The scientific method is crap: Teman Cooke at TEDxLancaster

[@OFilellinas]

I saw the title, and thought "this is going to be challenging and provocative" and here I am watching a video of a guy presenting the scientific method while claiming this is not the scientific method but "what scientists do". Dude, this is the scientific method you're presenting.

[@JWStreeter]

TEDx is a complete joke. Even TED is nowhere near the intellectual behemoth it was 15 years ago.

[@WhirledPublishing]

The "scientific method" is not "scientific": The word "science" means knowledge - since the "scientific method" results in idiotic theories about our Earth, the history of our Earth, the timeline for Earth's expansion, the timeline for the ice sheets, the timeline for the Siberian Traps, the timeline for the stratified layers of the Grand Canyon and the forces responsible, the timeline for the Yucatan Peninsula and the forces responsible, the timeline and forces responsible for the massive water erosion across North America, the timeline the eruption of Yellowstone and dozens of supervolcanoes and so on while also propagating "theories" about the chemicals, their bonds, their forces, etc. Since we know ALL those theories about our Earth and about our chemical elements are idiotic nonsense, to continue to cling to the "scientific method" in an attempt to be "scientific" is to expose the insanity of it all, the detachment from reality and the complete lunacy of the theories.

[@Kiwi-fl8te]

@@WhirledPublishing Your criticism of the scientific method is the thing most telling of the fact that you have no idea what the scientific method is and why it works.

[@Power_to_the_people567]

@@WhirledPublishing So what "method" do you recomend we use in order to "experiment" and "study" our earth or anything we can observe?

[@WhirledPublishing]

@@Power_to_the_people567 Since the timeline for our Earth's continents, oceans, mountains, peninsulas, islands, broken and subducted tectonic plates, volcanic eruptions, etc., is documented in historic records, since I've uploaded videos about all that, since I've also uploaded videos exposing the fake paradigm of mainstream chemistry and the holographic simulation, since I've also uploaded a video exposing the true timeline for our human history, the true timeline for the ancient civilizations, the true timeline for Noah and his sons, etc., the true scientific method that offers the best results is studying the reports in the hundreds and hundreds of historic documents that are written in dozens of languages from all across our Earth. Since I've also uploaded videos that expose the true timeline for languages and linguistics, music and the megaliths, the true timeline for the massive water erosion across North America which is mistaken attributed to the Ice Ages, since I've uploaded a video about the true timeline for the Ice Sheets, the true timeline for the stratified rock layers of the Grand Canyon and so on while mainstream "scientists" have only unsubstantiated claims, adolescent guessing games and juvenile wild imaginings that they refer to as " theories " as they brag that they have a grip on reality, their insane detachment from reality is exposed. Thank you for your question.

[@Emma-se3lt]

His rhetoric is very important. Let me break it down: 1. He says that the scientific method kids are taught in school misrepresents what science is really about • He then goes on to 4 points on WHY it does this: • Linear • Not intuitive • "Facts" vs "Process" • Focused on experiment • If you have a problem with these 4 points, that’s another battle. • At no point does he say that the problem is that it's causing people to become afraid of science. He implies that it's intimidating due to its rigidity and lack of leeway for mistakes. 2. He then said we have a culture that fears science and proceeds to say why (NOT INCLUDING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD) • The worlds obsessed with being right • New facts/information are always coming in and we're not capable of learning everything • We're afraid of the unknown • Then he says, "NOW ALL OF THESE PROBLEMS POSSIBLY DON'T LIE AT THE FEET OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD". • He does not blame the current scientific method as the reasoning or the sole reason on why people have a skewed perception of science. • He simply said it's not helping. Helping what? What is the problem he has? The problem he has is how the education system, specifically within his area of expertise, teaching. He is saying he wants to tweak the way we're taught on a more standard level. He wants to teach problem solving, critical and iterative thinking, and this starts at the most basic level when students are shown the 6 steps to the scientific method and are told that if you follow this formula you will receive results, answers, etc on the condition to make sure you do things in a very specific way. Whereas Cooke is trying to change the perception of science, make it less about the facts, more about the thought process. If you do an experiment and you're right, good job, but if you're wrong, continue to try to learn, whether you get a right or wrong answer. He's also implying that learning how to learn is a vital discipline that will carry over in more than just science. He's not so much as criticizing the actual 6 step process but how the 6 step process is taught. He’s saying we can be taught less linearly that will allow or at least validate a less restrictive way of thinking. For those who are bashing his speech, I think you're entirely missing the points Teman Cooke is making. If there's anything to criticize about this video, it's that he did not spell it out plainly enough for the people who havent learned how to extrapolate.

[@fourthaeon9418]

woah tldr dude

[@nunosousa9462]

Emma Mills finally an intelligent comment. Thank You! I couldn't believe how no one else here was getting his point.

[@sanadbenali6993]

Why can't I save comments as I do videos here or answers on quora sigh

[@AndreasDelleske]

Thanks. I think you are right with your last sentence but then he should not try to be a posterchild for science. Neil de Grasse Tyson does it right.

[@Emma-se3lt]

​@@AndreasDelleske I wouldn't know if he's trying to be a poster child for science, but I think two people in the same field can and should be able to talk about scientific communication, especially given the current communities understanding of it.

[@chrisschene8301]

He is right about the obsession with "right answers" and "conclusions." We actually don't necessarily "reach conclusions , we iterate toward better answers over time. It is a process of prediction, estimation, re-validation, correction, changing directions and so on. No such thing as "settled science." It is always open to re-examination.

[@ThatisnotHair]

Science is a continous process to know the unknown. Only science is settled science

[@loudogg3367]

This really should be called Misconceptions of the Scientific Method.

[@dienvucong6339]

Agree, he misunderstood what scientific method is

[@cepatwaras]

Agreed. the title here is misleading. Luis' suggested title feels more appropriate to me.

[@Gk2003m]

What he’s describing here is the introduction to the scientific method. It is not THE scientific method, any more than an introduction to physics is physics.

[@hbirtt]

Very glad to see these comments. I watched this waiting for him to "reveal" that what he is advocating for IS IN FACT the Scientific Method.

[@Person-ef4xj]

@@dienvucong6339 Given how he’s a physicist I don’t think it’s likely that he misunderstands what the scientific method is, but it could be better worded as what people think the scientific method is.

