\

What is Science?
Bill W. Tillery, Eldon D. Enger, Frederick C. Ross

From: Tillery, Enger and Ross, Integrated Science 2nd edition (McGraw-Hill, 2004) 12 – 18.

THE NATURE OF SCIENCE

Most humans are curious, at least when they are young, and are motivated to understand their surroundings. These
traits have existed since antiquity and have proven to be a powerful motivation. In recent times the need to find out has
motivated the launching of space probes to learn what is "out there," and humans have visited the moon to satisfy their
curiosity. Curiosity and the motivation to understand nature were no less powerful in the past than today. Over two
thousand years ago the ancient Greeks lacked the tools and technology of today and could only make conjectures about the
workings of nature. These early seekers of understanding are known as natural philosophers, and they observed, thought,
and wrote about the workings of all of nature. They are called philosophers because their understandings come from
reasoning only, without experimental evidence. Nonetheless, some of their ideas were essentially correct and are still in use
today. For example, the idea of matter being composed of atoms was first reasoned by certain ancient Greeks in the fifth
century B.C. The idea of elements, basic components that make up matter, was developed much earlier but refined by the
ancient Greeks in the fourth century B.C. The concept of what the elements are and the concept of the nature of atoms have
changed over time, but the idea first came from ancient natural philosophers.

The Scientific Method

Some historians identify the time of Galileo and Newton, approximately three hundred years ago, as the beginning of
modern science. Like the ancient Greeks, Galileo and Newton were interested in studying all of nature. Since the time of
Galileo and Newton, the content of physical science has increased in scope and specialization, but the basic means of
acquiring understanding, the scientific investigation, has changed little. A scientific investigation provides understanding
through experimental evidence, as opposed to the conjectures based on thinking only of the ancient natural philosophers. …
certain ancient Greeks described how objects fall toward the earth with a thought-out, or reasoned, explanation. Galileo, on
the other hand, changed how people thought of falling objects by developing explanations from both creative thinking and
precise measurement of physical quantities, providing experimental evidence for his explanations. Experimental evidence
provides explanations today, much as it did for Galileo, as relationships are found from precise measurements of physical
quantities. Thus, scientific knowledge about nature has grown as measurements and investigations have led to
understandings that lead to further measurements and investigations.

What is a scientific investigation and what methods are used to conduct one? Attempts have been made to describe
scientific methods in a series of steps (define problem, gather data, make hypothesis, test, make conclusion), but no single
description has ever been satisfactory to all concerned. Scientists do similar things in investigations but there are different
approaches and different ways to evaluate what they find. Overall, the similar things might look like this:

1. Observe some aspect of nature.

2. Propose an explanation for something observed.
3. Use the explanation to make predictions.
4. Test predictions by doing an experiment or by making more observations.
5. Modify explanation as needed.
6. Return to step 3.

The exact approach a scientist uses depends on the individual doing the investigation as well as the particular field of
science being studied.
 Another way to describe what goes on during a scientific investigation is to consider what can be generalized. There
are at least three separate activities that seem to be common to scientists in different fields as they conduct scientific
investigations, and these generalized activities are:
∙ Collecting observations
∙ Developing explanations
∙ Testing explanations

No particular order or routine can be generalized about these common elements. In fact, individual scientists might not
even be involved in all three activities. Some, for example, might spend all of their time out in nature, "in the field"
collecting data and generalizing about their findings. This is an acceptable means of scientific investigation in some fields
of science. Yet, other scientists might spend all of their time in doors, at computer terminals, developing theoretical
equations that offer explanations for generalizations made by others. Again, the work at a computer terminal is an
acceptable means of scientific investigation. Thus, there is not an order of five steps that are followed, particularly by
today's specialized scientists. This is one reason why many philosophers of science argue there is no such thing as the
scientific method. There are common activities of observing, explaining, and testing in scientific investigations in different
fields, and these activities will be discussed next.

