CHARTS & TRENDS
There was an error trying to load your rating for this title.
Some parts of this page won't work property. Please reload or try later.
I'm Watching This!
Error Please try again!
Added to Your Check-Ins.
What Happens Next&()
2:29 | Trailer
Paul, a closeted and self-unaware CEO in his 50's, retires and begins falling for a younger man half his age whom he meets in a dog park.
The cast and creators of
reveals some of the secrets behind their movie to
on the IMDb Yacht at San Diego Comic-Con.
Related News
PM, +08:00
PM, +08:00
AM, +08:00
User Lists
Related lists from IMDb users
a list of 30 titles
created 12&Dec&2013
a list of 30 titles
created 01&Jun&2014
a list of 349 titles
created 31&Aug&2014
a list of 336 titles
created 11&months&ago
a list of 352 titles
created 6&months&ago
Connect with IMDb
Share this Rating
What Happens Next
Want to share IMDb's rating on your own site? Use the HTML below.
You must be a registered user to use the IMDb rating plugin.
Home for the Christmas holiday, a gay man starts falling for his ex-boyfriend's lover, not knowing that the relationship is a mere pretense.
Scott Gabriel
James Rebhorn,
Kristine Sutherland,
Eric Aragon
A socially shunned columnist finds his romantic match online, but messaging under the wrong account causes his sleazy roommate's picture to be forwarded, creating an identity mix-up.
J.C. Calciano
Nicholas Downs,
David Loren,
Two college friends take a journey home. One of them makes a mistake that may tear a family apart. Sometimes there are no second chances, sometimes there are no mulligans.
Dan Payne,
Thea Gill,
Charlie David
A gay man nearing 30, and in a 7-year relationship rut, taps into an otherworldly Internet ad that starts omnisciently controlling his life.
J.C. Calciano
Houston Rhines,
Noah Schuffman,
Matt Lewis
A gay student who is "out" at college but not to his family receives an unexpected visit from his boyfriend while at home during the holidays.
Rob Williams
Keith Jordan,
Wyatt Fenner,
Steve Callahan
The Falls is a feature film about two missionaries that fall in love while on their mission. RJ travels to a small town in Oregon with Elder Merrill to serve their mission and teach the ...
Jon Garcia
Nick Ferrucci,
Benjamin Farmer,
Brian Allard
Zack is gacationing in Palm Springs with new BF Benji who, to Zack's dismay, wants to try an open relationship. Adding confusion is Casey, Zack's ex, with Peter, his fake BF, plus Casey's fruit-fly friend, Penny, and Zack's friend Lilly.
Q. Allan Brocka
Aaron Milo,
Chris Puckett,
Chris Salvatore
A confident, out-of-the-closet gay teenager has the support of an eclectic range of friends while dealing with a homophobic bully during his first year at an international high school.
Russell P. Marleau
Tad Hilgenbrink,
Brett Chukerman,
Aldevina Da Silva
Hook up artist Luke surprises himself when he considers becoming monogamous after meeting and dating smug and handsome Stephen, but Stephen might not be all that he seems, will Luke be disappointed?
Casper Andreas
Jesse Archer,
Paul Haje,
Charlie David
Paul and Eddie have just begun previews for the new Off-Broadway musical "Adam and Steve Just the Way God Made 'Em." Their lives strangely mirror the characters they are playing. Paul is ...
Directors:
Casper Andreas,
Fred M. Caruso
Lena Hall,
Daniel Robinson,
Joey Dudding
A gay Brit living in New York is deprived of his immigration status, and risks losing his family and life in the U.S. He marries his lesbian best friend to remain in the country and stay ...
Glenn Gaylord
Jamie-Lynn Sigler,
Alicia Witt,
Maurice Compte
A paralyzed gay bicycle racer risks home, relationships and personal health to reenter the fray as a paraplegic racer.