[@clayrichard8471]

That IS the scientific method. What he criticizes is a straw man version of the scientific method.

[@ttrev007]

I think the problem is that the strawman is often what it taught in schools.

[@robertw2930]

paper moon

[@alonamaloh]

ttrev007 : Exactly. I have a kid in kindergarten and he is already being taught this strange rigid sequence of steps. I am a scientist and the description of the process he got in school doesn't match at all what actually happens in science. This talk is addressing a real problem.

[@phdtobe]

Clay Richard Tragically, this guy gets paid to *teach* the scientific method to kids! (Facepalm!)

[@technowey]

His original statement of the scientific method is incorrect. The scientific method includes much more, most notably publishing, peer review, and others reproducing results. Thus the entire video is based on a false premise.

[@Jenek66]

This guy has decided he can fix the wheel, by making it round.

[@ryanclark1784]

Underrated comment

[@demoncat5999]

@@ryanclark1784 Frr

[@ThatisnotHair]

😂

[@Bodoko]

he’s basically saying after the conclusion we should ask more questions, it’s very simple that can be explained a lot faster

[@daniellezehr7071]

He's passing off the scientific method as his own new idea by making a straw man of the scientific method and claiming it isn't what scientists do... wat?

[@Makkaru112]

Have you noticed that the basis of this method is to shut down anything from the outside all for the purpose of being " right" and so on. When the farther you go back. it was about collaborating and really getting the bigger picture because practically nothing is finite and set in stone and such things always showcase more things to ponder and think about! it was even practice to admit being wrong. To also see how the other before you is right and debates were civil and intellectual back then and even had strong bonds with their scientific partners who thought differently than them and VALUED that so they always had that other perspective but also somebody who also understood their angle as well. two heads are always better than one! I'm going to amend something I said in the beginning. it may have been an honorable practice to some but now some use it to hide for the sake of their ego and so on and people tend to believe that since it's so full of blahblah, gossip and lots of people nowadays LOOOOVE that so they an spread the news and create a hullabaloo to also get attention.

[@jessstuart7495]

Model verification is just an extension of hypothesis testing. I think it is more important to teach kids how to eliminate sources of bias in their experiments.

[@LordAzland]

Speaking of 'bias', the one bias never talked about today about scientists/scientific academia discussions... funding, specifically 'public' funding. Public funding is, for all intents and purposes an infinite pile. As long as there is a 'problem' to be solved, the scientists have a 'paycheck' ending dilemma about their 'research' (*see 'climate scientists').

[@ianpulsford2295]

No, he's saying that the "scientific method" as it is taught in schools and appears in popular culture is not how science is really done.

[@principleshipcoleoid8095]

Bel Marduk what is wrong with climate science? Even if Global warming would slow down without human intervention, why is it so bad to use solar panels and other sources of more safe energy? Burning isn't only way to get energy, and we need to use different energy sources more. It's not about banning a lot of energy production, more like slowly increasing percent of "green" energy production.

[@noelslist]

Why wouldn't the parent say ,"I don't know, let's look it up and see if anyone else has asked this question and if someone does know or is on the track to knowing"? That way instead of brushing off or misinforming their child in an effort not to display the parents own insecurities they instead would teach their child to be curious, research and become informed . This could also lead to a greater interest in science for both the child and the parent.

[@williamallman299]

That's what my parents always did.

[@ttrev007]

parents should even be strategically saying they don't know even when they really do. Then help them find the answer.

[@chrisg3258]

13:04 That's exactly what he said.

[@pietrayday9915]

It's also what my parents did - if I had a good question about the world around me, they'd tell me to look it up and tell them what i find out, or reason it out for myself, or sometimes even to dig in, open it up, and find out for myself how it works. At first I resented that sort of thing - it goes against the grain of my natural laziness and puts that laziness at odds with my natural curiosity - but in the years since childhood I've really come to appreciate that, and I enjoy finding the answers for myself.

[@pietrayday9915]

@EventHorizon It's kind of strange, but I'm sure you're right: for some reason, a lot of people associate not knowing the answer with shame and failure, and maybe that's been a failure of education: there's nothing wrong with not knowing, learning is a life-long, ongoing process. There's plenty that the brightest scientists do not know, the best and brightest scientists spend their lives learning new things, and are proud to admit they do not know, but want to find out. I would add that "educating" the curiosity right out of children is one of the other major failures of education: success in my career depends on curiosity, and I've been appalled to find just how rare it is for anyone to leave universities, high schools, or even grade schools with any curiosity intact, and it makes on-the-job training and long-term success on the job for new hires all but completely impossible, and the most challenging part of on-the-job training for me has been trying to teach new hires curiosity, then the skills to pursue curiosity through research, trial-and-error, experimentation, and reasoning, and finally to go that one step further beyond research, experimentation, and creating a theory that explains your observations and test results, into learning to use critical thinking to question both the resources used in research, and your own conclusions. The results of those four closely-linked failures of education (failure to encourage us to admit we don't know, failure to encourage curiosity, failure to encourage any joy in doing the work of research and experimentation, and failure to teach and encourage critical thinking) have been disastrous, as can be seen by the massive rise in popularity of pseudoscience, superstition, and conspiracy theories on the internet and in KZbin: people have basically been taught to default to some other "authority" for knowledge, and embrace that voice of authority as their own mastery of the subject, without questioning it or applying their own reasoning or research or experimentation to improving their own understanding of the subject. Sadly, it's easier and safer and more comfortable and popular - to defer to the loudest authority and then to nod and claim to know what that authority knows, and accept that the authority's version of reality is most likely to be "true" when it is one shaped by the invisible hands of spirits, magic, aliens, gods, demons, Illuminati, conspiracies, etc. - than to go against the grain of our failed education and admit we don't know something, be curious about it, reason our way to a basic understanding of the forces involved, research it, question and test the research, experiment and observe, make a reasonable conclusion, question and test the conclusion, and at the end of the day admit there's still more we don't know yet.....

[@evahdarth4406]

I used to be naive and believed that every talk on TEDx is enlightening lol.

[@reallydoe2552]

Same

[@ThatisnotHair]

Because TEDx is pseudoscientific version of TED talk. They are not same. Many people get fooled by similiar brand logos. It's like cheap chinese copy.

