With one exception, I haven't taken science classes since I was 15. Yet I love science books. I wonder if I could do an actual college-level science class. Is the fact that I'm a historian really due to innate skill in one area versus another? Or just some random result of taking one fork in the road instead of the other? If I'd applied myself in another direction, could I have been successful in this other field?
Step 2: Formulate a testable hypothesis:
Hypothesis: The same combination of intelligence and dedication can make one equally successful in two diverse academic fields.
Step 3: Develop and perform an experiment to test the hypothesis:
3.a: Enroll in my friend's "Biology for science majors" course.
3.b: Do work
3.c: take quizzes and exams
Step 4: Record and analyze results to see if they support (not "prove" -- I learned that last week!) the hypothesis:
On the first 13-question chapter quiz, on the chemical basis of life, I answered 8 of 13 questions correctly. Two of those correct answers were lucky guesses.
Results: the results of this experiment do not seem to support the hypothesis. Possible reasons:
- The experiment design is flawed: there is a sample size of 1.
- The experiment design is flawed: there is no control group.
- The experiment design is flawed: conditions did not account for other independent variables such as the subject's completion (or not) of the readings, or her understanding of precisely which chapters the quiz was to cover, or the fact that she did not take the course prerequiste (intro to chemistry).
- The hypothesis is false: as a historian, I am right where I'm supposed to be.