Michael D. Akers
Leo Minaya,
Jack Kesy,
Darra Like Dat Boyd
Cast overview, first billed only:
Robbie the Hairdresser
Hot Park Guy
Young Andy
Jason the Florist
At age 55, Philadelphia CEO Paul Grecco decides to make changes in his life, including the sale of his company, and that terrifies him. He was right to be terrified, because the new owners force him to retire early. His sister, Elise decides that the best things for him is a puppy she has gotten him, and dating the women that Elise sets Paul up with. It's funny though, but Paul finds himself disinterested in the women Elise fixes him up with, and oddly fascinated by a young man he meets while walking his new puppy in the park across from his condo. Paul has never really thought about dating or sex before, with anyone, so now what should he do?
Written by
Plot Keywords:
You can't have it all.....or can you?
Certificate:
Parents Guide:
Official Sites:
Release Date: 7 February 2012 (USA)
Also Known As: Liebe in der Luft
Filming Locations:
(estimated)
Production Co:
Show detailed
Did You Know?
'Jon Lindstrom (I)' portrays Paul, who has not had a dog since childhood, retires and is given a dog by his sister, and must adjust, begrudgingly to having a dog as an adult, which is ironic considering Lindstrom appeared in
[first lines]
[voiceover]
My day starts at 6:30 AM. I don't need an alarm clock. I wake up every day and dress for my role as CEO. That means fifty tailored suits at all times. Right now I have fifty-four. Dress shirts - very important: one-twenty- crisp white - an occasional pale yellow or blue. Now, a tie says everything about a man. Silk. Ties should only be silk: a dozen solids. Oh, and one rogue paisley my sister bought me in Palm Beach - probably hammered ...
Connections
References &(2008)
Soundtracks
Ride With Me
Written by , Steven Lee Vavrosky, Vincent di Pasquale
Published by Smile in Bed Publishing, Inc. (BMI)
Administered by Kobalt Music Publishing America, Inc.
As Performed by
(C)(p) 2009 Smile in Bed, LLC. Courtesy of Smile in Bed, LLC.
Frequently Asked Questions
User Reviews
Pleasant and Enjoyable
This movie by no means will win an Oscar, however, it is a sweet story that I found very refreshing. They don't rely on sex or your typical "hot guys" and nudity, as most gay movies do. There are some continuity errors (they are forgivable) and some of the dialog may be a little forced. The story however is the saving grace. I like the message it has and I like that they didn't make any of the characters victims or whinny. You know going in how this movie will end and it doesn't disappoint. I thought the main cast did a very good job Wendie Malick was great to watch and you could see she was having fun with the role. Jon Lindstrom played the part very uptight as it should be. The Character is in his 50s and was a CEO if you expect him to be anything but conservative and uptight then you haven't worked with many CEOs (Tech Company CEO's don't count). Chris Murrah was very good and again it was nice to see a younger gay character that I would consider a more normal slightly above average in looks person. He was something that I think everyone could relate too. If you want to watch a good movie with a nice story and characters that you can relate to then definitely watch this.
6 of 7 people found this review helpful.&
Was this review helpful to you?
Message Boards
Recent Posts
on the IMDb message boards &
Contribute to This Page
Create a character page for:
Robbie the Hairdresser
Hot Park Guy
Young Andy
Jason the Florist
-----------
Find showtimes, watch trailers, browse photos, track your Watchlist and rate your favorite movies and TV shows on your phone or tablet!
Follow IMDb on
Copyright &Introduction to Scientific Method - Theories with Reality Checks
Introduction to Scientific Method:
using logical reality checks in
science and
other areas of life
This page is a beginning.& It will help you understand the
simplicity of scientific method in the simple &reality
check& that is the main focus of scientific logic.& But
along the way you'll
see other aspects of scientific thinking
skills, and at the end you'll be invited to continue your exploration
of “how it all fits together in a big picture” so you
can understand the complexity of scientific
methods and their potential applications in science education.