[@ThePragatijain_1]

Me too😉😉

[@antonioscendrategattico2302]

But seriously, I get what he's trying to say. But the problem is not at the level of the scientific method itself. It's in science communication, and fortunately many scientists today are trying to reach out to the public through more popular media.

[@Makkaru112]

Exactly. But it's turned into something to hide behind and use like many big wig guys who hide alot of things from the people as " the science is closed" or even the money ends up being spent on other things, and so on. I mean. look into everything surrounding VAXXED..

[@antonioscendrategattico2302]

Lolno, VAXXED is an attempt from an old fraudster to garner credibility.

[@Makkaru112]

Antonio SCENDRATE GATTICO That's from the people who control things currently. gain perspective. and you might find things out. specially from people n the inside. So.. It wasn't even about fame and so on. which it is that for the people who frame him. that's how that particular avenue-group of scientists behave like. all corporate. But that's just your opinion and you're entitled to it, so we don't have to continue this. specially not with somebody like me. I see the facts and outcomes of certain things. keeping an open mind to watch how things can make sense and interconnect..

[@antonioscendrategattico2302]

Sorry, but it's not a matter of opinion. There's been a process where it was demonstrated that Wakefield had altered his data and was on the payroll of lawyers who wanted an excuse to sue the British government. Wakefield himself was preparing his own patented MMR vaccine to sell after his bogus study had scared people off the publically available vaccine. It has nothing to do with "keeping an open mind" and everything to do with not letting yourself be fooled by a guy who just wants to make money off fear.

[@Makkaru112]

Yes, and that's the same government that lied about the fact that the co-signers of the entire thing were done by those great minds within the top end of the government... I know it's not about opinion but it sure sounded like your mind was set. No no no.. That bit about he wanted to make money off of fear.. utterly incorrect. So believe what you will, the time is coming swift where un-refutable truths will come out of this shift. such as people becoming more aware and taking things into their own hands and so on. it's truly a beautiful thing regardless of that mess that many are aware about or still behaving in the ways they were reared into.. With things like this, you've REALLY got to look at everything otherwise you'll miss something very key. everybody knows the government is corrupt. specially the US. This conversation doesn't even need to go on and I do not wish to continue it since things have already been concluded, whether if it's the lie of " the science has been done" verses what actually went down. note that the first one was to " clam people down. Then we start getting into testimonials from people in the government and in other fields of work that this frame of mind has also bled into. So.. you do the math.. Again. I do not even want to get into this. it's like kicking the donkey that's already dead. or in this case, alive... x.x

[@ThatisnotHair]

Linear model is the one that is pushed by popular culture. He isn't wrong. Phrases like "scientific fact", "science is settled" is keep on thrown in media especially by science communicators. Circular model is the one that is actually accepted by the scientific philosophers

[@YokubouTenshi]

I believe that the love of science stems from curiosity and the confidence to deduce knowledge from it, I'm glad my parents fostered that in me

[@Broomful]

Agreed very nice your parents showed you through that mine didn’t they are not so interested in science but I am I like quantum physics there’s many other fields I also enjoy or I could get my self too enjoy

[@GordieGii]

@@Broomful It appears that your parents also neglected to show you punctuation. You should look it up, as it makes reading so much easier.

[@Kenneth-ts7bp]

Do you believe an infinite number of fictional science claims?

[@CyberiusT]

That 'cycle' he thinks is a miraculous new innovation is the way I was taught the scientific method back in the 1970's.

[@Economics21st]

Exactly. I was prepared to be challenged, but his talk could be summarised as "The scientific method is bad: do this instead. {shows scientific method}".

[@ThatisnotHair]

​​@@Economics21stThat is because finding out the defeater for your epistemology is what we call science. Discovering the unknown problems that everyone else has missed.(misti) And providing new solutions

[@TrueOpinion99]

Right? I teach my high schoolers that science and the scientific method is an ongoing process with the goal of gaining a deeper understanding of the natural world (I'm a biology teacher). Which is what I learned in high school and college, I haven't come across a single source on the topic that describes it as a discreet, singular action...like what the presenter claims. Once you reach your conclusion (your hypothesis is either false, or not-false) then you start over, re-test your hypothesis again with the new information you learned during your tests. Also, the "test" part of the scientific method isn't just experimental studies but also observational studies. All the issues he has with the scientific method...are non-issues.

[@MorganBear-od6fj]

I loved how he discussed the "Cycle of Scientific Thinking" and were able to demonstrate how scientists differ from other people in that they seek confirmation of their conclusions.

[@jamessimmons4141]

As a science teacher, it is refreshing to hear new and alternative ways of thinking about and conducting science. However, I think you may have made some assumptions. The scientific method isn't designed to say "This is how all science is done;" rather, it is a guide for conducting an experiment. Variables, constants and controls are NECESSARY components; without them a prediction can't be properly checked (tested) to be found right or wrong.

[@nunosousa9462]

This comment section is full of people ready to fire on criticism. What Mr. Cooke is criticizing is the way how science is taught to kids and society at large. Only those who go on to be scientists or work in applied sciences really go beyond these initial steps. Everyone else grows up with a limited understanding of the scientific method and of the way in which science changes it's conclusions. Science today is a huge undertaking. Think of all the universities, government agencies and labs and all of the private companies that "produce" science - in the entire world. Think of all the studies being produced at any given moment. Of the ongoing adjusting of the scientific consensus on any given area of study. It is a lot for anyone to take in. It is normal to feel intimidated by scientific output.

[@edgarmanuelcambaza6459]

The alternative to scientific method is scientific method with another name? lol

[@bosapiutsa3829]

Just pointless re-branded of the same thing.

[@johanlindeberg7304]

I think that his point is a practical philosophical one. Related to the works of Karl Popper. His enthusiasm for the subject is contagious.

[@edgarmanuelcambaza6459]

Yes, there are a lot of contagious useless things in the mainstream media. Ignorance is bliss, as they say. The "practical philosophical" is the scientific method itself. What he defined as scientific method is not and his proposal is the scientific method. Anyway, Justin Bieber with glasses and without it is still Justin Bieber.

[@johanlindeberg7304]

Sorry, I didn´t realize that you are a belieber.

[@bosapiutsa3829]

Johan Lindeberg Trolling around when can win an argument lol

[@trinidadraj152]

All these criticisms in the comments here... I don't think you all get that his opening words are just hyperbole. It's a rhetorical technique.

