PhD 2.1: What is Science? Who is a Scientist? – The discipline

What is science?

This is a very good question. When I ask my middle school aged children, they think of science class in school. They think of test tubes, bubbling liquids, and cutting open small animals. Others may think of science as the thing that isn’t religion, a secular process that is seeking to undo religion, as though science were out to eliminate religion, spirituality, and faith. There are some who revere science and equate it with truth. If it is scientific, it is good enough for them.

Well, science really isn’t any of these things. Science is not limited to a few hard science methodologies, it is not hell-bent on destroying religion, and it is not the arbiter of truth. Science is more complex, less sinister, and more humble than any of the above caricatures.

Science is a way to ask and respond to questions. Science is always asking, “How could we know this better than we already do?”  and the science goes about finding a way (method) for responding to the question.

It should be stated that science doesn’t really set out to answer questions. Answers are so final in nature. Answers tend to end conversations. Science is not interested in ending conversations, but rather it is interested in just the opposite. Science wants to keep the conversations going. So, science responds to questions. Responses are more tentative than answers. Responses assume whole lot less than answers. Answers had better be right while responses can be what represents good thinking.

Science could be defined as a discipline meant to keep the conversation about knowledge going. Questions that inspire responses which bring about more questions which inspire even better responses and so forth.

Science is a fun discipline because it is essentially a process of having ideas (theory) that you try to figure out a way to test (methodology) to see how much of the idea is not supported (results) and then ponder the implications (discussion). Children do this sort of thing all the time. I did when I was a kid.

I did a science experiment once as a kid, although I thought I was playing and getting into mischief. My buddy had a toy called a “Stretch Arm Strong,” a doll whose limbs would stretch when pulled. We knew he could stretch (review of empirical literature), but was he unbreakable (theory – ideas that go past the edge of knowledge)? If enough pressure were used to stretch the arms, they would break (hypothesis). We tried to break him (methodology). Our first effort to break him failed. My friend was stronger than I was, so he pulled on both arms in the opposite direction. The arms of the “Stretch” extended as far as my friend’s arms, but did not break. We then tried a second attempt (there no one perfect methodology to test a theory). We got more clever (advanced methodology – we created a methodology that this question required). We knew that there were ways to exert more pressure on “Stretch,” so we did (Limitations of first experiment). We placed his torso on a strong tree branch, with one arm on one side of the branch and one arm on the other side of the branch. I pulled on one arm and my friend pulled on the other arm. We both put the full weight of our bodies into this effort as we pulled down on the arms. The arms stretched downward as the torso of “Stretch” remained on the limb. Finally, his arm broke. His  doll flesh split open (results - hypothesis supported). But there was also an unexpected finding. We learned that “stretch” was full of thick goo that was so sticky it was like superglue in gel form. We had to deal not only with the success of our intended finding, but also the surprise and problem of our unintended finding (discussion).

Science is a discipline, but it is also a natural approach to child-like curiosity. Maybe to become really good in the discipline of science, one must retain, restore, or rekindle their natural child-like curiosity. Science at its best innocently asks questions and innocently finds ways to respond to those questions. How could that be sinister?

Technorati Tags: critical thinking,phd,doctoral studies,science

PhD 2.0: What is Science? Who is a Scientist?

The person who wants to find truth should not become a scientist. Science does not result in truth. Good science never claims truth.

Science is a way to ask and respond to questions. It is a set of rules which develops a narrative. Science is a discipline, a practice, a way of pursuing understanding. Science hopes, in some way, to approximate truth within a context.

Art tries to accomplish the same thing.

Theology tries to accomplish the same thing.

Intergenerational oral tradition tries to accomplish the same thing.

Scientists must remain humble and honest about the extent to which their claims can carry them. I fear the scientist who has found truth. Everyone should. The scientist who has found truth is selling something.

Science understands the difference between knowledge and truth. Knowledge is what we in the scientific community have concluded up this point. It is the best approximation of truth that we have right now, even if that approximation is a weak and sorry caricature of truth. Knowledge, therefore, changes when better theory emerges, when more rigorous methods are employed, and when less biased interpretations are rendered. Knowledge is child drawing stick figures of her family.

