Little known to most people is that science is under assault in the U.S. classroom. Some 49 U.S. states have adopted standards for teaching science in K-12 schools that abandon the time-honored edifice of the scientific method, which underpins all the major scientific advances of the past two millennia.

In place of the scientific method, most schoolchildren are now taught “scientific practices.” These emphasize the use of computer models and social consensus over the fundamental tenets of the scientific method, namely the gathering of empirical evidence and the use of reasoning to make sense of the evidence. 

The modern scientific method, illustrated schematically in the figure below, was conceived over two thousand years ago by the Hellenic-era Greeks, then almost forgotten and ultimately rejuvenated in the Scientific Revolution, before being refined into its present-day form in the 19th century. However, even earlier scientists such as Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton had followed the basic principles of the method, as have subsequent scientific luminaries like Marie Curie and Albert Einstein. 

The present assault on science in U.S. schools began with publication in 2012 of a 400-page document, A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas, by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. This was followed in 2014 with publication by a newly formed consortium of national and state education groups of a companion document, Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), based on the 2012 Framework.

The Framework summarily dismisses the scientific method with the outrageous statement:

… the notion that there is a single scientific method of observation, hypothesis, deduction, and conclusion—a myth perpetuated to this day by many textbooks—is fundamentally wrong,

and its explanation of “practices” as: 

… not rote procedures or a ritualized “scientific method.”

The Framework’s abandonment of the scientific method appears to have its origins in a 1992 book by H.H. Bauer entitled Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method. Bauer’s arguments against the importance of the scientific method include the mistaken conflation of science with sociology, and a misguided attempt to elevate the irrational pseudoscience of astrology to the status of a true science.

The NGSS give the scientific method even shorter shrift than the Framework, not mentioning the concept nor the closely related term of critical thinking once in its 103 pages. A scathing review of the NGSS in 2021 by the U.S. National Association of Scholars (NAS), Climbing Down: How the Next Generation Science Standards Diminish Scientific Literacy, concludes that:

The NGSS severely neglect content instruction, politicize much of the content that remains … and abandon instruction of the scientific method.

Stating that “The scientific method is the logical and rational process through which we observe, describe, explain, test, and predict phenomena … but is nowhere to be found in the actual standards of the NGSS,” the NAS report also states:

Indeed, the latest generation of science education reformers has replaced scientific content with performance-based “learning” activities, and the scientific method with social consensus.

It goes on to say that neither the Framework nor the NGSS ever mention explicitly the falsifiability criterion – a crucial but often overlooked feature of the modern scientific method, in addition to the basic steps outlined above. The criterion, introduced in the early 20th century by philosopher Sir Karl Popper, states that a true scientific theory or law must in principle be capable of being invalidated by observation or experiment. Any evidence that fits an unfalsifiable theory has no scientific validity.

The primary deficiencies of the Framework and the NGSS have recently been enumerated and discussed by physicist John Droz, who has identified a number of serious shortcomings, some of which inject politics into what should be purely scientific standards. These include the use of computer models to imply reality; treating consensus as equal in value to empirical data; and the use of correlation to imply causation.

The NGSS do state that “empirical evidence is required to differentiate between cause and correlation” (in Crosscutting Concepts, page 92 onward), and there is a related discussion in the Framework. However, there is no attempt in either document to connect the concept of cause and effect to the steps of observation, and formulation and testing of a hypothesis, in the scientific method.

The NAS report is pessimistic about the effect of the NGSS on K-12 science education in the U.S., stating that:

They [the NGSS] do not provide a science education adequate to take introductory science courses in college. They lack large areas of necessary subject matter and an extraordinary amount of mathematical rigor. … The NGSS do not prepare students for careers or college readiness.

There is, however, one bright light. In his home state of North Carolina (NC), Droz was successful in July 2023 in having the scientific method restored to the state’s K-12 Science Standards. Earlier that year, he had discovered that existing NC science standards had excluded teaching the scientific method for more than 10 years. So Droz formally filed a written objection with the NC Department of Public Instruction.

Droz was told that he was “the only one bringing up this issue” out of 14,000 inputs on the science standards. However, two members of the State Board of Education ultimately joined him in questioning the omission and, after much give-and-take, the scientific method was reinstated. That leaves 48 other states that need to follow North Carolina’s example.

Next: Retractions of Scientific Papers Are Skyrocketing