[@faliakuna8162]

People are so triggered here. It's amazing. Didn't you get his point? He is not really criticizing the "scientific method" as used by scientists. He's criticizing the way science is often taught. You can all get off your high horse now

[@Beckmann1945]

I thought that this message was obvious, too.

[@albirtarsha5370]

In essence he is right. #1 The "cycle of scientific thinking" is much closer to what my science textbook said in the 1970s. I don't know who changed it but the current "scientific method" is relatively new. #2 The weak definition and colloquial usage of what is science and the scientific method, among other things (such as hypothesis, theory, law), is directly responsible for science deniers today. #3 My proposal is that the NIST or some similar authority define these basic ideas and furthermore define acceptable testing techniques and create brackets of confidence for theories. People need to understand the certainty of evolution, the big bang, microbes causing disease, etc.

[@Silverhand290]

Any questions of real worth do not give you just "answers" but rather it gives you understanding and that means you have more and better questions.

[@Gyledresch]

Every high school science teacher needs to watch this. I have been a scientist my entire adult life, and yet in high school and college i routinely had difficulty getting good grades on science papers because the "Scientific Method" as it is taught in scholastic curriculum is closer to a set of handcuffs than it is a lens through which to discover reality. Tell me you don't remember those days in your classroom. The teacher telling you about the vinegar/baking soda reaction, then showing it to you, then giving you some of both and a worksheet with "Hypothesis" "Experiment" and "Conclusion" headers for you to fill in. Fast forward to the end of the day and you have learned absolutely nothing about science. Science is not the hypothesis that it will fizz when you combine them. Science is not the conclusion that an acid and a base react to neutralize. Science isn't even the experiment of combining the two and watching what happens. Science is the process of inquisitive thought, and desire for reinforcing evidence, that lead from the first person to combine vinegar and baking soda and say "Why is it fizzy?" all the way to the person who discovered that it is the concentration of hydrogen ions roaming the solution, and their desire to become water, that causes the fizz. Science is an iterative process, and as such, oversimplification is a barrier to understanding. The scientific method we teach in school is to actual science as a single triangle is to a snowflake. Not wrong, just not even close to enough.

[@powderslinger5968]

What I learned in school was vastly superior to this morons idea of what the Scientific Method should be and NOTHING like what he said it IS.

[@makehumanitygreatagain8128]

This was exactly my experience of science education - starting from elementary school. You must've been educated in 'merica.

[@richardgraham9134]

The linear way is the way I was taught in school (K-12). Then I actually studied science and realized how my K-12 education was not only incomplete, but actually incorrect on many points. How sad that we have so may people who think they understand science based on a faulty school system.

[@ankitaaarya]

Agreed

[@GordieGii]

I knew he was laboring under a misapprehension as soon as I saw that his step 1 was "Identify a problem." Sounds more like something a progressive science teacher would say, rather than a scientist.

[@onyana]

Ug. I was thinking this is easily the worst TED talk I've seen. Then I realised it is a TEDx talk. I've been to two TEDx events, and 90% of the speakers gave rubbish talks. This simply suggests the alternative to the scientific method is the scientific method with some different words. Also, the scientific clearly works; if it didn't, we wouldn't be watching this talk on a computer using the internet right now.

[@jamesseary236]

Catholics created the scientific method as well as the Big Bang theory.

[@orekihoutarou6107]

+James Seary And Straight White Men founded the United States, your point?

[@stephenmurray2851]

+Oreki Houtarou Straight white men made and discovered everything. It's because we're brilliant

[@jamesseary236]

Africans, Indians, and asians all fall under the term "Caucasian". :)

[@wallyjoepaulb]

leave your opinions on your body pillow, you scientific method loving weeaboo

[@japlecreet1504]

I found the video and was glad that I might hear some intelligent critique of scientific method. I thought the speaker would talk about Socratic method vs scientific method, real experiments vs thought experiments, empiricism vs rationalism or something like that. Unfortunately, I was totally disappointed. The guy does not know what he is talking about.

[@stevegarcia3731]

I totally agree with you. He is slamming what he calls "The Scientific Method", but those steps he laid out are NOT THE Scientific Method. Two things about what I just said. One is to suggest people google "Scientific method Feynman KZbin" and watch the first few minutes of what Richard Feynman says about The Scientific Method. In watching that video, you will notice one thing: That Feynman's Scientific Method and what this guy names "Cycle of Scientific Thinking" are the same thing. So this guy claims that The Scientific Method is crap, by putting up something that is NOT The Scientific Method, and then he gives you HIS process - but then his process is exactly the same things as the Scitentific Method. How dumb is that? Well, to begin with, he puts up a ("logical fallacy"...look it up...) STRAW MAN Scientific Method - one that science doesn't even USE - and then he proceeds to tell you why it is wrong. But since what he put up is NOT the Scientific Method, he has torn down nothing. He has only played a mind fuck game on the audience. How TEDx came up with this schmuck I have NO idea.

[@sexyslim1982]

Steve Garcia Totally agree with you Steve!!

[@Bringitonexe]

tbh, that's generally my experience with Ted Talks. It's usually more about some one trying to sell or support an idea than it is in no way about about sharing knowledge and developing a way of thinking or making progress in anything other than their specific cause.

[@stauffap]

Steve Garcia You're right and this man is refuted in the comment section over and over again. Yet the videos has about 75% likes. I wonder why that is. Do people actually believe, that this guy has something to offer? Weird. Why do people like this video?

[@frankwhelan1715]

"Why do people like this video"probably just hear the words,but don't understand what he's saying.

[@jphil2658]

So...We can derive that science is an ongoing search of information that will change the models of what we think we know, as we know more. WOW...thanks for stating the obvious.