Explanations and Investigations

Explanations in the natural sciences are concerned with things or events observed, and there can be several different
means of developing or creating explanations. In general, explanations can come from the results of experiments, from an
educated guess, or just from imaginative thinking. In fact, there are several examples in the history of science of valid
explanations being developed even from dreams. Explanations go by various names, each depending on intended use or
stage of development. For example, an explanation in an early stage of development is sometimes called a hypothesis. A
hypothesis is a tentative thought- or experiment-derived explanation. It must be compatible with all observations and
provide understanding of some aspect of nature, but the key word here is "tentative." A hypothesis is tested by experiment
and is rejected, or modified, if a single observation or test does not fit. The successful testing of a hypothesis may lead to
the design of experiments, or it could lead to the development of another hypothesis, which could, in turn, lead to the
design of yet more experiments, which could lead to.. . . As you can see, this is a branching, ongoing process that is very
difficult to describe in specific terms. In addition, it can be difficult to identify a conclusion, an endpoint in the process. The
search for new concepts to explain experimental evidence may lead from a hypothesis to a new theory, which results in
more. new hypotheses. This is why one of the best ways to understand scientific methods is to study the history of science.
Or, you can conduct a scientific investigation yourself.

In some cases a hypothesis may be tested by simply making additional observations. For example, if you hypothesize
that a certain species of bird uses cavities in trees as places to build nests, you could observe several birds of the species and
record the kinds of nests they build and where they are built.

Another common method for testing a hypothesis involves devising an experiment. An experiment is a re-creation of
an event or occurrence in a way that enables a scientist to support or disprove a hypothesis. This can be difficult since a
particular event may be influenced by a great many separate things. For example, the production of a song by a bird
involves many activities of the bird's nervous and muscular systems and is influenced by a wide variety of environmental
factors. It might seem that developing an understanding of the factors involved in birdsong production is an impossible
task. To help un-clutter such situations, scientists have devised what is known as a controlled experiment. A controlled
experiment compares two situations that have all the influencing factors identical except one. The situation used as the
basis of comparison is called the control group and the other is called the experimental group. The single influencing factor
that is allowed to be different in the experimental group is called the experimental variable.

The situation involving birdsong production would have to be broken down into a large number of simple questions, as
previously mentioned. Each question would provide the basis on which experimentation would occur. Each experiment
would provide information about a small part of the total process of birdsong production. For example, in order to test the
hypothesis that male sex hormones are involved in stimulating male birds to sing, an experiment could be performed in
which one group of male birds had their testes removed (the experimental group), while the control group was allowed to
develop normally. After the experiment, the new data (facts) gathered would be analyzed. If there were no differences
between the two groups, scientists could conclude that the variable evidently did not have a cause-and-effect relationship
(i.e., was not responsible for the event). However, if there were a difference, it would be likely that the variable was
responsible for the difference between the control and experimental groups. In the case of songbirds, removal of the testes
does change their singing behavior.

Scientists almost never accept the results of a single experiment, since a proposed hypothesis has to explain all
experimental results. Otherwise, the hypothesis needs revision. For example, the operation necessary to remove the testes of
male birds might cause illness or discomfort in some birds, resulting in less singing. A way to overcome this difficulty
would be to subject all birds to the same surgery but to remove the testes of only half of them. (The control birds would still
have their testes.) The results of the experiment are considered convincing only when there is one variable, many replicates
(copies) of the same experiment have been conducted, and the results are consistent.

Furthermore, scientists often apply statistical tests to the results to help decide in an impartial manner if the results
obtained are valid (meaningful; fit with other knowledge), reliable (give the same results repeatedly), and show cause-and-
effect, or if they are just the result of random events.

During experimentation, scientists learn new information and formulate new questions that can lead to yet more
experiments. One good experiment can result in a hundred new questions and experiments. The discovery of the structure
of the DNA molecule by Watson and Crick resulted in thousands of experiments and stimulated the development of the
entire field of molecular biology. Similarly, the discovery of molecules that regulate the growth of plants resulted in much
research about how the molecules work and which molecules might be used for agricultural purposes.

If the processes of questioning and experimentation continue, and evidence continually and consistently supports the
original hypothesis and other closely related hypotheses, the scientific community will begin to see how these hypotheses
and facts fit together into a broad pattern.