(by comparing Observations & Predictions)&&&&&
(by an imaginative use of Reality Checks)
— Generation &
Evaluation
The Foundation of Scientific Method — logical Reality Checks
& & & You can understand and enjoy the
adventure of science, because the thinking used in science is not strange and
mysterious, it's the same thinking you use in daily life.& In scientific
logic, as in daily life, you use reality checks to
decide whether "the way you think the world is" matches "the way the world really
is."& We'll begin by looking at the
central activity of modern scientific method, when OBSERVATIONS (from an Experiment) and PREDICTIONS (based on a Theory) are
compared in a REALITY CHECK that is a test of quality for a Theory:
& & & MAKING OBSERVATIONS
& & & In science, information about nature
comes from our
observations.& Consider
two types of observation-situations:
& & & a) For several months you make
observations about the moon's appearance, and the times and locations of
its rising and setting.
& & & b) You observe the growth of
young plants in many contexts, by varying many factors: light, temperature,
type of seed (lima bean,...), type of soil, amount and frequency of watering,
amount and type of fertilizer, treatment of seed (by soaking, cooking,...)
before planting, and more.& You try different combinations of factors,
and for each experiment you make observations both above and below the
soil surface, before and after the plant grows through the surface.
& & & A) In an uncontrolled
observation-situation (like observing the moon) the situation is set
up by nature.& B) In a controlled observation-situation (in the designed experiments with
seeds) humans set up the situation, but "what happens" depends on
nature.& The degree of human control, in setting up an observation-situation can range from
no control through partial control to total
control.& Observations
throughout the range-of-control can be logically compared with predictions to allow reality checks.& Therefore,
in this page all observation-situations will be called experiments, even though in general the term &experiment& is
reserved for situations that are at least partially controlled.
& & & We observe using human
senses (to see, hear, touch, taste, or smell) plus instruments (watch,
ruler, scale, pipet, compass, thermometer, microscope, telescope,
spectrometer, chromatograph,...) that help us measure more precisely
and observe more widely.
& & & We translate raw data
(from senses or instruments) into "observations" that we record using
symbolic representations that are verbal (words,...), visual (pictures,...),
and mathematical (numbers,...).
& & & I.O.U. & Later, this section will include more ideas about
the creative generation and critical evaluation of &opportunities for observation& during the
process of .
& & & THEORIES
allow PREDICTIONS
& & & A theory is
a human attempt to describe and/or explain our observations of what happens,
or (in historical science) what has happened.& A descriptive
theory claims only to describe what happens.& An explanatory
theory claims to describe what happens and also why it happens.
& & & With a descriptive theory, predictions are
made by generalizing, in an extrapolation that assumes
"what happened before & in situations that are similar (but usually not identical) & will happen
again."& Or, you could view this prediction as a use of if-then deductive logic: "If this situation is similar to previous
situations (as claimed by the theory), then we should expect a result that
is similar."& For example, you could predict the time and location of
the moonrise on Wednesday, by extrapolating based on patterns you recognized while thinking
about observations from Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday.
& & & An explanatory theory claims
to explain "how and why things are happening" in an experimental system by
describing — verbally, visually, and/or mathematically — the
system's composition (what it is) and operation (what
it does).& You can use this model to make predictions by
answering the question, "In this situation, if the composition-and-operation
model is true (as claimed by the theory), then what will happen and what
will we observe?"
& & & With either type of theory,
the if-then inference is similar.& You run a mental experiment by thinking, "In this situation,
IF the system behaves as expected (according to the theory), THEN we
will observe ___" and what you put in the blank is your theory-based
prediction.
& & & When scientists make an if-then
inference, they can move from IF to THEN in a variety of ways.& They
might remember what has happened before, and extrapolate from this past into the future by estimating how similarities
and differences in situations (when comparing previous situations with the
current situation) will translate into similarities and differences in observations.& Or,
if a theory includes an equation or a model, they could substitute numbers
into the equation and calculate, or "run the model" in their minds or in
a physical simulation or computer simulation.& If predictions can be
made using several methods, this will serve as a check on the predicting
methods and a cross-check on the predictions.
& & & A theory-based
inference about "what will happen and what will be observed" can be
made either before or after observations are known.& When an inference
is made after observations are known, there is more concern about unconscious
bias or conscious cheating, since non-valid logic could be used in an attempt
to achieve a match between the inference and the known observations.& But
inferences with either timing are logically equivalent if each is obtained
using valid logic, and in science both are called &predictions&.