[@dianes6245]

The Real Sci method - in rough order 1 Funding 2 Hypothesis 3 Experiment 4 Analysis, conclusion, and paper 4a (in principle) Publish negative results 5 Peer Review of a paper 6 Acceptance of paper by a journal 7 Reproduced results in repeat experiment 7a Inclusion of the paper in a meta - analysis 8 Citations of the paper- big deal 9 Inclusion of the paper or results in a text book or a subject review The Sci Method as taught to Freshmen 2 Hypothesis 3 Experiment 4 Analysis, conclusion, and paper The Sci method as practiced 1 Funding 2 Hypothesis 3 Experiment 4 Analysis, conclusion, 4b write sci paper - make it as hard to read as possible. 4c Hoodwink the public - Make sure no ordinary person reads your paper - even tho the public paid for it. Load it with jargon, subordinate clauses, run on sentences, adjectives, hanging pronouns and implied hanging pronouns. Use as many adjectives as possible - but an adjective is an outright lie that you can get away with.* (why? Its a "fact" that needs no evidence - and usually has none.) 4d Ignore negative results - dont try to publish them as they wont be accepted. 5 Peer review of a paper 6 Acceptance of paper 7 Reproduced results - xxx SELDOM DONE xxx 7a Inclusion of the paper in a meta - analysis 7b UCLA professor tells the world that nearly all published science is wrong 7c When an experiment is reproduced, it often fails to repro the published results - good example, a recent room temp super conductivity experiment 8 Citations 9 Inclusion of the paper… What you must know: EVERY STEP IN THIS PROCESS is part of the sci method. Step 4c Hoodwink the public is essential to the sci culture. Biases Steps 1, 4a 5, 6, 7, 7a, 8. 9 are subject to UNLIMITED biases. Step 4d - negative results Negative results are seldom published. This biases the entire processes, especially step 7a, the Meta - study Step 5 peer review Its supposed to be a method review. Actually - there is no formal method. So anything goes. Step 7 Reproduced results Its usually not done Steps 8 and 9 No formal method, subject to unlimited bias Drum roll…. Step 4 Experiment analysis Confirmation Bias. Experimenters want to publish confirmed results… negative results dont get published. So they hack the stat methods. Peer reviewers let them get away with P-hacking. Experimenters can do a fishing expedition. Find a result that confirm your hypo. Publish that. Example of extreme bias in science: Barbara McClintock - Nobel prize winner. She came to conclusions that the bio community would not accept. Why? The Bio community was reductionist to the extreme. It was hostile to her ideas and still is. *Hemingway was told to avoid adjectives on his first job about 1901. Source - the Ken Burns film.

[@johnnyduck1036]

why so much hate? IMO he`s right, he`s encouraging our ingrained curiosity in human nature and in fact yes, I think we must doubt everything, that`s the main factor to grow and keep our observations going, no matter who you are and where. There is no right or wrong way to do anything, there is only your way.

[@theodor3800]

wrong scientific method is thus see thing poke thing see thing change wooooow, wanna poke more Also, children are the best natural scientist, did you guys know that?

[@timmy18135]

No, that is boredom! Read metaphysics by Aristotle

[@bfpskater]

Popper argued about this in his writings related to the philosophy of science. It is very valid and those who are struggling to see the difference he's making in this presentation should look up 'Popper falsification/falsifiability'. Try to understand first before you make up your mind and type your expertise opinion in the comments

[@Dragoon876]

So basically the alternative to "not the scientific method" is "the actual scientific method"? The guy doesn't sound like he understands it that well.

[@calebmatthews2026]

Dragoon876 he's a fat high school teacher that's pissed that Pluto is no longer a planet. This talk is a joke.

[@mailliw94]

you aren't very intelligent.

[@marbanak]

Idea: One reason Science seems scary is that theories counter to the prevailing culture are ridiculed. No age has been immune to this.

[@Economics21st]

Another underrated comment.

[@peterodonnell4404]

As others have commented below, his alternative is the scientific method. He is simply explaining it in a way that is arguably clearer than the manner in which it is often explained.

[@briannewman9285]

I think a lot of people responding down here have misunderstood what is, admittedly, poorly expressed in this video. What he's really criticizing is how the scientific method is taught and, frankly, I believe that criticism is well deserved. Science is taught by learning trivia (e.g. "what is the boiling point of water?" "what is the electromagnetic spectrum?" etc.) when it should be focused on mastering the scientific method.

[@DrR1pper]

From the stats he provided, it's interesting that *30%* _of elementary teachers feel well prepared to teach science_ is practically identical with the statistic that only *30%* of 8th graders perform at or above proficiency in science.

[@williambessmer8689]

Thats an interesting observation, if only there were a way to test it.

[@geneticalintrovert226]

@@williambessmer8689 i see what you did there. Good one mate

[@danieldempsey4540]

I'm not sure what all the critically negative comments here are all about. In fact, I find Dr. Cooke's piece wonderfully insightful, progressive, and inspiring. Indeed, I believe he has an exceptionally valid argument about the inadequacies of the SM vis-a-vis its utility as a the method explaining the vehicle for enabling curious minds among our youth/student/learner population to understand science. I teach community college level science as a geographer, and I continue to encounter students that thank me for demystifying the practice of "science" and the SM. From Einstein's maxim, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler" to Occam's Razor, Dr. Cooke does me great service by confirming my conviction. Don't get me wrong...engaging in the activities needed to understand the universe and our place in it requires energy, resistance, and commitment. There's rarely anything "simple" about the process. But understanding the value of science and the SM should be a no-brainer. I believe the good doctor is simply making a case that inviting inquisitive minds--regardless one's age or station in life--to engage in scientific inquiry is NOT an activity only for those who are considered scientists. We all can, and in fact are, engaged in scientific inquiry almost everyday in activities that involve cooking, grocery shopping, considering our finances, or traveling to needed destinations. C'mon people...look at the big picture. Dr. Cooke is defending the value(s) of science and SM while he's simultaneously evolving the processes involving critical thinking, and the value in scepticism; the heart and soul of the body scientific.

[@TrueOpinion99]

I think Dr. Cooke had a solution without a problem. No valid source of information on the scientific method claims *anything* that he asserts in his talk.

[@DonMeaker]

"Teman Cooke is crap." Scientific Method

[@fourthaeon9418]

Show me your experiment, or did you just claim your opinion is backed by science without objective evidence which is what he was talking about

[@DistortedV12]

From the ratings and the wide misunderstanding; I think some of the aggression is superficially/racially motivated. "his point is that the scientific method as taught to kids and non-scientists, while good for organizing a scientific paper, is not how the actual work of science is conducted. So, the general public is more likely to be intimidated or dismissive of science." That's not a bad argument and more educators should be aware.

