The Scientific Method
A common theme in these posts is the public's lack of faith in "science." At the heart of this is a misunderstanding by many people of what science is, and more importantly, what science is not.
A good starting point is a description of what we mean by “science.” We can’t have a rational argument about science (which is the basis of technology) without talking about the methods used by scientists to produce support for the arguments that arise when we consider issues such as Creationism or Climate Change and Global Warming.
Most of “early” science dealt with the attempt to understand the observable. It was the science of cannonballs and the pendulum. It was largely the branch of science called mechanics. This included celestial mechanics. Attempts were made to understand the motion of the planets and the stars.
The science of chemistry was more challenging. With cannonballs, for example, it did not matter what the ball was made of. What was essential was its mass and to some degree its size. Both of these attributes were easily measured.
Chemistry was more difficult because the chemist could not see the individual “elements” of water or air. Although the concept of an ultimate indivisible structure to matter went back to ancient Greece (Democritus coined the word “atom,” indivisible), there was no means to “see” this structure and to study it.
The introduction of the “unseeable” into explanations of natural
events began with the creation of mythology. One simply invoked
the action of a god to explain what was otherwise strange and inexplicable.
A key breakthrough for science was the relatively recent hypothesis of the existence of unseeable forces that were part of the natural world—not the action of gods.
Thus Newton conceived of the force of gravity and, more generally, the force of attraction between any two material bodies (such as the moon and the earth).
The subsequent development of mathematical tools (like Calculus) for analyzing the motion of the planets or the motion of a cannonball, coupled with the hypothesis that there was an invisible attractive force between bodies, or an invisible resistive force to motion through air, permitted the prediction and explanation of mechanical phenomena.
A key breakthrough for science was the relatively recent hypothesis of the existence of unseeable forces that were part of the natural world—not the action of gods.
Thus Newton conceived of the force of gravity and, more generally, the force of attraction between any two material bodies (such as the moon and the earth).
The subsequent development of mathematical tools (like Calculus) for analyzing the motion of the planets or the motion of a cannonball, coupled with the hypothesis that there was an invisible attractive force between bodies, or an invisible resistive force to motion through air, permitted the prediction and explanation of mechanical phenomena.
When we see an airplane crossing the sky at a high altitude, we
are prepared to accept the idea that its flight can be understood (at least by
engineers) in terms of its mass, the thrust of its engines, the lift and
resistive drag on its wings due to the wing shape and the air speed, and the
ever-present force of gravity that its flight defies.
We can see the motion, but we have to accept the idea that the combination of the motion and the wing shape gives rise to an invisible force that keeps the plane in the air. We have no alternative viable explanation without resorting to magic or mysticism.
We can see the motion, but we have to accept the idea that the combination of the motion and the wing shape gives rise to an invisible force that keeps the plane in the air. We have no alternative viable explanation without resorting to magic or mysticism.
As humankind attempts to develop notions of how the world came to
exist, and how it functions, it is inevitable that conflicts arise among
alternative paths to understanding.
The conflict most familiar to us today is that between science and religion. This conflict does not simply involve the conflict of ideas.
In modern political life we have become familiar with the moral conflicts that affect the direction of scientific research (on stem cells, for example) as well as implementation of engineering practice (such as genetic engineering of crops and organisms).
The conflict most familiar to us today is that between science and religion. This conflict does not simply involve the conflict of ideas.
In modern political life we have become familiar with the moral conflicts that affect the direction of scientific research (on stem cells, for example) as well as implementation of engineering practice (such as genetic engineering of crops and organisms).
The Scientific Method is central in distinguishing knowledge from
belief.
The most simplistic argument against the theory of Darwinian evolution is that no one has ever observed the transition (evolution) of some life form from an earlier form. Fossil evidence of evolutionary links among species, for example, is discounted (by Creationists) as having been “planted” by a (playful?) Creator during the formation of the earth (as described in Genesis, for example).
In the same vein, the scientific evidence that some fossils and rocks are millions of years old is discounted with the assertion that God created them—6000 years ago—in such a way as to appear to be much older than the Biblical age of the Earth.
The most simplistic argument against the theory of Darwinian evolution is that no one has ever observed the transition (evolution) of some life form from an earlier form. Fossil evidence of evolutionary links among species, for example, is discounted (by Creationists) as having been “planted” by a (playful?) Creator during the formation of the earth (as described in Genesis, for example).