& & & •
THEORY Evaluation (leading to Theory Status)
& & & The logical foundation
of scientific method is the reality check.& By
observing reality and using logic, scientists can decide whether
a theory about "the way it is" corresponds with "the way it really
& & & A physical
experiment allows observations of what
nature actually does, and a mental experiment lets
us make predictions about what nature will
do.& In a reality check, scientists
compare OBSERVATIONS with THEORY-based PREDICTIONS.& If a theory
fails in reality checks because its predictions do not match observations,
scientists can reject the theory.*& By
contrast, a correct prediction does not prove a theory is true, because
other theories (current or future) might make the same correct prediction.& To
distinguish between two theories, we need to observe what happens in a
crucial experiment that provides a situation where the two theories make different predictions.& {* But
a decision to reject a theory is a judgment call, and scientists may be
cautious about immediately claiming "falsification" after a failed reality
check, due to the possibility that their knowledge (of the situation, observations,
or predictions) is inaccurate. }
& & & Multiple
Independent Confirmations:& When a theory makes correct predictions
in a wide variety of independent areas, and alternative theories make incorrect
predictions, this provides strong evidence that the repeatedly confirmed
theory is true.
& & & Usually, empirical
factors (based on reality checks) are the main factors in
theory evaluation.& But scientists also consider conceptual
factors such as a theory's logical characteristics (like internal
consistency and structural simplicity) and its relationships with
other currently accepted theories.& Scientists are also influenced
by cultural-personal factors (such as
personal desires, group pressures, practical considerations, philosophical & religious views, metaphysical perspectives,
thinking habits,
thought styles) but most scientists think the quality
of science decreases when these factors affect the results of theory
evaluation.
& & & The overall result of theory
evaluation is an estimate of theory status.& This
status, which can range from very low to very high, indicates the scientists'
confidence in a theory.& Most scholars who study science think
cannot logically prove a
theory is either true or false, but we can develop a rationally
justified confidence in our conclusions.
& & A VISUAL SUMMARY
diagram below, which shows the essence of scientific
method, has three main elements: OBSERVATIONS & PREDICTIONS
two are compared in a REALITY CHECK) and THEORY.& If
you study the diagram and think about what you've been reading, it
sense.& Notice
the arrows pointing away from THEORY (because a theory is used
for making
the predictions used to evaluate a theory,
as explained
above) and toward THEORY (because observations are used to generate
a theory, as explained below).
& & • THEORY Generation
& & & The focus now shifts
from theory evaluation to theory generation,
with thinking that is both creative and critical, when we
ask "Where
do scientific theories come from?"
& & & Usually, scientists work with
theories that already exist.& But earlier in the history of science
these theories had to be generated.& And sometimes current scientists
invent their own new theories, usually by revising old theories.& Typically,
the process of generation is different for a descriptive theory and explanatory
& & & A descriptive
theory is generated when scientists recognize a pattern, when they
notice that in a certain type of situation a particular result happens.& They
describe the observed regularity by claiming that "In this situation (when
___ ), ___ will happen."& For example, we can say that "When an object
is released, it will fall toward the ground."& But is this theory
always correct?& How do we react, thinking as scientists, when we
see that some objects — such as a helium balloon, bottle rocket,
or bird — do not fall?& We revise our general theory, limiting
its claims by saying that "In most situations, a released object will fall
downward."& And we try to find theories that explain why the regularity
occurs, and why the exceptions occur.& For example, we can explain
the rising of a helium balloon by proposing the existence of an upward
buoyant force that causes lighter-than-air objects to rise in air.& And
we can generalize this force to other objects and fluids, to also explain
why a cork floats on water.