[@jai5053]

A lot of people mad at him aren't actual students however I am. I have always struggled with science for this exact reason. I felt like I needed to get every answer was right and if I didn't I would get frustrated and assume science isn't for me. These six clear cut steps didn't always work for me and I'm not the only one.

[@Thomas-er8xg]

"We must scrap the scientific method and create the scientific method but without a structure that is usable with writing a paper"

[@jtjuan7]

30% elementary school teachers feel well prepared to teach science, 52% feel well prepared to teach social studies, 66% feel well prepared to teach mathematics, 77% feel well prepared to teach language arts and reading... Where did this guy get his statistics from, 52% of elementary school teachers feel well prepared to teach mathematics?

[@wdheideman]

This is actually a condemnation of our school system, not of the scientific method. All his complaints are about how schools mess up teaching kids science.

[@Matt_Fields_29]

Is this guy for real?

[@bobloblawslawblog9809]

I really hope this video got so may likes because people thought it was a joke...

[@Makkaru112]

You can now tell how many people are so skillfully lied to.

[@gperson1967]

Uhh, whoa. I just got very worried/scared upon reading your comment.

[@daydaykeyis]

He actually made a point, that to prove a prediction is far more efficient(economic, effort, time) than proving a hypothesis, but in exchange for less accuracy in the result. Such a model already exist and it's called "design thinking" which is widely used by designers.

[@SmellsLikeContentt]

I know this is old…but is it more fruitful?

[@ThatisnotHair]

​@@SmellsLikeContenttWe have no better alternatives

[@ianbelletti6241]

His scientific thinking chart looks more like how I was taught the scientific method. It is not the scientific method that is the problem. We don't need a new term (scientific thinking). We need to teach the scientific method flowing like his scientific thinking chart. Besides, his scientific thinking chart is oversimplified in itself. If he is being that particular, a flow chart would be best to show all the loops in the scientific method. I'd draw one here, but it only accepts text. Step 1 may be what is taught in schools, but it should really be "identify a question". We won't always have a problem to solve, but there is always a question, even when you do have a problem. There should be a step 7 as well. Analyze conclusion, re-hypothesize, and retest as necessary. That statement would add the recirculating pattern of that is in the actual scientific method. Conclusions aren't necessarily facts. Conclusions are a form of hypothesizing that includes facts you observed from your experimentation process. Yes, even astrologists experiment with the hypotheses that they can experiment with, although they aren't necessarily the same kind of experimentation that you think of in a typical lab environment. Some experimentation is left to observations in the real world because it is impossible to either scale it down to a laboratory environment or the study involves things that have too many factors to control in a laboratory. Some theories, however, can never be fully tested, such as the Big Bang or Expansion theories and continue to be scientific best guesses based upon observations and conclusions from various astronomical theories.

[@-TheBugLord]

This scientific cycle is super similar to the way engineers solve problems too. It's amazing to see how those things intersect

[@dlwatib]

You'd think that in our technologically oriented society that the one thing we should be able to teach correctly is science. Dr. Teman Cooke shows that even here we bastardize what we teach our young to the point of non-recognition. Cooke proposes a new scientific paradigm that recaptures the true motivations of scientists.

[@Notallowed101]

He's talking about Science taught by Americans to Americans. In my country we have a focus on 'repetition' which he failed to mention. I think making a repeatable experiment is the most important part, as if your data cant be found using the same method somewhere else in the world you are wrong.

[@Bringitonexe]

It is the most important part.

[@docame1]

+Adam Chapman Just to set you straight there, science taught by Americans to Americans is just as fine as the science taught in your country, or anywhere else for that matter. The problem here is we have a certain political element that is constantly trying to deny science and take us back to the dark ages. Consequently, we have fewer people studying science beyond High School. It has nothing to do with HOW we teach science.

[@は私です彼の名前]

They used to have that as a standard in the USA, but have deliberately and systematically dumbed down Americans in public schools...but in elite higher education institutions...this [repeatable nature] is still imperative.

[@Julik1992]

I want my 8 min at double speed back! complete misrepresentation of the scientific method in the first part to eventually offer as alternative the scientific method as it is.

[@jkraich5317]

He is perfectly describing the scientific method. There are no absolute truths. Anyone who has used the scientific method, will recognize his “scientific thinking” as the very basis of the scientific method. If he wants to argue that the “scientific thinking” is different from the scientific method, he needs to make a clearer argument. His example about the planets was a classic example of how the scientific method works

[@TheTiredPotato]

I think the issue was his tittle, its not the scientific method what sucks, its the basic notions of it and the limited knowledge or lack of it what sucks. All he said isn't new, people that work in science fields know all this. Tittle should be "What we teach as scientific method is limited and we need to change that!"

[@riick7w7]

6:55 Scientific thinking 💭 Predition to prove that you understand it 10:12 How we fund Neptune ?

[@justinesportsmedicine]

Scientific Method is a process of generating data. Some data proves your hypothesis wrong other data proves it correct. But all data resulting from applying scientific method is valuable. This speaker is discussing not "Scientific Method" but how the human can begin "Thinking Scientifically" or how to become smartly inquisitive about our environment around us, two vastly different concepts, however similar in some ways. Although failing to prove things false does not prove its true. That was fun 😊

[@0x0michael]

Science is the scientific method, that's exactly what he presented to us without realizing

[@danieljones9463]

"Step 3": "Form a hypothesis." (A) About the nature of the problem...and... (B) What We should do about it.?

[@CharlesPry]

he very clearly explains how his method is different from the standard, just because you didnt understand him doesnt mean he is wrong.

[@UnlimitlesslyFunnyDude]

than please explain what difference you understood ....

[@okuno54]

... I guess he'll be glad to know that his proposal is exactly what they taught me in school in the nineties.

[@DKL997]

Lucky you. I was taught that horrible linear form that he's arguing against. I agree with every criticism he has about it.

[@ThatisnotHair]

Linear model is the one that is pushed by popular culture. He isn't wrong.

[@TrueOpinion99]

​@@ThatisnotHair- The liner form is used because it's easy to teach. However, almost all science teachers will also teach that the scientific method isn't liner, but cyclical. Maybe you dosed off during that part of the lesson.

[@MgtowRubicon]

"The tide comes in, the tide goes out; you can't explain that." -- Bill O'Reilly

[@VaughanMcCue]

My wife buys Tide from the store for the laundry. Tide goes in the machine. Tide goes out the drain. Bill O'Reilly only discovered he had a wife once the laundry pile blocked the garage.

