0:00:22.449,0:00:25.094
The scientific method sucks.

0:00:25.094,0:00:26.418
(Laughter)

0:00:26.418,0:00:28.919
Now, by that I don't mean[br]that science sucks.

0:00:28.919,0:00:34.410
As a physicist, I believe that science[br]has had countless benefits for humanity.

0:00:34.410,0:00:35.840
But when I was in eigth grade,

0:00:35.840,0:00:38.471
I learned about this thing[br]called the scientific method.

0:00:38.471,0:00:42.282
And since then, I have done science,[br]I have worked with other scientists

0:00:42.282,0:00:44.030
and I've taught science

0:00:44.030,0:00:45.402
to college students,

0:00:45.402,0:00:47.372
to K-12 teachers,

0:00:47.372,0:00:50.713
and to seventh and eighth graders -[br]middle schoolers.

0:00:51.043,0:00:53.672
And from these experiences,[br]I've come to the conclusion

0:00:53.672,0:00:56.923
that the scientific method ... sucks.

0:00:57.231,0:00:58.754
If it's been a while for you,

0:00:58.754,0:01:01.144
as it has been for me,[br]since middle school,

0:01:01.144,0:01:04.083
let me run through it real quick for you.

0:01:04.682,0:01:08.005
First of all, Step 1: Identify a problem.

0:01:08.005,0:01:10.544
Step 2: Do some research.

0:01:10.544,0:01:12.734
Step 3: Form a hypothesis.

0:01:12.734,0:01:16.361
Step 4: Do an experiment with some[br]independent and dependent variables

0:01:16.361,0:01:17.803
to test your hypothesis.

0:01:17.803,0:01:19.813
Step 5: Analyze data.

0:01:19.813,0:01:22.383
Step 6: Draw a conclusion.

0:01:22.383,0:01:24.154
It sounds good, right?

0:01:24.154,0:01:27.673
It certainly matches[br]what we see on TV and in movies,

0:01:27.673,0:01:29.552
and what we see on the news.

0:01:29.970,0:01:33.466
Unfortunately, it completely misrepresents

0:01:33.466,0:01:36.536
what scientists do[br]and what science is all about.

0:01:37.283,0:01:40.616
And this manifests in four main ways:

0:01:40.984,0:01:43.655
First of all, it's incredibly linear.

0:01:43.655,0:01:47.392
We start with a problem statement,[br]and we end with a conclusion.

0:01:47.392,0:01:51.475
This implies that science[br]is something that's once and done,

0:01:51.475,0:01:53.565
fixed for all time.

0:01:54.103,0:01:56.876
Secondly, it's not very intuitive.

0:01:56.876,0:01:58.897
How do I choose a problem?

0:01:59.246,0:02:02.046
What do I do with[br]my conclusion when I'm done?

0:02:02.690,0:02:07.806
If I have no idea what should[br]or even could happen,

0:02:07.806,0:02:10.205
how do I come up with a hypothesis?

0:02:11.005,0:02:13.786
This makes the process intimidating

0:02:13.786,0:02:15.246
and dangerous.

0:02:16.805,0:02:18.746
Three, there's a focus on conclusion -

0:02:18.746,0:02:21.912
reaching the conclusion,[br]on getting a fact.

0:02:21.912,0:02:24.625
Well, what happens[br]when the information changes?

0:02:25.057,0:02:27.363
What happens when facts change?

0:02:27.363,0:02:30.074
How does this process capture that?

0:02:30.817,0:02:33.495
And finally, the focus on experimentation.

0:02:33.495,0:02:37.184
Now, don't get me wrong,[br]I'm a big fan of teaching students

0:02:37.184,0:02:40.975
to control for whatever[br]random variables they can,

0:02:40.975,0:02:44.145
but there's been a lot[br]of really good science that's been done

0:02:44.145,0:02:47.594
without being able to control[br]for, well, anything.

