D Coda
Educational resources concerning the hypothesis are disappointingly variable in quantity and quality. The apparent lack of formal training in scientific thinking and hypothesis-based reasoning that was evident in my survey results (Chapter 9) probably reflects this educational deficiency to a large extent.
Instruction on even the most fundamental concepts is so inconstant in depth and quality that it's impossible to achieve a common understanding of scientific thinking among students and teachers. The disagreement among viewpoints extends from pre-college to post-university levels.Popular books cover scientific thinking only as one part of the broader category of critical thinking. The value of textbooks targeted to university-level teaching which include good practical advice on the mechanics of scientific procedures is undermined by inadequate or faulty accounts of the Scientific Method and the hypothesis.
The situation confronting professional scientists is no better. The large federal granting agencies, which could be sources for explicit and authoritative information on the basics of scientific thinking do not fulfill this role. When combined with what for most of us is a shaky educational background in scientific thinking, scientists in biomedical and other sciences are left with little in the way of solid, dependable advice about how to reason scientifically. There are opportunities to enhance the extent and validity of available information that would be worth looking into.