In the same vein, the scientific evidence that some fossils and rocks are millions of years old is discounted with the assertion that God created them—6000 years ago—in such a way as to appear to be much older than the Biblical age of the Earth.
So the fundamental question we have to examine is
How do we distinguish scientific
theory, held as “truth,” from an article of religious faith, held equally
tenaciously as “truth?”
On Scientific Proof
(The following discussion of this issue leans heavily on this website [Copyright ©
1999-2003 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.])
The controversy between science and religion raises the issue of
what constitutes scientific “fact.” The first thing to understand is that "science" is never certain.
The philosopher Bertrand Russell, in his 1953 book Grounds of Conflict, Religion and Science, wrote
"A religious creed differs from [science] in claiming to [be absolutely true], whereas science is
always tentative.
Modification [of scientific] theories will sooner or later be found necessary.
[The Scientific Method] is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration."
Modification [of scientific] theories will sooner or later be found necessary.
[The Scientific Method] is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration."
What is meant by scientific evidence and scientific proof?
In truth, science can never establish "truth" or "fact" in the sense that a scientific statement can never be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to reevaluation as new data are acquired and novel technologies emerge.
"Proof" then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics. That said, we often hear "proof" mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means." Even though one may hear "proof" used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term.
In truth, science can never establish "truth" or "fact" in the sense that a scientific statement can never be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to reevaluation as new data are acquired and novel technologies emerge.
"Proof" then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics. That said, we often hear "proof" mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means." Even though one may hear "proof" used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term.
Intuition is Not Science
Though science formally cannot establish absolute truth, it can
provide overwhelming evidence in favor of certain ideas. Often these ideas are
not obvious, and often they clash with intuition.
Intuition tells us that the earth is flat, that the Sun truly rises and sets, that the surface of the Earth is not spinning at over 1000 miles per hour, that bowling balls fall faster than marbles, that the continents don't move, and that objects heavier-than-air can't have sustained flight unless they can flap wings. However, science has been used to demonstrate that all these intuitive ideas are wrong.
Intuition tells us that the earth is flat, that the Sun truly rises and sets, that the surface of the Earth is not spinning at over 1000 miles per hour, that bowling balls fall faster than marbles, that the continents don't move, and that objects heavier-than-air can't have sustained flight unless they can flap wings. However, science has been used to demonstrate that all these intuitive ideas are wrong.
Science Provides Evidence for the Unobservable
Some say that the primary function of science is to demonstrate the existence of
phenomena that cannot be observed directly.
I disagree with this statement. It is true that we do not need science to show us what we can see with our own eyes. But an important function of science is to explain those things that we do observe, to place the observation(s) in a broader context, and ultimately to ease the development of general rules that explain certain classes of phenomena. This is how one builds theories.
I disagree with this statement. It is true that we do not need science to show us what we can see with our own eyes. But an important function of science is to explain those things that we do observe, to place the observation(s) in a broader context, and ultimately to ease the development of general rules that explain certain classes of phenomena. This is how one builds theories.
Direct observation is not always necessary in
science; direct observation is in fact often impossible for things that
really matter. For example, the most important discoveries of science can only
be inferred via indirect observation, including such things as atoms,
electrons, germs, radiowaves, X-rays, ultraviolet light, genes, protein enzymes, and the DNA
double-helix.
The round earth was not observed directly by humans until 1961, yet this counterintuitive concept had been considered a scientific fact for over 2000 years. The Copernican hypothesis that the earth orbits the sun has been acknowledged virtually ever since the time of Galileo, though no one has ever directly observed the year-long process to this day and in spite of the fact that our commonplace experience indicates the very opposite.
All of these "invisible" inferences were elucidated using the scientific method. When the term "evidence" is used here, it is used strictly in the context of this scientific method.
The round earth was not observed directly by humans until 1961, yet this counterintuitive concept had been considered a scientific fact for over 2000 years. The Copernican hypothesis that the earth orbits the sun has been acknowledged virtually ever since the time of Galileo, though no one has ever directly observed the year-long process to this day and in spite of the fact that our commonplace experience indicates the very opposite.
All of these "invisible" inferences were elucidated using the scientific method. When the term "evidence" is used here, it is used strictly in the context of this scientific method.
No comments:
Post a Comment