0:02:48.233,0:02:50.636
For a moment, I'd like for you to imagine

0:02:50.636,0:02:54.900
what budget it would take[br]to create a laboratory here on Earth

0:02:54.900,0:02:57.476
to study the interior of Jupiter.

0:02:58.814,0:03:02.387
Or to form a star from scratch.

0:03:02.607,0:03:06.305
Or to study a galaxy's development.

0:03:08.306,0:03:11.055
Do you want your tax dollars[br]to go towards that?

0:03:12.385,0:03:15.586
Now, you may be thinking,[br]well, it's probably not that bad.

0:03:15.586,0:03:19.506
I mean, we've trained generations[br]of scientists using the scientific method,

0:03:19.506,0:03:21.376
myself included,

0:03:21.376,0:03:24.197
surely, I'm exaggerating.

0:03:24.607,0:03:27.795
Well, let me walk through[br]a few statistics with you.

0:03:28.796,0:03:31.747
65 percent of Americans[br]have little to no idea

0:03:31.747,0:03:34.998
what scientists do on a day-to-day basis.

0:03:34.998,0:03:36.205
(Laughter)

0:03:36.205,0:03:38.945
50 percent of them, however,[br]have considered it,

0:03:38.945,0:03:41.305
whatever it is, dangerous.

0:03:41.305,0:03:42.867
(Laughter)

0:03:42.867,0:03:46.226
32 percent of middle schoolers,[br]of eighth graders,

0:03:46.226,0:03:50.827
score at or above proficiency[br]in science, in 2011.

0:03:50.827,0:03:55.305
The good news is,[br]that's up from 30 percent in 2009.

0:03:55.698,0:04:01.447
The bad new is, that implies 68 percent,[br]two thirds, middle schoolers,

0:04:01.447,0:04:03.854
score below proficiency.

0:04:05.327,0:04:09.665
30 percent of elementary school teachers[br]feel well prepared to teach science.

0:04:09.665,0:04:11.667
Now that's compared to 52 percent

0:04:11.667,0:04:14.066
who feel well prepared[br]to teach social studies,

0:04:14.066,0:04:18.318
66 percent who feel[br]well prepared to teach mathematics,

0:04:18.318,0:04:23.247
and 77 percent who feel well prepared[br]to teach reading and language arts.

0:04:24.267,0:04:28.439
But here's my favorite statistic of all,[br]the one I find most telling.

0:04:29.007,0:04:31.659
Of 2,000 parents surveyed in the UK,

0:04:31.659,0:04:35.009
50 percent said that they feared

0:04:35.009,0:04:37.770
answering their children's[br]questions about science -

0:04:37.770,0:04:40.928
questions like, why is the sky blue?

0:04:40.928,0:04:43.577
And why is the moon out[br]during the daytime?

0:04:43.989,0:04:50.480
20 percent, one in five,[br]said that in response to such questions,

0:04:50.480,0:04:55.400
they said, "No one knows"[br]or made somethig up.

0:04:55.400,0:04:56.889
(Laughter)

0:04:56.889,0:04:58.759
This concerns me.

0:05:00.028,0:05:06.632
As a culture, as a civilization,[br]we fear science.

0:05:07.132,0:05:08.431
Why?

0:05:09.141,0:05:11.643
Well, I believe there are[br]three main sources of that.

0:05:11.643,0:05:15.211
First of all, we're obsessed[br]with right answers,

0:05:15.211,0:05:17.280
we're obsessed with conclusions.

0:05:17.280,0:05:20.999
And as we go further and further,[br]we learn more and more stuff,

0:05:20.999,0:05:23.383
we can't keep track of it all.

0:05:23.711,0:05:28.570
In addition, the facts,[br]those conclusions, change.

0:05:29.051,0:05:30.740
Let me give you an example.

0:05:30.740,0:05:32.818
If you're like me,[br]when you were growing up,

0:05:32.818,0:05:35.851
there were nine planets[br]in the solar system.

0:05:36.341,0:05:38.080
In 2006,

0:05:38.080,0:05:40.970
one of these things was eliminated.

