|
Goals for ISM and IDM:
Is There a scientific method,
and Is ISM a model for this method?
by Craig Rusbult
This page has not been revised
since May 2001, but
the version on another website has been revised many times
since then, so I strongly recommend that you read
THE
REVISED VERSION.
Introduction
an explanation for the reader: Eventually, the introduction for this page will connect it with "An Introduction to Design." In its current form, it assumes you are familiar with the basic structure of my model for ISM (Integrated Scientific Method) and IDM (Integrated Design Method) -- each of these models contains components that are logically organized into a framework. With no background knowledge other than these simple concepts, I'm hoping the page will be self-contained and self-explanatory, so you won't need to know the details of either ISM or IDM.
The main goals for ISM are to make
it useful for describing science so it can be useful for education.
{ The goals for IDM are analogous. }
I view the second goal, educational
utility, as the primary goal for ISM,
with the main audience being educators, curriculum
developers, teachers, and (eventually) students, rather than scholars
who specialize in the study of science. { The main components
of ISM have been borrowed from contemporary scholars who study science,
so ISM does not introduce any major new philosophical concepts. But
by providing an integrated structure for synthesizing a wide range of ideas,
ISM may offer a fresh perspective that could serve a useful function in
the scholarly study of science. }
Can we construct one view of science
that will be considered satisfactory by everyone? No, this is impossible,
for two reasons. First, the empirical evidence of history shows that
the methods used by scientists change with time and culture, and vary from
one scientific discipline to another. Second, even when describing
the same events in the history of science, scholars may disagree about what
happened and why.
Therefore, the first goal for ISM --
to be "useful for describing science" -- must be interpreted carefully,
to avoid the implication that it promises more than is claimed.
The problem: There is
no single "scientific method" that is used by all scientists at
all times. But if there are many different scientific methods, not
just one, how can all of these methods be described by one model?
A solution: Although it
would be foolish to claim that ISM (or any other model) is "The Scientific
Method," a more carefully defined goal can be achieved. This
is possible because differing interpretations of science can be explained,
to a reasonable approximation, in terms of differences in describing the
characteristics of science components
(such as activities and evaluation factors), the integrated relationships
between components, and the balance
(regarding relative importance) between various components. And ISM
-- because it has been constructed as a framework that provides structure
yet is flexible, thus allowing variations in describing characteristics,
relationships, and balance -- can be used to describe a wide variety of
actual scientific practices and a wide range of views about how to interpret
science and scientists.
2. Views of Science, and Types of Science
As an example of wide interpretive
range, consider the contrast between orthodox views of science and the radical
"anything goes" anarchy envisioned by Paul Feyerabend (1975).
Although most interpreters of science would use ISM's "external relationships
with other scientific theories" to emphasize the importance of constructing
a theory so it is consistent with other theories, this is not the only option.
The same element could be used to introduce the contrary view of Feyerabend,
that scientific progress requires free innovation, with a multiplicity of
diverse theories produced by postulating new theories which are incompatible
with currently accepted theories. Thus, we see the same opportunity,
provided by the "external relationships" element of ISM, used
in two very different ways. Similarly, the "retroduction"
element of ISM could be used either to emphasize the importance of proposing
models that are consistent with known observations, or to explain Feyerabend's
view that scientists should feel free to ignore this constraint by using
"counterinduction" to generate models that are currently unsupported
by (or even contrary to) existing evidence, because the powerful influence
of a currently accepted theory can make it difficult or impossible to observe
data which might falsify that theory and support alternative theories.
By varying the characteristics, relationships,
and balance of elements, the ISM framework can be used to describe different
views of science (as in the paragraph above) or different types
of science, such as the differing methods typically used in the current
fields of astronomy, molecular biology, paleontology, elementary particle
physics, psychology, and nutrition, or in the astronomy of 500 years ago.
These ISM-based descriptions could be analytically compared in order to
develop a deeper understanding of variations across fields (for example,
by comparing current physics and psychology) and time (comparing astronomy
in 1497 and 1997) and views (comparing descriptions by several interpreters).
Or a study of variations could focus
on different cultures within the same field at the same time. For
example, in the 1960s-and-1970s there was fierce competition
between three communities with different theories about the mechanism
of oxidative phosphorylation. A comparative analysis of the methods
used by these three groups, each taking a different approach to studying
the same area of nature, could be facilitated by ISM.
3. The Flexibility and Neutrality of ISM
The flexibility of ISM is due partly
to its multidisciplinary origins. Because it was created by synthesizing
ideas from all parts of the interpretive spectrum, ISM contains the concepts
needed to describe divergent viewpoints. These concepts include the
cultural-personal factors emphasized by sociologists, conceptual factors
for logically oriented philosophers, and idea-generating mental activities
for psychologists.
Another source of flexibility is that
ISM can be used as an "empty framework" with blanks to be filled
in different ways (with characteristics, relationships, and
balances) to construct alternative elaborations
of scientific methods. Because it can be elaborated in many ways,
one model can describe many methods. Perhaps I just lack imagination,
but I cannot imagine any reasonable view of science -- one that should be
taken seriously -- that could not be described using the ISM framework.