& & & An explanatory
theory is usually generated by a process of creative
thinking in which imagination is guided by the logic of reality
checks, with creativity being stimulated by observations and guided
by critical thinking.& In prediction we
ask a cause-to-effect question: "In
this situation, if these causes are operating, what will be the observed
effects?"& The if-then reasoning is reversed in retroduction (using retroductive logic) when
we ask an effect-to-cause question: "In
this situation, if these effects were observed, what causes could
have been operating?"& This reversed question inspires a search
in which we do mental experiments over and over, each time "trying
out" a different theory in an attempt to produce predictions that
match the known observations.& The goal is to find a theory
that will pass the reality check, to find a theory that, if true,
would explain what has been observed.&& {&In the diagram
above, you can imagine a &feedback cycle& for the three
main elements,
with each reality-check providing feedback that helps you use OBSERVATIONS
retroductively
a new THEORY
whose new PREDICTIONS will more closely match the old OBSERVATIONS
in the next reality-check.& In this way there is an intimate
blending of creative generation with critical
evaluation.&}
& & & Sometimes the distinction between description and explanation isn't
clear, so we also have .
& & & But do
scientists typically design theories?& In their daily work, scientists
rarely design large-scale generalized mega-theories,
such as the theories of gravity, invariance, or evolution developed by Newton,
Einstein, or Darwin.& Instead,
usually they are applying generalized
theories that already are accepted, in their study of particular experimental
situations for which they are designing
small-scale specialized sub-theories.& For
example, a group of chemists might apply generalized theories (atomic theory,
quantum mechanics, kinetics, thermodynamics,...) to a particular experimental
system, or a collection of systems,
in an effort to design a sub-theory that seems
true (and/or
useful) for these systems.
& & & Or, more commonly, scientists simply
accept the mega-theories & sub-theories developed by others, so they can
make observations and learn
more about nature in the experiments (controlled or uncontrolled) they
are designing and running.
& & & You can be a scientist,
generating your own theory to explain moon phases, by "running a
for the sun-earth-moon system.*& Darken a room, turn on
a lamp to be the sun, use one ball for the earth & with
a marker (a sticker, a pin,...) to show your location on earth, so you can imagine &what you will see& from that location & and another ball
for the moon.& By looking at the effects of earth's rotation around its axis, and the moon's orbit around
you should also be able to explain why the sun sets in the west,
and why there is a pattern for moon phases and the associated times of moonrises and moonsets.
& & & •
EXPERIMENTAL Design & Creative Generation and Critical Evaluation
&& & &By defining the term broadly, experiments can include all observation-situations, both controlled
experimental situations and uncontrolled field situations that can be called field experiments or natural experiments.&
When scientists
design an experiment (or set of experiments) their
general goal is to fill gaps in current knowledge by gathering information about experimental
systems or techniques.& More specifically, an
experiment can be done
to &see what will happen& in a new situation or
to test the reproducability of observations from
previous experiments,
to resolve an anomaly,
impress a funding
or provide support for an argument, as in a crucial
experiment that can distinguish between competing theories.
&& & & Scientists often
run thought experiments & usually so they can be more efficient (to waste less
of their valuable time and resources), but also occasionally for systems that cannot be physically observed & by asking &if we do
what might happen and what would we learn?&&& *&The previous section ended with one type of thought experiment,
&running a model& and using physical objects to make your visual thinking more easy and effective.& Another type of thought experiment, becoming much more common during the past few decades, are the computer simulations that help scientists do
mathematical thinking more easily and effectively.&& /&& Another type of thought experiment is to
asked, by yourself and others,
during evaluation — &is the sample large enough and does it accurately
represent the whole population?& or &what are the effects of systematic
errors and random errors?& or... — and then design experiments to answer
these questions.
&& & & New opportunities
for experimenting can arise from new events (like an ozone hole)
or new discoveries (of old dinosaur bones,...).& Scientists
may want to test a new sub-theory or explore its application for
a variety of systems.& A new observation technology may allow
new experimental systems.& Scientists who are aware and creative,
thinking with open-minded imagination,
can take advantage of opportunities.
& & Does a scientific method exist?
& & & Is there a scientific method?& If "method" means "a
single method, used in the same way by all scientists at all times," the answer
is NO.& Some details of methods change with time and culture, and vary from
of science to another, so there is nothing that could be called The
Scientific Method.& But some scientific methods are
commonly used by scientists.
& & & The methods of scientists are
designed to be functional, to achieve goals.& For most scientists, the
main goal is to find truth.& They want to construct theories that are
true, that correspond with reality by correctly describing what really happens
in nature.& In a search for true theories, the main thinking tools — the
generation and evaluation of theories, using observation, imagination, and
logic — are described above.
