The scientific process

For half of the semester, we tried to give life to the scientific process. As a class, we came up with a model that most of us could agree on. It essentially consisted of the process of taking broad understandings (theories) and using them (via deduction) to find data/observations to support them. It also includes the process of enlargement (via induction) of observations into broader theories, generalizations. This process is depicted as being circular, however, had we had 3D imaging techniques at our disposal, we would have expressed this process as a spiral, rather than just as a circle.

The spiral is meant to convey the idea that the process progresses, rather than simply ruminating on the same things. Thus, one set of data can lead to a theory, which then leads one to find a new set of data, and so forth. Of course, this process is not completely linear. One set of data could lead to several theories, and each theory can lead to many different sets of data in order to prove them. Thus, this depiction of the scientific process is a gross oversimplification.

I have included here a picture that I designed to illustrate the process. You will notice that I had made some amendments, because I found that the process we came up with as a group was missing certain elements.

Each of the smaller circles is intended to represent a smaller spiral. I blame Paint for this, as it's the only image processing program I have, and I'm not particularly good at this to begin with. In any case, these spirals are meant to convey the idea that science is the combination of many scientists' work and ideas. Portraying the entire process as a single spiral is like portraying the human body as being made up of one single piece, rather than as an amalgamation of cells and organs.

We seem to be stuck in a mindset in which people are viewed as being pieces that are manufactured according to the same blueprint, and that the results are all more or less identical. If Science were a machine, then we would all be cogs of the same size and shape (according to this view). In other words, one of the major problems with our society today is that we no longer view people as individuals, but instead as numbers. Therefore, if one piece isn't working, we get rid of it and replace it with another one, without any consideration as to what will happen to the discarded piece. The current system has no room for compassion and sympathy. You are either efficient or defective.

Thus, this revised process incorporates this notion of individuality, by representing individuals as the engine that drives the process.

Of course, every engine requires fuel to burn, and oil to grease it. That is where the second amendment comes in: money. Money is, unfortunately, the thing that allows science to happen. Ironically, it is also money that is responsible for turning individuals into numbers. Nothing is off-limits in the pursuit of wealth, even if it means destroying lives along the way. This is one of the fundamental flaws in the system. Money decides that which gets published (or even researched at all), and that which doesn't. One of my Criminology professors often says that universities have a "publish or perish" mentality, and I agree with that.

I would like to close this section by saying that I believe that this scientific process, as well as the scientific methods we are taught are simply the explicitation of processes of the human mind. In other words, everyone is a scientist because we constantly make use of these processes in our everyday lives.