Scientific Laws

Sometimes you can observe a series of relationships that seem to happen over and over again. There is a popular
saying, for example, that "if anything can go wrong, it will" This is called Murphy's law. It is called a law because it
describes a relationship between events that seems to happen time after time. If you drop a slice of buttered bread, for
example, it can land two ways, butter side up or butter side down. According to Murphy's law, it will land butter side down.
With this example, you know at least one way of testing the validity of Murphy's law.

Another "popular saying" type of relationship seems to exist between the cost of a houseplant and how long it lives.
You could call it the "law of houseplant longevity." The relationship is that the life of a houseplant is inversely proportional
to its purchase price. This "law" predicts that a $10 houseplant will wilt and die within a month, but a 504: houseplant will
live for years. The inverse relationship is between the variables of (1) cost and (2) life span, meaning the more you pay for
a plant the shorter the time it will live. This would also mean that inexpensive plants will live for a long time. Since the
relationship seems to occur time after time, it is called a law.

A scientific law describes an important relationship that is observed in nature to occur consistently time after time. The
law is often identified with the name of a person associated with the formulation of the law. For example, with all other
factors being equal, an increase in the temperature of the air in a balloon results in an increase in its volume. Likewise, a
decrease in the temperature results in a decrease in the total volume of the balloon. The volume of the balloon varies
directly with the temperature of the air in the balloon and this can be observed to occur consistently time after time. This
relationship was first discovered in the later part of the eighteenth century by two French scientists, A. C. Charles and
Joseph Gay-Lussac. Today, the relationship is sometimes called Charles' law. When you read about a scientific law, you
should remember that a law is a statement that means something about a relationship that you can observe time after time in
nature.

Have you ever heard someone state that something behaved a certain way because of a scientific law? For example, a
big truck accelerated slowly because of Newton's laws of motion. Perhaps this person misunderstands the nature of
scientific laws. Scientific laws do not dictate the behavior of objects, they simply describe it. They do not say how things
ought to act but rather how things do act. A scientific law is descriptive; it describes how things act.

Models and Theories

 Often the part of nature being considered is too small or too large to be visible to the human eye and the use of a model
is needed. A model is a description of a theory or idea that accounts for all known properties. The description can come in
many different forms, such as an actual physical model, a computer model, a sketch, an analogy, or an equation. No one has
ever seen the whole solar system, for example, and all you can see in the real world is the movement of the sun, moon, and
planets against a background of stars. A physical model or sketch of the solar system, however, will give you a pretty good
idea of what the solar system might look like. The physical model and the sketch are both models since they give you a
mental picture of the solar system.

At the other end of the size scale, models of atoms and molecules are often used to help us understand what is
happening in this otherwise invisible world. Also, a container of small, bouncing rubber balls can be used as a model to
explain the relationships of Charles' law. This model helps you see what happens to invisible particles of air as the
temperature, volume, and pressure of the gas change. Some models are better than others, and models constantly change
along with our understanding about nature. Early twentieth-century models of atoms, for example, were based on a
"planetary model;' which had electrons in the role of planets moving around the nucleus, which played the role of the sun.
Today, the model has changed as our understandings about the nature of the atom have changed. Electrons are now
pictured as vibrating with certain wavelengths, which can make standing waves only at certain distances from the nucleus.
Thus the model of the atom changed from one with electrons viewed as solid particles to one that views them as vibrations
on a string.

The most recently developed scientific theory was refined and expanded during the 1970s. This theory concerns the
surface of the earth, and it has changed our model of what the earth is like. At first, however, the basic idea of today's
accepted theory was pure and simple conjecture. The term "conjecture" usually means an explanation or idea based on
speculation, or one based on trivial grounds without any real evidence. Scientists would look at a map of Africa and South
America, for example, and mull over how the two continents seem to be as pieces of a picture puzzle that had moved apart.
Any talk of moving continents was considered conjecture because it was not based on anything acceptable as real evidence.

