When I was in school we learned, were tested on, the specific steps of the scientific method.

One of these was experimentation.

In another thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1755094&postcount=9), someone says:

“Experimentation is not a requirement of the scientific method. If this were true, then astronomy, which seems to have been our first science, would not be a science at all.”

I believe this is incorrect, but the writer should know more about these things than myself, so I must ask, don’t they still teach the specific steps of the scientific method?

I replied that I believe the scientific method is the heart of science, and never avoids a step of the scientific method if at all possible. When all steps are not possible, science does not stop, or cease to exist.

One can be about the business of science without experimentation, but one can not experience the scientific method, without experimentation.

I know that was true at one time, have things changed?

Fraggle is essentially correct.

Experimentation, as a required step, is not a necessary element of the SM.

Classically, experimentation qualified simply as a means to collecting data, against which one's hypothesis would be tested.

Contemporary application of the SM would go more along the lines of the Hypothetico-Deductive model, where the criterion of import is falsifiability. The advantage here is that (as Fraggle points out..) one can logically 'test' for data that pragmatically it would be otherwise impossible to do.

i can see where the confusion comes from though : in essence the scientific method concerns itself with the testing of predictions (or retrodictions) made by theories developed to explain known observations - to many people "testing" is equated with "experimenting", even though the latter is only a special case of the former

When I was in school we learned, were tested on, the specific steps of the scientific method. One of these was experimentation. One can be about the business of science without experimentation, but one can not experience the scientific method, without experimentation. I know that was true at one time, have things changed?The formal definition of the scientific method includes experimentation as a required step. However, when you examine the definition of "experimentation," considerable backpedaling takes place. This is why, when I describe science in a forum such as this which is populated primarily by people who are only interested in science but will never be scientists, I give an abbreviated definition that omits experimentation.

I will identify four types of "experiments," only one of which would satisfy the layman's definition of the word. This paradigm conforms to the definitions in Wikipedia, which are good enough, but there are other ways to categorize experiments.

The first type is the satisfactory one: a controlled experiment. This is the classic type of endeavor that we all think of when we hear the word "experiment," ideally performed in a laboratory by people in white coats. The typical form of the controlled experiment is to cause a certain event or condition to occur more than once, with all occurrences being identical except for the one single aspect whose effect on the event or condition is under investigation. The change in the aspect is correlated with the change in effect, and the hypothesis being tested is either supported or disproved (but never proven).

All other types of experiments are used when it is impossible (or merely prohibitively expensive, or just really difficult!) to perform a controlled experiment. The second type is the natural experiment, which is sometimes more honestly called a quasi-experiment. A natural experiment is just a fancy name for a series of observations of the event or condition to be studied. The observations are organized so as to maximize the variations in the aspect to be investigated. The control that defines a controlled experiment is lacking, so it's not always easy to be certain that no other aspects have varied. Natural experiments are obviously the bread and butter of astronomy, since we have no ability to rearrange stars to satisfy our curiosity. They're also quite satisfactory in astronomy, because we've been able to watch the stars move for thousands of years without being perturbed by spurious variables. The fact that light travels at a finite velocity was revealed by a natural experiment in the 17th century. The apparent location of the moons of Jupiter varied from the predicted location in a regular pattern, depending on Jupiter's distance from Earth. Quasi-experiments are also used in other sciences that are bedeviled by impractically long timeframes such as geology and paleontology, as well as the "soft sciences" like economics or sociology in which controlled experiments would be either impossible or unethical.

Observational studies bear a passing resemblance to controlled experiments, except for the key difference that there is no control. Again this is often due to ethics, such as in medicine.

Field experiments are used in the social sciences. They have the advantage of being observed in natural conditions rather than a laboratory, giving them more credence. But the natural conditions also impose the disadvantage of uncertainty that all aspects of the event or condition have been held constant except the one under study.

You can see why I would gloss over this in an armchair discussion. It would be difficult to explain to a layman, with a straight face, that looking through a telescope, digging up fossils, or climbing a pyramid, is experimentation. :) I'm happy to lump them in the category of "empirical observations of the past or present behavior of the natural universe."

Fraggle Rocker

So, experimentation is still required for completion of the scientific method.

I believe you want to point out that the term “Experimentation”, has expanded in meaning, to include some things which might not seem like “real” experimentation, but scientifically speaking, they do qualify.

I have had some mild exposure to the variations you mention, and they do not surprise me as being considered experimentation. But I have seen some who felt experiments had to be conducted in a laboratory, which is as you point out.

Would it also be true that secondary science students today (or within the last decade) are taught the formal scientific method, and the expanded use of the term experimentation, or has it been dropped from the lesson plans?
I do get the feeling it is no longer being taught, or is not being taught properly.

Glaucon Fraggle is essentially correct.

