Where are all the awesome "Scientific Method" slides?

Discuss

28 Responses to “Where are all the awesome "Scientific Method" slides?”

  1. bobsthinktank says:

    I’ve used this in a class before, from a pretty hilarious (but out of print) ’84 book by Tom Weller (scroll down for the bit on the scientific method):

    http://www.besse.at/sms/smsintro.html

  2. ChibiR says:

    I actually like the slides presented here. But then again, I like well-done minimalism, so yeah.

    • freshacconci says:

      I agree: the main problem with everyone having access to the tools of graphic design is the fallacy that you need to pretty things up with pictures and colours.

      If you wouldn’t put it on your walls, why would you put it on a slide?

      A well-designed text-based presentation with select images and graphics is a pleasure for your audience. Perfect your uses of text and layout and you can pretty much do anything.

      Having said that, I like what I’ve seen here.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Master of scientific visualization of data
    http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/

  4. pjcamp says:

    There is no scientific method.

    Or rather, there are as many methods as their are scientists.

    The basic idea is to make an argument based on evidence that can be reproduced and falsified.

    Beyond that, it’s a jungle.

  5. TheAntipodean says:

    I usually use PhDComics “The Actual Method” which nicely contrasts what we should be doing, versus what actually happens… sigh…

    http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=761

  6. fencesitter says:

    I’m sure They Might Be Giants has something that can help….*searches “scientific method they might be giants”* okay, it’s 8-bit retro: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kf51FpBuXQ

    Not only are the they fun visuals, but it’s an catchy enough tune too.

  7. Henry H. Bauer says:

    There is no “scientific method” that is used by all scientists in all fields. Over time and under criticism, relatively reliable consensual knowledge emerges, with never a final certainty; see the “knowledge filter” model in my book, “Scientific literacy and the myth of the scientific method”

  8. Nelson.C says:

    You know, there’s a whole profession based around “using a pretty font”: typographers. I think these slides are fine, design-wise.

  9. pfh says:

    This one covers some important points:

    http://cowbirdsinlove.com/46

  10. tzaraat says:

    A small correction needs to be made to one of the slides: http://imgur.com/QtZo9.jpg

  11. Rob Knop says:

    Here’s what I wrote on the scientific method a few years ago:

    http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/2007/03/08/my-take-on-the-scientific-method-basic-concepts/

    It includes a messy flowchart that’s my visualization of the scientific method. (The “theory” box is bigger than it ought to be, because the context of this was a talk about science and religion trying to explain that “theory” in scientific jargon doesn’t mean “speculation”.)

  12. Dave Ng says:

    Just had an idea. If you do have an awesome scientific method slide and/or plan to make one (plus you have a Flickr account), maybe you can tag the visual with “awesomescientificmethod” and we can build a small collection?

  13. thefish says:

    The slide is great but the phrase ‘reason why’ is redundant.

  14. Anonymous says:

    My visualisation for the Scientific Method:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Paul_Feyerabend_Berkeley.jpg

    Yes, that is a philosophy of science joke. There is also a serious point behind it.

  15. MelSkunk says:

    Well my early morning mind feels that I now need to draw rabbits in lab coats. Thanks.

  16. Anonymous says:

    If you look at the left-hand side of Wellington Grey’s science v. faith flowcharts, it might satisfy a little of what you’re looking for.

    http://nanothoughts.blogspot.com/2007/02/science-vs-religion-flowchart.html

    The right-hand side is a bit snarky, but I’m not going to say it’s inaccurate.

  17. Swizzlebat says:

    You could certainly do a lot worse than Clarendon and Gill Sans for typeface choices! The flowchart in Gill is particularly fine.

  18. ssd says:

    Science educators are *trying* to move to a more sophisticated and less linear notion of science. I’m a big fan of the “how science works flowchart” at “Understanding Science”

    [Dynamic Science Flowchart] flash object
    [Static Science Flowchart] non-flash version
    [Asteroids and dinosaurs] A scientific example mapped to the flowchart

  19. Dave Ng says:

    A reinterpretation of the rabbit acrostic would be brilliant. Maybe in the style similar to Chris Ware or Marcel Dzama.

  20. rtorosyan says:

    I love what you’ve done here, David. The best visual I’ve seen yet is this:
    http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_02

    What’s so wonderful there is the way you get deeper the more you look at one dimension or aspect of the process of science. It’s also very accessible, designed expressly with the lay public in mind, and with dispelling myths about how lockstep the scientific method might proceed, to instead show it as a fluid, iterative, recursive process.

    Thanks for your part in simplifying things, though. Nothing so elegant as an explanation that’s easy to take in and remember! Will use it with our students.

Leave a Reply