& & & But scientists do more
than just generate and evaluate theories.& They also design and
do experiments, plan big research projects and small daily activities,
describe (by writing and talking) their own research, learn (by reading
and listening) about the research of others, discuss ideas with other
scientists, and more.& Basically, scientists do — mentally
and physically — whatever they think will help them achieve their
& & & The methods of science
are flexible, not rigid.& Consider two types of ice skaters.& The
sequential actions of a figure skater are precisely planned and, if
there are no mistakes, predictable.& By contrast, even though
hockey skaters have a strategic plan, the plan is intentionally flexible,
with each skater improvising in response to what happens during a game.& The
methods used in science are analogous to the flexible "structured improvisation" of
a hockey skater, not the rigid choreography of a figure skater.
& & & These ideas are examined in more
detail in a page asking &&
In Part 1 you saw a logical-structural analysis of science
& design, focusing on logic.& But in science,
decisions are made by people.& This adds another& in
real life, scientists
wide variety
factors that extend beyond logic to include cultural-personal factors, as described
below in .
& & & Controversy and Complexity
& & & Scholars, including scientists and those (in philosophy,
history, sociology, psychology, and education) who study science, have vigorous
discussions about the methods used in science.& Some of the most hotly debated
questions are about
in the process of science, especially
in evaluations of scientific theories: Are cultural-personal effects significant,
and are they desirable?& Most scientists think these effects should be minimized,
but some scholars (especially nonscientists who have adopted a postmodern perspective)
think cultural-personal factors should be a part of scientific theory evaluation.
& && I claim that empirical factors
are usually (but not always) the main factors (but not the only factors)
during theory evaluation, that conceptual factors are usually (but not
always) scientifically useful, and that cultural-personal factors should
be recognized (they do occur) and minimized (because they
usually are
not scientifically useful).& In what ways, and to what extent, are
the process and results of evaluation influenced by conceptual factors
cultural-personal factors?& The influence varies, because it depends
on the scientists (and their culture) and the theory.& And it depends
on who is answering the question, since this is a topic for hot debate
among scientists and (especially) the scholars who study science.
& & & Most of
this page has emphasized .& But I
also recognize the effects of non-empirical factors
and the complexity of science, as explained below.&
A Model for Scientific Method& (in
all of its glorious complexity)
I've developed a &model for the methods of science& that
describes nine aspects of what scientists do:
1. Hypothetico-Deductive Logic, and&
& &&Empirical Factors in Theory Evaluation
2. Conceptual Factors in Theory Evaluation &
3. Cultural-Personal Factors in Theory Evaluation &
4. Theory Evaluation (using critical thinking)&
5. Theory Generation (using creative thinking)&
6. Experimental Design (Generation-and-Evaluation) &
7. Problem-Solving Projects &
8. Thought Styles (cultural and personal)&
9. Mental Operations (creative-and-critical thinking)
& & & The diagram to the right, which is similar to the one above but with less detail, shows
9 aspects of Scientific Method:& 3
of them [123]
for evaluation factors (empirical, conceptual, cultural-personal), another 3 [456] for the designing (generation & evaluation) of theories and experiments, and 3 [789]
for the process of science (problem-solving projects, thought styles, productive thinking).
& & & Because my model shows the functional relationships between these 9 aspects of science
by integrating their relationships
into a coherent framework, I call it Integrated Scientific
Method.& This model of scientific thinking, for the exploratory process of inquiry used by scientists when they ask questions and try to find answers,
a unifying synthesis of ideas
(mainly from scientists and philosophers, but also from sociologists, psychologists, historians, and myself) that can be useful for understanding the methods of problem solving used in science, and for helping students improve their skills with these methods of thinking.
& & & My model of scientific methods
is not , and
its 9 parts are aspects of science rather than
steps in a sequence. & This model is
outlined, verbally and visually, in
and is examined with more depth in
which is a condensation of the first
half& the second half was the application of this model for the .