Many years after the early musings about moving continents, evidence was collected from deep-sea drilling rigs that
the ocean floor becomes progressively older toward the African and South American continents. This was good enough
evidence to establish the "seafloor spreading hypothesis" that described the two continents moving apart.

If a hypothesis survives much experimental testing and leads, in turn, to the design of new experiments with the
generation of new hypotheses that can be tested, you now have a working theory. A theory is defined as a broad, working
hypothesis that is based on extensive experimental evidence. For example, the "seafloor spreading hypothesis" did survive
requisite experimental testing, and together with other working hypotheses is today found as part of the plate tectonic
theory. The plate tectonic theory describes how the continents have moved apart, just like pieces of a picture puzzle. Is this
the same idea that was once considered conjecture? Sort of, but this time it is supported by experimental evidence.

The term scientific theory is reserved for historic schemes of thought that have survived the test of detailed
examination for long periods of time. The atomic theory, for example, was developed in the late 1800s and has been the
subject of extensive investigation and experimentation over the last century. The atomic theory and other scientific theories
form the framework of scientific thought and experimentation today. Scientific theories point to new ideas about the
behavior of nature and these ideas result in more experiments, more data to collect, and more explanations to develop. All
of this may lead to a slight modification of an existing theory, a major modification, or perhaps the creation of an entirely
new one. These activities continue in an ongoing attempt to satisfy the curiosity of people by understanding nature.

SCIENCE, NON SCIENCE, AND PSEUDOSCIENCE

As you can see from the discussion of the nature of science, a scientific approach to the world requires a certain way of
thinking. There is an insistence on ample supporting evidence by numerous studies rather than easy acceptance of strongly
stated opinions. Scientists must separate opinions from statements of fact. A scientist is a healthy skeptic.

Careful attention to detail is also important. Since scientists publish their findings and their colleagues examine their
work, there is a strong desire to produce careful work that can be easily defended. This does not mean that scientists do not
speculate and state opinions. When they do, however, they take great care to clearly distinguish fact from opinion.
 There is also a strong ethic of honesty. Scientists are not saints, but the fact that science is conducted out in the open in
front of one's peers tends to reduce the incidence of dishonesty. In addition, the scientific community strongly condemns
and severely penalizes those who steal the ideas of others, perform shoddy science, or falsify data. Any of these infractions
could lead to the loss of one's job and reputation.

From Experimentation to Application

The scientific method has helped us to understand and control many aspects of our natural world. Some information is
extremely important in understanding the structure and functioning of things in our world but at first glance appears to have
little practical value. For example, understanding the life cycle of a star may be important for people who are trying to
answer questions about how the universe is changing, but it seems of little practical value to the average citizen. However,
as our knowledge has increased, the time between first discovery to practical application has decreased significantly.

For example, scientists known as genetic engineers have altered the chemical code system of small organisms
(microorganisms) so that they may produce many new drugs such as antibiotics, hormones, and enzymes. The ease with
which these complex chemicals are produced would not have been possible had it not been for the information gained from
the basic, theoretical sciences of microbiology, molecular biology, and genetics. Our understanding of how organisms
genetically control the manufacture of proteins has led to the large scale production of enzymes. Some of these chemicals
can remove stains from clothing, deodorize, clean contact lenses, remove damaged skin from burn patients, and "stone
wash" denim for clothing.

Another example is Louis Pasteur, a French chemist and microbiologist. Pasteur was interested in the theoretical
problem of whether life could be generated from nonliving material. Much of his theoretical work led to practical
applications in disease control. His theory that there are microorganisms that cause diseases and decay led to the
development of vaccinations against rabies and the development of pasteurization for the preservation of foods.

Science and Nonscience

The differences between science and non-science are often based on the assumptions and methods used to gather and
organize information and, most important, the testing of these assumptions. The difference between a scientist and a
nonscientist is that a scientist continually challenges and tests principles and assumptions to determine a cause-and-effect
relationship, whereas a nonscientist may not feel that this is important.

