"The" Scientific Method? Not So.

"The" scientific method? What do theoretical physics, biochemistry, geology, and sociology share? Is this it?

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) (from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method.)

Comparing methods as diverse as extrapolations from observations in geology, mathematical modelling in theoretical physics, genetic testing, instrument-guided observation, personal experience, and statistical analysis of, say, questionnaire data, it's fair to say that there is no such thing as "the" scientific method. There are, really, roughly as many methods as there are sciences.

More important, perhaps, is the observation that scientific methods are not a beginning to a creative process but a conclusion that, if wrongly conceived or taught, overlooks the actual creative work of a scientist.

Creativity in science can enter the process at any one of the eight seemingly algorithmic steps quoted above. At any moment, novelty in data, creative insight, unanticipated results, a new concept, a new formulation, a chance conversation or event, can provide an inroad to new science.

The danger in teaching science, especially to middle and high school students, especially by those who are not themselves scientists, is that we will teach dogma--"the" scientific method--that closes our students to the possibility of a creative encounter with science.