The scientific method is extremely straight forward and has been driven into young brains across the country since the age of ten. Step one, pose a question. Step two, plan an experiment to exam that question with constants and variables. Step three, perform the experiment and log your observations and results. Step four, if they match, you are right, if they fail to match, you must try again with the new question being: why? This simplified pathway is perfectly useful when you question are simple and methods are attainable. The issues arise when your question seemingly cannot be answered with the tools and opportunities for exploration available to you, which is oft a problem for people like us in the scientific field. They question stops being something with a searchable answer. The plan for the experiment must start from literal scratch with tools and methods to identifiying the variables and constants. This happens all the time in science, as my post-grad in my lab once said, it took their coworker seven years to complete their experiment successfully. Seven years. At that point, the scientific method cannot withstand the possibilities of troubleshooting required. There is no "go back and design a new experiment" when you are already stuck on step 3. What I am saying is that the complexity of right and wrong and inbetween answer to question posed in research creates a never ending vortex that you fall into. Disillusionment is real and everyone who survives a career in the scientific field has experienced it.
Recent comments