0:05:41.290,0:05:43.331
Which brings me to my third point:

0:05:43.331,0:05:44.630
Why?!

0:05:44.630,0:05:46.000
(Laughter)

0:05:46.000,0:05:49.271
We don't understand[br]how do these decisions get made.

0:05:49.271,0:05:52.291
We don't understand[br]the thought process behind it.

0:05:52.771,0:05:58.331
Now, all of these problems possibly don't[br]lie at the feet of the scientific method,

0:05:58.331,0:06:00.277
but it's not helping.

0:06:01.730,0:06:04.040
There is, however, a better way.

0:06:04.041,0:06:07.829
Let me introduce you[br]to the cycle of scientific thinking.

0:06:08.168,0:06:11.971
This starts with interesting observations.

0:06:12.290,0:06:14.500
What counts as interesting?

0:06:14.780,0:06:18.200
Well, if you find yourself[br]asking the question:

0:06:18.640,0:06:20.221
What happened there?

0:06:20.939,0:06:22.841
Why did that occur?

0:06:23.281,0:06:25.158
What's going on?

0:06:25.158,0:06:27.311
It's probably interesting.

0:06:27.639,0:06:32.671
In the face of such questions,[br]the human brain does an amazing thing:

0:06:33.132,0:06:37.508
It tries to come up with an answer,[br]a story, an explanation

0:06:37.508,0:06:39.277
of what's going on.

0:06:39.802,0:06:43.621
Now, a lot of people[br]are perfectly happy to have an answer.

0:06:43.621,0:06:47.582
But scientists - and this is what makes[br]scientists different from other people -

0:06:47.582,0:06:51.174
scientists want to know[br]if their answer is right.

0:06:51.174,0:06:53.882
And the way they do that is by saying,

0:06:53.882,0:06:57.584
"Well, if my explanation[br]is true, is correct,

0:06:57.584,0:07:02.232
then I should also see this ..."[br]They make a prediction.

0:07:02.232,0:07:04.902
And once you have a prediction,[br]the only thing left to do

0:07:04.902,0:07:08.014
is to go make an observation,[br]is to see if you were right.

0:07:08.403,0:07:10.684
And if you are, yay!

0:07:11.134,0:07:16.364
But if you're not, if you're truly lucky,[br]and you got it wrong,

0:07:16.364,0:07:19.484
then that's going[br]to bring up more questions -

0:07:19.484,0:07:23.024
questions that require more explanation.

0:07:23.024,0:07:25.355
Which leads to new predictions.

0:07:25.355,0:07:29.446
And so on, and so on, and so on.

0:07:30.976,0:07:32.886
Now, why is this better?

0:07:32.886,0:07:37.576
Well, first of all, it actually[br]represents what scientists do.

0:07:37.576,0:07:39.964
In fact, post-graduate[br]education in science

0:07:39.964,0:07:44.014
is all about teaching people[br]how to take interesting observations,

0:07:44.014,0:07:45.906
ask pertinent questions,

0:07:45.906,0:07:51.015
and then develop explanations[br]that lead to observable predictions.

0:07:51.235,0:07:52.766
This is science.

0:07:52.766,0:07:56.077
But secondly, and more importantly,[br]it's much more intuitive

0:07:56.077,0:07:57.828
and much more engaging.

0:07:57.828,0:08:00.267
The power is in your hands.

0:08:00.267,0:08:04.059
Once you have an interesting question,[br]do you want to go to the library

0:08:04.059,0:08:06.369
and read up on other people's answers?

0:08:06.369,0:08:09.707
Or do you want to skip all that[br]and come up with an answer of your own,

0:08:09.707,0:08:12.496
and see if you can make[br]a prediction and test it?

0:08:12.496,0:08:13.967
It's up to you.

0:08:13.967,0:08:16.648
That makes it much less intimidating.

0:08:16.648,0:08:19.916
From this, as well,[br]it becomes much more obvious

0:08:19.916,0:08:24.088
how examples, how explanations,[br]change over time.

