I am no expert of the scientific method, but this is not the first time that I have read up on it. I guess the first thing that I find interesting concerning the scientific method is that there really isn’t one, universal approach. The multiple accepted breakdowns of the scientific are all very similar though, understandably, so I guess the fact there is no universal scientific method is not that profound. I just think that it is worth noting considering that it is the primary form of data gathering.
I found the case study pretty fascinating not because of the actual case (although that was pretty cool) but because of the five principles not formally recognized by scientific methods as described by B.F. Skinner. My experience with the scientific method approach is that it is a tool implemented for specific purposes to attain specific information. While this holds true for specific experiments, it is interesting to think about it in a more general way. Skinner’s case study helped to humanize the scientific method for me. People apply the scientific method everyday. We analyze situations, predict what would happen given different paths of action, we reason, and then we act and find out if we were right or wrong. The five principles not formally recognized as described by Skinner are just as important as the accepted principles. These are important mostly because it humanizes the scientific method. Although experiments and samples are all about control, (as is society in general), there is no perfect anything. All people are flawed, and therefore, all things that people do have an element of flaw to it.