& & & In the page you're now reading,
you already have seen some of the nine perspectives on scientific thinking-and-action.& In this page the main focus has been &reality
checks& using hypothetico-deductive logic (1), but you've also
seen the process of theory generation (5) and theory evaluation (4) and
how a theory is designed using &quality checks& with the
criteria for quality based on a combination of empirical factors (1) and
conceptual factors (2) and cultural-personal factors (3), and everything
is infused with the productive mental operations (9) of creative idea-generation
and critical idea-evaluation.
& & & A Model for Design Process& & & This page
includes a brief outline [which needs
revising - iou] of .& You can learn more about design strategies & which are used for almost everything you do in life & in
which gives real-world examples of problem solving and the process of design, plus outlines of design-and-science relationships (which are explored more deeply in ) and educational applications
of Design Process & Scientific M& and
offers a &modes of thinking-and-action& perspective that complements An Introduction to Design.
& & & Continued Explorations of Science, and Applications for Education
& & & Learning a basic model of scientific method, as in
this page, is a good way to begin.& But usually it isn't a good place
to end.& If you want to understand science more completely, and appreciate
it more fully, I encourage you to continue your journey of exploration beginning with the Basic
Overview of Integrated Scientific Method (link is above) which will help
you learn more about the fascinating complexity of science.& You can also
study the hot debates about science:
& & & And in an occasionally controversial
area, educators (plus parents, school boards,...) think about the goals
and methods of general education and science education.& In all types
of schools — public, private, and home, from K-12 through college — teachers
are wondering how the logical
thinking skills of science can be taught more effectively in the classroom.& They want to offer
a quality education that includes scientific concepts plus thinking skills,
so students will be motivated to learn, and will learn how to think more often
and more effectively, with enthusiasm and skill.& A wide variety of questions — about
creative-and-critical thinking, curriculum design,
teaching strategies,... — are explored in the
areas for thinking skills & teaching methods.& [update: In early 2012, I began making a && for these ideas, Using Design Process in Problem Solving and Education, which I the next three links are for
the older web-pages that I'm condensing.]& A good starting place is
the conclusion of
which leads to
.& Also check .
And for continued exploration, you
can see what's available in an overview-sitemap
where you'll see links to pages asking
&How can we use Aesop's Activities for goal-directed education?& and more.
Semi-Explanatory Theories
& & & Philosophers of science
ask, &What is required for an adequate explanation?&, and
they don't offer easy answers.& They say that even though distinguishing
between description and explanation can be useful, usually it isn't
entirely accurate because most modern theories claim to explain some
things but not everything.
& & & Consider, for example, Newton's
theory of gravity.& It describes what happens: two objects attract
each other with a force of GMm/R2 where G is a constant of
nature, M and m are the objects' masses, and R is the distance between
their centers.& It also provides some explanation: gravitational
force is caused by interaction between the masses of any two objects,
anywhere in the universe.& But the explanation is not satisfactory
at deeper levels, when we ask additional questions about how and why:& How
is gravitational force produced?& Is it associated with an elementary
particle, a graviton?& Is it related to strong, weak, and electromagnetic
forces?& How is it transmitted through almost-empty space between
the earth and moon?& Why does gravity exist?& For these questions,
scientists still don't have satisfactory answers.
& & & And other semi-explanatory
theories — which can claim &some explanation but not
a full explanation& — occur in other areas of science.
Visual Representations of Thinking in Science Mode and Design Mode:
Below, the third diagram combines ideas from the top two diagrams
(which show relationships between Thinking in Science Mode & Design Mode)
plus additional ideas about Predictive Feedback, Empirical Feedback, and more.
The bottom diagram (in its lower part, below the shaded top parts)
shows some important details of .
This section has a dark-gray background and small font-size because it's not worth reading.& Later, I'll either revise it or will remove it.& Until then, you should just ignore it.
& & & Science as Design & Science Process in the context of Design Process
& & & A useful way to think about science-and-design is to define science as &the
designing of theories & experiments.&& The process of design is briefly outlined below, in
& & & Thus, scientists
theories, and experiments that let them make predictions and/or observations.& The
following section is another perspective on scientific method.