0:08:24.088,0:08:26.279
In fact, there are only[br]three possible things

0:08:26.279,0:08:29.226
that can happen to a scientific model:

0:08:29.226,0:08:31.287
It makes the right predictions,

0:08:31.287,0:08:34.636
in which case it becomes[br]stronger over time;

0:08:34.636,0:08:37.359
it makes a few wrong predictions,

0:08:37.359,0:08:40.977
in which case it is modified over time;

0:08:40.977,0:08:43.638
or it makes completely wrong predictions,

0:08:43.638,0:08:47.358
in which case it will be[br]abandoned over time.

0:08:48.162,0:08:50.519
The last great thing about this model

0:08:50.519,0:08:54.350
is that it also illuminates something[br]that's very dear to my heart:

0:08:54.350,0:09:00.519
the idea that any explanation[br]must be able to be proven false.

0:09:00.850,0:09:03.158
And to explain this, I want to start with:

0:09:03.158,0:09:05.970
What would it take for me to show

0:09:05.970,0:09:10.829
that my explanation of a phenomenon[br]is True, with a capital 'T'?

0:09:10.829,0:09:13.770
Well if it's true,[br]then every prediction it makes

0:09:13.770,0:09:16.020
should match the observations.

0:09:16.020,0:09:17.532
Well how do I check that?

0:09:17.532,0:09:21.109
I have to check "every" observation.

0:09:21.378,0:09:25.540
That's not "every observation[br]that I can make with my current budget."

0:09:25.540,0:09:29.013
That's not "every observation[br]that I can make here

0:09:29.013,0:09:31.000
in this amount of time that I have."

0:09:31.000,0:09:33.882
It's "every" observation.

0:09:33.882,0:09:36.800
Everywhere. Everywhen.

0:09:37.569,0:09:39.559
It's not possible.

0:09:40.037,0:09:43.830
In order to prove[br]an explanation false, however,

0:09:43.830,0:09:47.666
all I have to do is find out[br]that it makes the wrong predictions,

0:09:47.666,0:09:50.599
and then make sure[br]that I didn't make a mistake.

0:09:51.071,0:09:53.861
The way I think of this is to say:

0:09:53.861,0:09:57.518
If you give me a model that consistently[br]predicts the wrong thing,

0:09:57.518,0:10:01.086
I can say with certainty,[br]your model is wrong.

0:10:01.470,0:10:04.812
If you give me a model that consistently[br]predicts the right thing,

0:10:04.812,0:10:09.130
I can say with certainty[br]that your model is not wrong ...

0:10:09.420,0:10:10.570
yet.

0:10:11.031,0:10:13.109
Let me give you an example.

0:10:13.109,0:10:17.209
In 1781, we found the planet Uranus.

0:10:17.559,0:10:20.409
But it did this really weird thing.

0:10:20.409,0:10:24.889
At certain points in its orbit,[br]it was further along than we expected

0:10:24.889,0:10:27.909
based upon our models,[br]our understanding of gravity.

0:10:27.909,0:10:32.289
And at other points in its orbits,[br]it hadn't traveled far enough.

0:10:32.289,0:10:36.679
It was almost as if it was traveling[br]too fast at some points

0:10:36.679,0:10:40.001
and not fast enough at other points.

0:10:40.001,0:10:42.010
Astronomers looked at this, and they said,

0:10:42.010,0:10:45.689
"You know, it looks a lot[br]like something is pulling it -

0:10:45.689,0:10:49.325
pulling it a little bit faster[br]or a little bit slower

0:10:49.325,0:10:52.070
depending on where it is in its orbit.

0:10:53.380,0:10:55.524
Maybe there's a planet out there.

0:10:55.524,0:10:59.081
Maybe there's something[br]interacting with it gravitationally."

0:10:59.081,0:11:03.500
And so they did the calculations,[br]they found out where the planet should be,

0:11:03.500,0:11:07.449
and they pointed their telescopes[br]in the sky at that location.