Experimentation, as a required step, is not a necessary element of the SM.

Classically, experimentation qualified simply as a means to collecting data, against which one's hypothesis would be tested.

Contemporary application of the SM would go more along the lines of the Hypothetico-Deductive model, where the criterion of import is falsifiability. The advantage here is that (as Fraggle points out..) one can logically 'test' for data that pragmatically it would be otherwise impossible to do.I just realized we are not on the same page.

If I had broadband, I would find a lesson plan teaching the scientific method.
Or is there no such thing?
It sure would be helpful to have a copy of the formal scientific method, if we are agreeing it does exist.

If I had broadband, I would find a lesson plan teaching the scientific method.
Or is there no such thing?
It sure would be helpful to have a copy of the formal scientific method, if we are agreeing it does exist.

You would find no such creature.

As Fraggle has alluded to, there is a vast difference between the SM per se and the SM as it is taught.

fraggle's list is, as he admitted, not exhaustive

i can think of at least 2 more important ways of testing theories that don't involve the common understanding of experimentation :
1. the thought experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment)
2. the reductio ad absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum)

Well glaucon, I am showing my age, and you are showing your youth.

This first example (http://www.scienceteacher.org/k12resources/lessons/lesson18.htm) is the scientific method that was taught in the days of Sputnik.
If I wanted to pass general science, I had to know and understand these steps. I believe I see some of The Panda's Thumb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Panda%27s_Thumb_%28book%29) in the intro.
It is not unlike certain belief systems to be one or two generations behind progress, particularly in the sciences.
As I learned it, there was not the "must be taken as science fiction or opinion" business. I include it to show how some mistaken beliefs are being promoted. A kernel of truth, but a misrepresentation of facts.

"If statements or ideas cannot be tested using the scientific method, they cannot be considered credible science and must be taken as science fiction or opinion. As students explore the information about their chosen pseudoscience topic, they should keep the scientific method in mind and ask themselves if the information is scientifically reliable.

The steps of the scientific method need the following ingredients:
1. Identifying a question or problem.
2. Collect information, observation, research.
3. Form a hypothesis to explain observations.
4. Experiment and collect data.
5. Analyze results.
6. Draw a conclusion.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) offers two updated lists.

First, this version, geared towards professionals:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

~ ~ ~ ~

Also, there is this broader, not a list per se:

The essential elements of a scientific method are operations, observations, models, and a utility function for evaluating models.

Operation - Some action done to the system being investigated

Observation - What happens when the operation is done to the system

Model - A fact, hypothesis, theory, or the phenomenon itself at a certain moment

Utility Function - A measure of the usefulness of the model to explain, predict, and control, and of the cost of use of it. One of the elements of any scientific utility

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

As we see, the scientific method is transient. It morphs to fit the body of knowledge available.
The science method is the prime method of gathering scientific knowledge.
What I am saying, is within my lifetime, the basic method of fact gathering in science has changed.
Accepted procedures for what constitutes 'science', have changed.

So glaucon, if you are speaking concurrently, I would agree with you, but that is only half the story.

Historically, there was a scientific method, with specific steps, that budding scientists all learned as ‘fact’. As science matured, so did the scientific method.
This is an example of change in regards to the accepted tools and methods of science.

I found this (http://db.hbcse.tifr.res.in/gn/BOOK/thch1.html) interesting.

Would it also be true that secondary science students today (or within the last decade) are taught the formal scientific method, and the expanded use of the term experimentation, or has it been dropped from the lesson plans? I do get the feeling it is no longer being taught, or is not being taught properly.I'm far removed from the educational system so I'm the wrong person to ask. All the teachers I knew retired (mostly in disgust or fear) decades ago. Considering what the American school system has done to math and reading, I shudder to imagine how they teach science.I just realized we are not on the same page. If I had broadband, I would find a lesson plan teaching the scientific method. Or is there no such thing? It sure would be helpful to have a copy of the formal scientific method, if we are agreeing it does exist.The scientific method is not a document you order from the Royal Academy. It's a consensus that's been evolving for hundreds of years--some would say thousands since a few of the Greeks had a vague glimmering of it. But this system works because the scientific method is also not such a complicated abstraction that it requires formal approval and publication. Its beauty is its obvious, straightforward simplicity: any honest, reasonably well-educated person can follow it without a crib sheet.

Just do your own quaternary research via Google and read what a few scientists and science reporters have to say about it. Even Wikipedia has some very good material. I don't think you'll encounter a lot of controversy and disagreement, just different perspectives and levels of formality.

As for a lesson plan, if you find one I doubt it will be so bulky that you can't download it via dial-up. There just isn't all that much to it.

Depending on the level, motivation and sophistication of your students, it might be interesting to ask them to invent a scientific method and see what they come up with.