Truth is what knowledge is trying to say, but doesn’t have the vocabulary to pull it off. Truth is what knowledge is trying to paint, but doesn’t have a full palette of colors or much skill. Truth is true love and knowledge is a date.  

Technorati Tags: phd,doctoral studies,critical thinking,science

PhD 1.3: Critical Thinking - Don’t Be Stupid

I had this nagging fear all through my PhD studies. It haunted me continually. I worked around it the best I could, but it never left me. Not one day did I ever escape my fear completely. I could ignore it, bury it, and fake that it wasn’t there, but it was certainly always there. I had this fear that I would be outed as…stupid.

Sometimes I read articles I didn’t understand. Stupid. Sometimes I listened to presentations in which I had no idea what the presenter was saying. Stupid. There were theories I couldn’t grasp, methods beyond my immediate reach, and conclusions reported that I would never have come to in a million years – stupid, stupid, stupid. There were days, especially when I was tired or stressed or overwhelmed when I approached the experience of new knowledge as the outing of my stupidity. I felt naked in a room of people fully dressed and tried to carry on a conversation about important matters. I sipped my drink, nodded my head, gave a confident tone of voice – all as if i were not buck naked. People were being kind when they did not mention the obvious.

Not everyone who enters into doctoral studies has this experience, but a number of us do. We spend as much time and efforts over the multiple years of studies to reduce the stupid that seems so powerfully lodged into our minds as we do gaining useful tools for the benefit of humanity.

There are two main problems with using doctoral studies as a stupid reduction program.

1) It is inherently selfish. My own insecurity and self-consciousness and let’s face it, pride, kept me from understanding the process of learning better than I did. I learned a lot, but I learned less because I was using too much of my energy trying to evade other people’s opinions of me – opinions that were for the most part my own imagination. I wanted to be seen as smart, intelligent, brilliant etc. Well, note to self, science is all about the peer-review process – formally and informally. Thus, there is little room for exaltation in the Academy. I used my doctoral experience as a way to reduce how stupid I already felt. The irony was that the more I tried to de-stupidify myself, the more stupid I felt.

By the very nature of the context, there are a million ways to feel stupid in doctoral studies. Not knowing something, for me, was evidence of stupidity. Talk about a self-defeating game. Here are some things I learned about my own purpose for being in doctoral studies in relationship to my own selfishness.

• It’s not about me.
• Not knowing is not evidence for the existence of stupidity.
• Not knowing is an opportunity for knowing.

2) It is dangerous. When I was so worried about my own stupidity, I never considered what I would think of other people who did not know what I knew. What if I accomplished an eradication of my own stupidity through the accumulation of tons of knowledge? What category would I place other people in who had not made the same accomplishment? Well, if I were honest, they would have to be stupid in my eyes. Suddenly, this problem can no longer by offed as some sort of humility or naivete. Now it is leveraged against other people. It is just wrong.

I did better on this front than I did the first one. I generally had a view of others as intelligent. But I confess there were a few times when I had a better question, better response, or better idea than another person and I silently whispered to myself, “that question was idiotic.” It is embarrassing to confess this, but it is true.

So, what began as an inferiority complex mutated into a superiority complex. Neither of these is all that useful in life in general, nor are they useful in doctoral studies.

There is huge risk in doctoral studies in situating someone as stupid. It can come out in all sorts of ways. If it is “I” who is stupid, then I end up taking few risks and deprive the world of the better contributions I could have made. If it is “you” who is stupid, then another approach is taken.

For example, people who do not arrive at the same conclusions as I do are stupid – right? But in science we do not call people stupid all that often – at least not that crudely. We find sophisticated ways to call someone stupid. Rather than say, “you’re stupid,” we shred their methodology section beyond recognition. We dismantle the underlying assumptions, the processes of data collection, the analysis techniques and leave it as rubble on the floor and in the end may have a subtle, but oh so smug smile when our questions outlast the answers. Sadly, we use our critical thinking skills for evil and not for good. We apply a level of rigor so stiff that it would impossible to satisfy. And we secretly hope no one does this to our work because we set a bar no one, not even ourselves, can jump.