[@danieljones9463]

I appreciate this presentation by Teman Cooke. I have been trying to get a Better understanding of the relationship between "Objectivity" and "Subjectivity" in solving problems that come to Our attention. Maybe Mr. Cooke might consider speaking to Us again about these two concepts and their relationship to Science and the new way he suggests We consider implementing the practice of Science?

[@bosapiutsa3829]

Dude you just re-branded the scientific method, go to Wikipedia and read about it. You will inevitably going to find that it's the same thing just with different words.

[@mailliw94]

you are extremely unintelligent.

[@acg6350]

You're telling a physicist to go read the wikipedia of scientific method...

[@victormgv]

Real science "If you're truly lucky and get it wrong..." What a beautiful thought, that is what should be thought about science, we need to look not for the answers, but rather for the questions. Only then can truth be found. :)

[@Makkaru112]

I want your comment to be at the top of the page. care if I quote you? ;3

[@kennethwong6452]

Please tell me what’s the different between his version and the scientific method?? He is just describing it in detail and said I don’t like the current method.

[@jakeroosenbloom]

I'm glad this is TedX and not Ted Talks

[@EmperorsNewWardrobe]

This should be retitled as "A provocative title for an otherwise shoddy idea"

[@sl1fer1]

@NathanOakley1980 sent me while reviewing your video. Please share the algorithmic love.

[@Drone256]

The confusion he is having is exactly what you find among people that have never worked in the real world and started a business. The scientific method is exactly how you create a successful business. His complaints are naive and just what you’d say with only a textbook understanding. The reality is that the scientific method is applied in a loop, always optimizing, always taking new information into account and always exploring the problems you find where solutions create value. Sorry if your textbook didn’t tell you this.

[@elenvisager]

if you're here only to independently verify what the comments state, please go to 6:05 where he presents his ignobel-worthy idea. The crux of his issue is to make science less intimidating. An analogy of what he does is to misinterpret the food chain and state that what really is happening is the food web.

[@kimchikoalaa714]

The title should be "the way we teach the scientific method sucks"

[@Bob-np2uc]

I started reading the comments before I watched the video, and I didn’t believe it could be *that* bad. I was wrong.

[@k0lpA]

thx I did the same now I wont even bother watching

[@jamesbentonticer4706]

All I can say about this TEDx talk is...how the hell did this guy get a phd in physics???

[@kawaiiperson4257]

+TheSouthUtsire u r a guisa

[@akindelebankole8080]

+James Benton Ticer Perhaps his fashion sense. What do you think? Maybe his inability to focus on color coordination of his wardrobe, and thereby becoming a nerd in the process.

[@akindelebankole8080]

The Bandog Hear, hear...!

[@CzechRiot]

+Hannah Banana What exactly is wrong, in your opinion, with the scientific method and how does what the speaker in this video says differs, except for choice of words?

[@EdSchroedinger]

you would wonder what at least partially batshit crazy folks made their phd... it's irritating and diminishing sometimes

[@donaldhobson8873]

If anyone has a question they don't want to answer "I don't know" to. Post here

[@danieljones9463]

"Step 4" looks tricky to me. Whut ahr "Independent" and "dependent" variables? Examples please?

[@chaimaelhnd9639]

For example if you want to know the impact of social media on your productivity, you can consider the dependant variables: average work hours per day, your concentration score..., and the independant ones are number of social media accounts and the average hours spent/day on social media. The dependant variables are the ones you are looking for to respond to your question, and the independamt are the variables that explain your dependant ones.

[@danieljones9463]

@@chaimaelhnd9639 Thanks "Chaimae Lhnd". I can see I am going to have to think about this for a while. I appreciate your effort to help me understand this thing.

[@AeroSwamper]

I quit at 7:56. He strikes me as just another denier of nearly everything. By the 5 minute mark, it didn't matter to me if he was redeemed or not.

[@bolanmoonward3483]

It seemed to me that he over-simplified and linearized the "scientific method", creating a straw man, then proposed a closer description of the "scientific method" with which I have been familiar for a long time, and I see that others have had the same perception. I suppose that he has done this in order to get attention, by saying something shocking, to open some minds to the good information that he goes on to give, but I find it off-putting.

[@marc.levinson]

This is like the kid at school who did his entire presentation while it was the other students' turn. At least he has some captivating PowerPoint visuals.

[@JFDSmit-rm6tw]

The scientific method, also "scientific thinking", expanded for this guy in the video to understand: 1. Observe occurrences in nature. 2. Make up a hypothesis as to why these occurrences happen. 3. Setup a test system in such a way, that anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. This is important to ensure that the hypothesis, if it passes, shall pass the test without any error. 4. Test the hypothesis. 5. If anything, at all, goes wrong during the test, that causes the hypothesis to fail at any point, discard the hypothesis. 6. If the hypothesis passes the test with 100% correct, no failure at all, it may be nominated to become a scientific theory. However... 7. NB: Have the hypothesis tested by peers in their own setups. Should any of them find any failure between the hypothesis and the practical application of the hypothesis in the test, the hypothesis is to be discarded and replaced with a new hypothesis. 8. Start over again, and repeat until a hypothesis is found, that passes with 100% every test and every peer review. 9. When a hypothesis passes multiple tests with no errors or failures at all, multiple times, it is acceptable as a scientific theory and may be considered to be scientifically correct. To be science. All science begin with measurement. What can be measured and tested, is science. Everything else, is speculation.

[@kevando_gg]

this poor guy was taught science by some strict teacher

[@birricforcella5459]

All legitimate science, without exception, boils down to one principle, and it can be stated in three words: Better explanations win. All scientific methods in all scientific fields, in all their variety and often blind alleys serve exclusively this one principle.

[@Person-ef4xj]

The people claiming he is misunderstanding the scientific method are misunderstanding the point of the video as it’s really about science education. What is presented at the beginning of the video may not be how the scientific method is actually works, however it is how it gets presented in some classes, and if you think that doesn’t matter because no scientist thinks that’s how the scientific method works then consider that students being taught about scientists are potential future scientists and how they are taught can affect whether or not they end up becoming scientists. It’s best if people are taught in a way that both helps them understand science and that won’t cause people who may have started out interested in becoming scientists to change their minds because the way they were taught science makes it look more boring than it is. The point is really about how science education should change.

