of the method lies in the scientist own desires of what he or she wants out of the experiment. One doesn’t have to organize their thoughts into a systematic method to be considered a scientist. Science is all about the observation of the environment around you. In that aspect of scientific analysis I agree with Dr. Halwes.