This, my friends, is stupid. Having a knowledge deficit is not the same as being stupid. There is an easy fix to that. Being a mean and selfish and prideful person is an altogether different situation. A virtue deficit is not as easy a fix. 

Technorati Tags: PhD,doctoral studies,critical thinking

PhD 1.2: Critical Thinking – Things to Remember

Becoming a critical thinker is an important part of getting an advanced degree. For those of us who have made the decision to invest enormous time and money into getting an advanced degree, we have also necessarily taken on the responsibility to challenge the assumptions that prop up truth claims, to consider alternative ways to approaching a question, to carry skepticism with us as a means by which to shake out that which does not ring true.

In short, we should not neglect the lessons we are learning. We have the privilege of getting to learn this stuff and we had better use it. At the same time, we had better use it well. Here are a few things to remember while exercising critical thinking skills:

Skepticism: Medicine or poison: It is important that we do not simply swallow whole any idea just because we like it, it is popular, or it happens to support a part of political or religious agenda we happen to align with. carrying a healthy skepticism with us wherever we go is good. But we must make sure it is healthy skepticism. Healthy skepticism is good medicine. It keeps us honest. It keeps other people honest. A skeptical question or stance in a conversation can really prompt growth, creativity, and new insights.

However, unhealthy skepticism does damage. Unhealthy skepticism is used as a tool to destroy things. This occurs when it is used to dismantle something with which a person does not agree just because they do not agree with it or like it. When skepticism is elevated over the value of another person, then it becomes unhealthy. Sometimes unhealthy skepticism is leveraged against people in the name of truth and honesty, when it is really an attempt at conversion. Ironically, when it is unhealthy, it is the most dishonest thing to do. It is applied only to which an individual does not agree with and is not applied with the same emphasis to that the person embraces.

Wisdom crush: Knowing how much to use critical thinking skills, when to use them, how to use them, why to use them and so forth all falls under the category of wisdom, not knowledge. We must strive to gain a wisdom that matches our intellect. The extent that we fail to do this is the extent to which we become dangerous to this world. Science brought us the atomic bomb and must must never for get this. Wisdom is a guide that tells us when the use of our skills will be constructive or destructive, helpful or hurtful, kind or mean. There is no virtue in the skills themselves. There is only virtue in the constructive use of them. 

Humility: The reward for the good use of critical thinking is that you got to be helpful, had the opportunity to pursue truth, were given the privilege of helping make this world a better place. That is all. There is no need for exaltation or congratulations. Those may appear, but they are not to be expected. We must not be in this for ourselves. When something good happens as a result of the use of our skills, we must be gracious and grateful that we had the chance to make a positive difference.

There is a lurking and sinister thing called pride that wants to jump in and lay claim to a corner of your soul. We want to be seen as valuable, important, smart, and even indispensible. There is something within me that wants to “finally get the respect I deserve.” There is a sense of entitlement that wants to creep in. “I worked hard for this and deserve some privileges.”

The tricky thing is that I will probably get some privileges, respect, and admiration when I have used my skills well. That is not the point. The point is the extent to which I need them, crave them, lust after them, or seek to extract them from society is an indicator of my depth of character. Pursuing a genuine humility will result in not caring about rewards other than the reward of getting to do what you love to do.

Technorati Tags: phd,critical thinking,doctoral studies

PhD 1.1: Critical Thinking – Going Critical

One of my mentors told me that she when she was getting her PhD once upon a time, she struggled in her romantic relationship. Why? She was using her new critical thinking skills all the time. But she was not just using her critical thinking skills, she was applying her critical thinking to every conversation - and to her relationship.

When her partner confronted her on the issue, only then did she even realize what she was doing. So, she responded to the confrontation, “I am getting an entire advanced degree in how to find out the gaps, holes, and problems with claims made, assumptions, whatever supports beliefs. It is how I am being molded.” Her partner’s response was something like, “Well, keep it outside the relationship and we’re fine.”