[@Makkaru112]

Real science "If you're truly lucky and get it wrong..." What a beautiful thought, that is what should be thought about science, we need to look not for the answers, but rather for the questions. Only then can truth be found. :) Thank you victormgv!

[@JLHunter61]

Makkaru112 And so what will anyone do with an enormous load of questions and no answers? How does that inform anyone? What an utterly ridiculous statement. Thank goodness that there are scientists out there finding answers, or we would all be done and gone long ago. Your antiquated thinking is just more "shoot the messenger" nonsense. That type of barbaric thought process has been thrown over since the days of the Holy Roman Empire, and the days of the Greek city-states. Time to modernize your thinking, or simply get left behind.

[@mariovelez578]

it's because yes

[@TM-qz8mg]

I can find a good point on his view, and maybe on yours.

[@queun]

I don't agree, but he's outside the box, which we need. And he is brave for going way against the grain, which we also need.

[@playnlearn8143]

50% of people who commented on this video probably went to a community college....This method is actually what Critical thinking is....So sad

[@mjdon]

The first slide is not the scientific method. The cycle observations-model-predictions is the scientific method. I agree with the conclusion, we should teach more and better what is the scientific method and what it is not.

[@ianpulsford2295]

So many terrible listeners here. He's not setting up a strawman "scientific method" and then rebranding the process. He's saying what is taught in schools as the "scientific method" is not what happens in real science.

[@devonull8784]

This presentation is sophomoric nonsense. I was hoping for a talk on Platt's "Strong Inference Model" but instead got some confused comparison of deductive confirmatory reasoning with inductive speculation. This guy is just confusing people.

[@shelleyisom2639]

A story Carlos Castaneda told at a workshop: He went to a dinner and was seated next to a famous physicist -- I like to think this was Feynman -- who said: "Your books are entirely anecdotal -- you can't prove any of it." Castaneda said: "You can't prove physics to me either -- not without spending years teaching me mathematics and the theoretical basis of physics. I spent years with Don Juan learning a new cognitive system."

[@Trig188]

I usually love TED talks, but this one needed some peer review prior to presentation. He actually advocates for the SM, but evidently he lacks a basic understanding of the SM and then pretends to have re-invented the SM.

[@1stPrinciples455]

The problem with Scientific Method is its based on Predictions which is based on Observations. But modern tech cannot Observe many things in this universe. 4th, 5th, 6th or higher dimensions cannot be observed. Whatever is observed is not all there is. Therefore, the Scientific Method Limits what is discoverable and thus guaranteeing we will never know the absolute truth unless a better model is used. Science is using Language which is an art and not precise leading to different interpretations just like how cults and different religions interprete religious teachings. Mathematics look real but its a human construct. It limits also what we can discover or derive. Time is also a human construct. Like maths they all look real but nature does not have time or mathematics

[@tranquilpowerhouse]

I agree.

[@ncooty]

This is garbage. Mr. Cooke presents a caricature of the scientific method, blames it for poor scientific literacy, and then utterly mischaracterizes the epistemology of science. @6:40 (approx), he completely screws up the scientific progression, which is from description to prediction to explanation (not from explanation to prediction). *Critically*, he then claims that the epistemology of science is to ask how a person would know if their hypothesis is RIGHT. That would be the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent and it is exactly BACKWARD. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of science knows that the question is, "What evidence would show that my hypothesis is WRONG?" (i.e., modus tollens). The scientific method isn't garbage; his understanding of it is. One shouldn't make a career on the inadequacy of one's instruction.

[@judparn1018]

If the scientific method is valid, why is there a need for peer reviews? What is the scientific method for when it can be overridden by peer reviews? Of what use is the scientific method if scientists themselves are not open to new ideas and discoveries?

[@tranquilpowerhouse]

Because humans are so social that they're unable to function without receiving validation from others. And if they are, others aren't willing to accept them without being validated by peers. Herd mentality.

[@fentonburyfilms2383]

My mistake I meant I was taught that the method is definitely NON linear... clearly I was never taught to proof read.

[@TheAnnoyingGunner]

This comment section has to be renamed to "Random people on the internet react to video title without watching the video". His talk left me somewhat irritated. To me it looks like he wants to shill his take on the scientific method as new, and is presenting the bog standard scientific method.

[@DistortedV12]

Or he is just trying to emphasize to educators, that they need to describe it differently?

[@michaellidster1389]

TheAnnoyingGunner settle pettle

[@k0lpA]

watch "feynman on the scientific method" if you also hate humanity after watching this

[@EhCloserLook]

I think doing away completely with the Scientific Method is a bit extreme, but I generally agree with the points that this physicist is making.

[@queun]

Let's be grateful that this is available to us on KZbin. . . How many more funny cats or people slipping on ice do we need?

[@tuddlesx]

Someone help with my Chemistry Discussion Board: - is the 'normal' scientific method as bad as the speaker suggests? what do you think of the scientific method taught as the linear model in class ? has the scieinfic method failed before ? - is the suggested science cycle VERY different from the 'linear' method? what are there similarities? what are the differences? - should I teach the science cycle in future classes, explain why or why not?

[@AtheosNous]

His "better way" @6:00 *IS* the scientific method. I don't know where he got his "scientific method" @1:00. As others explained, he is denouncing the 8th grade version of the scientific method, in which case the video title is misleading and Dr. Cooke did not make it clear enough. "We are Teaching the Scientific Method Incorrectly" would have been a better title of his talk.

[@judomagyar]

The "circle" is basically the same as the "linear" explanation. This is similar to how computer programming changed over time. A simple program can be developed (almost) in a linear step by step manner. A more complex program requires going in circles while testing and refining the software.

[@brandish_0003]

Pleasantly surprised and I agree with him. From the title I thought he would be bashing science 😅

[@haroldwestrich3312]

To many comments below; I get what your saying - it's just the scientific method laid out a little differently but sometimes I think Delivery of a message can be as important as the message itself. I think the slight change in language of describing a system like the Scientific method can make it less intimidating and although I always thought the method was taught like a flowchart with a start and an end I also thought there was an arrow going from the bottom to the top and explained that if you are wrong you need to start over again. I think the title is a little dramatic compared to the slight change in the method's presentation.