0:11:08.089,0:11:11.480
The planet they found[br]we call Neptune, today.

0:11:11.900,0:11:14.651
Now, this was awesome[br]to be able to do this,

0:11:14.651,0:11:18.241
and there were still discrepancies[br]in Uranus's orbit.

0:11:18.241,0:11:19.441
So they did calculations,

0:11:19.441,0:11:22.470
they said maybe there's[br]another planet out there, planet X.

0:11:22.470,0:11:23.939
They did the calculations,

0:11:23.939,0:11:26.050
they figured out[br]where that planet should be,

0:11:26.050,0:11:29.170
and they pointed their telescopes[br]into the sky at that point,

0:11:29.170,0:11:31.850
and they looked and they found ...

0:11:32.430,0:11:33.809
nothing.

0:11:34.989,0:11:36.471
And this was a problem.

0:11:36.471,0:11:40.040
And they said, "Okay,"[br]but they continued to look.

0:11:40.349,0:11:42.630
And eventually they saw something.

0:11:42.630,0:11:44.469
And it wasn't where they expected,

0:11:44.469,0:11:46.542
and it wasn't really[br]the size they expected,

0:11:46.542,0:11:49.080
but they said, "We found something,[br]and it's a planet,

0:11:49.080,0:11:51.978
and we're going to call that thing Pluto."

0:11:52.761,0:11:55.350
Fast forward 60 years.

0:11:55.791,0:12:00.619
Astronomers continued looking,[br]continued taking observations.

0:12:02.029,0:12:04.568
And another one popped up.

0:12:04.929,0:12:09.599
Same size, same composition,[br]same location.

0:12:09.926,0:12:11.784
And then another one,

0:12:12.138,0:12:13.702
and another one,

0:12:14.030,0:12:15.400
and another one,

0:12:15.794,0:12:17.280
and another one.

0:12:17.700,0:12:20.290
And astronomers said, "Uh oh.

0:12:21.359,0:12:23.792
This is not looking so much [br]like the other planets,

0:12:23.792,0:12:26.272
this is looking like the asteroid belt -

0:12:26.272,0:12:30.139
a collection of objects[br]that all share the same orbit

0:12:30.139,0:12:33.841
but aren't really planets,[br]not what we think of as planets."

0:12:34.670,0:12:39.502
And as the evidence,[br]as the observations continued to build,

0:12:39.752,0:12:42.932
astronomers ended up having to abandon

0:12:42.932,0:12:46.020
this explanation of Pluto[br]as being a planet -

0:12:46.452,0:12:48.121
it didn't fit.

0:12:48.823,0:12:53.620
In the same way, we need to abandon[br]the scientific model.

0:12:53.911,0:12:55.893
It doesn't fit.

0:12:55.893,0:13:00.102
Instead, embrace[br]the cycle of scientific thinking.

0:13:00.853,0:13:04.722
You don't have to be[br]an expert to do science.

0:13:04.972,0:13:06.912
You don't have to know everything

0:13:06.912,0:13:10.111
to answer your kid's[br]questions about science.

0:13:10.111,0:13:13.162
Even if the answer is: I don't know.

0:13:13.162,0:13:14.913
What do you think?

0:13:15.173,0:13:16.628
Observe.

0:13:16.628,0:13:18.271
Explain.

0:13:18.271,0:13:19.721
Predict.

0:13:19.721,0:13:22.812
That's enough; it's good enough.

0:13:22.812,0:13:27.812
Together, as parents,[br]as educators, and as scientists,

0:13:27.812,0:13:32.364
we can prepare our kids, our students,[br]our schools, and our country

0:13:32.364,0:13:35.437
for the challenges[br]of the 21st century and beyond,

0:13:35.437,0:13:39.854
if we can learn to think differently[br]about science over time.

0:13:39.854,0:13:41.422
Thank you very much.

0:13:41.422,0:13:43.272
(Applause)