At some point in the process of getting a PhD, the student “goes critical.” I suppose in some way it is like “going native” in anthropology or missionary work. What it means is that the student “gets it” and begins applying the critical thinking skills not just in the classroom or for assignments, but begins to use these skills as a way of thinking about life. The doctoral student finds that this education is not just some isolated part of life that will impact future employment; instead, the student finds that “this is my life.”

The student “goes critical” and begins asking questions, usually out of excitement or honesty or embarrassment for what used to count as enlightened thinking, and sees things differently. Now, here is the catch: Sometimes this happens partially outside of the awareness of the student. Sometimes the student does not consider how their morphing worldview will impact the world they are viewing.

One of the curious things about “going critical” is that a person asks more questions and provides fewer answers than they did previously. That shift alone is tremendous. Furthermore, the questions asked are generally on a different level than before. They are deeper and are concerned with things like the reliability and validity of claims made. This can be a really good thing. But it can be a really bad thing.

There is more than one way to question the reliability and validity of a claim of truth. One way is with humility and honesty. It is a gentle curiosity that wonders what could be true and is hopeful that there is a truth worth believing. Another way sounds like an accusation. It is coarse and sharp. A question about the validity of a claim feels like a personal attack – emotional invalidation. A question about the reliability of a claim feels like being called a liar or an idiot. The kind of harm that can be done here should not be underestimated.

There is no more virtue in critical thinking skills than there is in a hammer. Any tool can be used to build or destroy. Critical thinking is no different. Critical thinking skills cannot make you a better person. It is not their function. They are not a set of tools forged for the purpose of character development.

In fact, critical thinking skills are more likely to expose the sort of person you already are. If you are kind, gentle, honest, loving, generous, respectful, then gaining critical thinking skills isn’t going to change that. In fact, it will likely magnify those characteristics. If you are arrogant, mean, dominating, and cruel, then gaining critical thinking skills isn’t going to change that either. In fact, it will likely magnify those characteristics.

Since critical thinking is a powerful tool we should be prepared to be exposed for who we are.

Technorati Tags: critical thinking,doctoral studies,phD

PhD 1.0: Critical Thinking

If your best friend were to enter a doctoral program and the next time you were going to see her was when she graduated, what do you supposed you would notice that is different about her?

Well, she may have picked up some big new words like, “epistemology” or new phrases like, “conceptual framework” or “structural equation modeling.” These words and phrases may seem important to her even though to you they sound like something between mumbo and jumbo. She may seem to have gained some confidence, which may or may not be genuine. She may have an unusual concern for things like sample size and generalizability or even methodological rigor and you’re curious and a little perplexed at how many areas of life she thinks that these things apply to. She may have a great big group of new friends, the kind of friends that talk about epistemology and conceptual frameworks and structural equation modeling. They laugh and tell jokes that involve these words. You are trying hard to figure out how a joke with the punch line “n=1” has any humor to it at all, but you see them all laughing and you laugh a little trying to fit in, and then sip your drink to take the edge off this surreal world your friend now occupies. 

Of all of the transformations you would notice about your friend having gone through in a doctoral program, you would probably notice that she thinks differently than she used to. She’ll have more question than she used to. Sometimes these questions are brilliant and insightful. She will likely impress you with her questions. And then again, her questions may get to be quite annoying and pretentious. They may smack of an intellectual, yet dark skepticism, even about things like going on a picnic or waterskiing. You may begin to wonder if there is anything your friend likes, enjoys, or even believes anymore. It’s kind of a big deal because you have a whole friendship based on things you both like, enjoy, and believe.

One time, you were having a discussion about something and she systematically shredded the entire belief system with her questions. What was so shocking is that it was the belief system you recall her having before graduate school; it was one of the best things about your friend. She seems to have a newfound and unwavering commitment to find everything wrong with everything. You’re concerned because you’re afraid she’s become a negative person.

Technorati Tags: PhD,doctoral studies,critical thinking