Once you understand the nature of science, you will not have any trouble identifying astronomy, chemistry, physics,
and biology as sciences. But what about economics, sociology, anthropology, history, philosophy, and literature? All of
these fields may make use of certain central ideas that are derived in a logical way, but they are also nonscientific in some
ways. Some things cannot be approached using the scientific method. Art, literature, theology, and philosophy are rarely
thought of as sciences. They are concerned with beauty, human emotion, and speculative thought rather than with facts and
verifiable laws. On the other hand, physics, chemistry, geology, and biology are always considered sciences.

Music is an area of study in a middle ground where scientific approaches may be used to some extent. "Good" music is
certainly unrelated to science, but the study of how the human larynx generates the sound of a song is based on scientific
principles. Any serious student of music will study the physics of sound and how the vocal cords vibrate to generate sound
waves. Similarly, economists use mathematical models and established economic laws to make predictions about future
economic conditions. However, the regular occurrence of unpredicted economic changes indicates that economics is far
from scientific, since the reliability of predictions is a central criterion of science. Anthropology and sociology are also
scientific in nature in many respects, but they cannot be considered true sciences because many of the generalizations they
have developed cannot be tested by repeated experimentation. They also do not show a significantly high degree of cause-
and-effect, or they have poor predictive value.

Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience ("pseudo" means "false") takes on the flavor of science but is not supportable as valid or reliable. Often,
the purpose of pseudoscience is to confuse or mislead. The area of nutrition is flooded with pseudoscience. We all know
that we must obtain certain nutrients like amino acids, vitamins, and minerals from the food that we eat or we may become
ill. Many scientific experiments reliably demonstrate the validity of this information. However, in most cases, it has not
been proven that the nutritional supplements so vigorously promoted are as useful or desirable as advertised. Rather,
selected bits of scientific information (amino acids, vitamins, and minerals are essential to good health) have been used to
create the feeling that additional amounts of these nutritional supplements are necessary or that they can improve your
health. In reality, the average person eating a varied diet will obtain all of these nutrients in adequate amounts, and
nutritional supplements are not required.

In addition, many of these products are labeled as organic or natural, with the implication that they have greater
nutritive value because they are organically grown (grown without pesticides or synthetic fertilizers) or because they come
from nature. The poisons curare, strychnine, and nicotine are all organic molecules that are produced in nature by plants
that could be grown organically, but we would not want to include them in our diet.

Limitations of Science

By definition, science is a way of thinking and seeking information to solve problems. Therefore, scientific methods
can be applied only to questions that have a factual basis. Questions concerning morals, value judgments, social issues, and
attitudes cannot be answered using the scientific methods. What makes a painting great? What is the best type of music?
Which wine is best? What color should I paint my car? These questions are related to values, beliefs, and tastes; therefore,
scientific methods cannot be used to answer them.

Science is also limited by the ability of people to pry understanding from the natural world. People are fallible and do
not always come to the right conclusions, because information is lacking or misinterpreted, but science is self-correcting.
As new information is gathered, old incorrect ways of thinking must be changed or discarded. For example, at one time
people were sure that the sun went around the earth. They observed that the sun rose in the east and traveled across the sky
to set in the west. Since they could not feel the earth moving, it seemed perfectly logical that the sun traveled around the
earth. Once they understood that the earth rotated on its axis, people began to understand that the rising and setting of the
sun could be explained in other ways. A completely new concept of the relationship between the sun and the earth
developed.

Although this kind of study seems rather primitive to us today, this change in thinking about the sun and the earth was
a very important step in understanding the universe and how the various parts are related to one another. This background
information was built upon by many generations of astronomers and space scientists, and finally led to space exploration.

People also need to understand that science cannot answer all the problems of our time. Although science is a powerful
tool, there are many questions it cannot answer and many problems it cannot solve. The behavior and desires of people
generate most of the problems societies face. Famine, drug abuse, and pollution are human-caused and must be resolved by
humans. Science may provide some tools for social planners, politicians, and ethical thinkers, but science does not have,
nor does it attempt to provide, all the answers to the problems of the human race. Science is merely one of the tools at our
disposal.