&& & & Combining two thinking strategies in
Scientific Method:
& & Science Mode (using Reality Checks) and
& & & Design Mode (using Quality Checks)
& & & The basic process of design, shown in the diagram below, begins when you choose an Overall Objective that is the thing (the product, strategy, or theory)
you want to design.& Imagine that you want to design a product.& After you define Goals (for the properties you want the product to have), you generate options (by searching for old products, or inventing new products) and for each option you evaluate its quality (as defined by your goals)
in a Quality Check, either by comparing goals (for the desired properties of a product) with predictions (about the actual properties of this product-option) or by comparing goals (for
desired properties) with observations (of the
actual properties for this product-option).& You continue this process of generating options and evaluating them (by using one or both types of Quality Checks) until you decide that one of the options is
satisfactory, or you abandon the search.&& /&& This is a simplified quick-and-rough sketch of the design process, which is described in more detail (and illustrated by the design of a hybrid minivan in the 1980s) in .
image ( z-briefd.gif ) removed
comment to reader:& The rest of this &science and design& section (especially the ending) is rough-and-incomplete.& It
will be revised soon,
probably in December 2011.& For a treatment that is much more
polished-and-complete, check the &science and design& section of .& And I
the diagrams of design at
will probably be moved (to another part of the page) or just removed.& ==[[ also, many scientists like to see their goal as question-answering rather than problem-solving (with its common meaning) so later I'll explain why science is problem solving if this is defined, as in An Introduction to Design, as an opportunity for making things better, for moving from a now-state to a goal-state (where there is a gap in your knowledge) in which your knowledge has improved, with the current state&
& & & Science as Design:& When scientists design a theory, they creatively
generate the theory, and critically
evaluate its quality by comparing its properties with the goal-properties they want a theory to have.& For most scientists in most situations,
the most important property of a theory is its empirical quality (which is evaluated observation-based Reality
Checks) but scientists also consider conceptual quality and cultural-personal quality when evaluating a theory.& Their GOALS for a theory — which are the desired properties of
a theory — include three types of factors: .
& & & The diagram below shows
three comparisons, and we can think of these
comparisons as &checking& for either quality or reality, while thinking in Design Mode or Science Mode.& When scientists are designing a theory (or experiment), they
compare their GOALS (the desired properties for a theory) with OBSERVATIONS (about a theory's actual properties now) to make a Quality Check while they are thinking in a design mode;& and they compare GOALS (for desired properties) with PREDICTIONS (about this theory's predicted properties in the future)
to make another type of Quality Check in design mode;& they also
compare their theory-based PREDICTIONS (for a particular
system) with reality-based OBSERVATIONS (of this system)
to make a Reality Check in science mode.
& & & The main focus of scientific
method is reality checks,
while quality checks are the main thinking
tool in the process of design-thinking that we use for doing almost everything in life, when we design theories (in
science and in other areas, including everyday life) and products (things
we make and use) and strategies (for a
wide variety of strategy-decisions in many areas of life).
such as the technological
design-applications of science, and the use of scientific
by a designer who is searching for truth so the products
and strategies being designed will have a solid foundation in &the
way the world really is& / where design is the process of combining creative generation with critical evaluation / {&The process of design is similar
for a theory, as outlined below, or for an experiment, as described .&}
This website for Whole-Person Education has TWO KINDS OF LINKS:
an ITALICIZED LINK
keeps you inside a page,
moving you to
another part of it, and
&a NON-ITALICIZED LINK opens another page.& Both keep everything inside this window,&
so your browser's BACK-button will always take you back to where you were.
OTHER PAGES:
If you like this page, you may also like the following related pages.
related pages are
described & linked-to in
a sitemap for
creative coordinating of goals and activities will
help students gain experience and learn from it
The area of
selected pages — about Creative Thinking (generating ideas),
Critical Thinking (evaluating ideas), and Productive Thinking
(by skillfully combining thinking that
is creative & critical) —
by a wide variety of authors.
this page is
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/think/scientific-method.htm
Copyright & 2004 by Craig Rusbult, all rights reserved.}