ISM is more than my own view of science
because, with alternative elaborations, the same framework can also be used
to describe other views, including a wide range of apparently irreconcilable
views about what constitutes an accurate portrayal of scientific methods.
ISM does not argue for the correctness of any of these competing interpretations.
Instead, it is intended to be a "tool for thinking" that can be
used to clearly express divergent perspectives, so their similarities and
differences can be analyzed and articulated.
For example, the ISM framework does not
express opinions about multicultural perspectives of science, such as feminist
critiques (Rosser, 1989) that science -- including its educational practices
and institutional structures, profession-related politics, thought styles,
and theories -- is significantly influenced by gender. But the framework
does include a category for "culturally influenced thought styles"
where feminist interpretations can be discussed, and where a wide variety
of opinions can be expressed.
4. The Bias of ISM
When discussing bias, it is useful to distinguish between the ISM framework and my elaboration of this framework. My own views of science (as expressed in this website, especially in the SCIENCE, X-RATED, and ISM pages) are in the moderate mainstream of current interpretations, and are biased against what I consider to be "extreme" interpretations. But the bias in my elaboration does not define the bias of ISM. Or, by framing this statement in the format of a standard disclaimer, "The views expressed in my elaboration are not necessarily those of the ISM framework." To illustrate the distinction between elaboration and framework, imagine another person writing an alternative elaboration of ISM -- with different characteristics, relationships, and balances, expressed using different illustrations and interpretations -- that is compatible with the ISM framework, even though it expresses many views contrary to my own.
When examining bias, it is useful
to think of the ISM framework as a language for communicating ideas.
A flexible language can express a wide range
of ideas. A neutral language allows an
equally easy, accurate, and influential expression of all ideas within its
range. To the extent that some ideas can be expressed more easily
and powerfully, a language is biased toward these ideas. By using
the language of ISM it is possible to describe all views, but it
is easier to describe some views, so these are favored by the framework.
ISM is highly flexible, but not totally neutral.
In addition, the mere existence of an
element in ISM is an implicit argument that this element is considered an
important part of science. For example, the elements for "external
consistency" and "retroduction" strongly imply the orthodox
view that these are essential components of science. Although these
implications can be denied, as in Section 2 , it
would be difficult for anyone to see Feyerabend's views in the ISM-diagram.
But it is easy to see the orthodox views, so ISM is biased toward these
views. This implicit bias is made explicit in my SCIENCE-page, which
describes the orthodox views but not those of Feyerabend. { Yes, this
does show that in some ways it can be difficult to clearly
distinguish between the ISM framework and my elaboration. Earlier
I claimed that "it can be useful to distinguish...", not
that it is easy. }
The ISM framework -- due to its non-neutrality
as a language, and its inclusion of some elements but not others -- is biased.
Usually, however, this bias is weak enough to overcome, thus allowing ISM
to be used for clearly expressing a wide range of scientific practices and
views about science. The educational implications of bias and flexibility,
and why the inclusion of cultural-personal elements in ISM may be a cause for concern , are discussed on the "X-Rated Scientific
Method" page.
5. Is ISM a model for a method?
Is there a method in science?
The answer depends on a definition of "method." If this
means a rigid sequence of steps or an implication that all science is the
same, there is no method. But with a broader definition, the answer
is yes. However, this "yes" is really the answer to a different
question, after conversion from singular to plural: "Are there methods
in science?" When the goal shifts from singular to plural, from
finding the method to finding methods that are "variations
on a basic theme," the search becomes more productive because there
is a closer match between this re-defined goal and the reality of science.
With this pluralized definition, instead
of calling ISM an "integrated scientific method" it would be more
accurate to call it a "framework for describing some typical relationships
between activities often used in science." But I will continue
to use "ISM" as a convenient abbreviation, since "ffdstrbaouis"
is too cumbersome for comfort.
Scientific methods are flexible, so
a model of scientific methods should be flexible. Therefore, ISM does
not try to define a single method for all science. But ISM can be
used to describe commonly occurring patterns, such as a cycle where observations
are used for evaluation that is used to design experiments which produce
observations, and the cycle begins again; during each cycle, empirical knowledge
of a domain increases, and there is often a "successive approximations"
approach to theory development by revision. Scientists can begin at
any point in a cycle.
ISM can also be used to describe and
analyze the complexities of timing that involve overlapping and interconnected
activities, iterative cycles within cycles, multiple branchings, and so
on. But even though some patterns do exist in the sequencing of activities,
ISM should be viewed, not as a rigorous flowchart of scientific activity,
but as a roadmap that shows some possibilities for creative wandering.
OFF-PAGE LINKS
"fierce competition" is on the SCIENCE-DETAILS page
"difficult to distinguish?" is on the SCIENCE-DETAILS page
"a cause for concern" is on the X-RATED page
http://www.sit.wisc.edu/~crusbult/methods/goals.htm
home science design
goals education
x-rated science details sitemap