What is science?
According to my Random House Unabridged Dictionary, science is “knowledge or study [of the physical or material world] dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.” Let’s take a look at some of the key words in that definition: the material world, facts or truths, systematically arranged. When we talk about the material world, we mean those aspects of the universe that are available to our senses; things we can see, feel, hear, taste, and smell. I think it does not include those things that are not available to our senses, such as ESP, ghosts, and religious feelings. Please don’t misunderstand - I am NOT saying there is anything wrong with those things, only that they are not subject to scientific scrutiny. We’ll get back to that. When we talk about facts and truths, we are talking about ideas, processes, and connections that have been examined in enough detail by enough people in enough places for enough times that we can be certain that most people accept these things as given or even axiomatic about the current state of the material world. When we say that these facts have been systematically arranged, we mean that there is an overarching structure within which these facts have relevance, meaning, and utility.
Wikipedia offers a slightly broader, more inclusive definition: “Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome.
In its more restricted contemporary sense, science is a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research. Science is a continuing effort to discover and increase human knowledge and understanding through disciplined research. Using controlled methods, scientists collect observable evidence of natural or social phenomena, record measurable data relating to the observations, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work.
The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions. Scientists are also expected to publish their information so other scientists can do similar experiments to double-check their conclusions. The results of this process enable better understanding of past events, and better ability to predict future events of the same kind as those that have been tested.”
Wiki goes on to say, “Scientific fields are commonly divided into two major groups: natural sciences, which study natural phenomena (including biological life), and social sciences, which study human behavior and societies. These groupings are empirical sciences, which means the knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.
Mathematics, which is classified as a formal science, has both similarities and differences with the natural and social sciences. It is similar to empirical sciences in that it involves an objective, careful and systematic study of an area of knowledge; it is different because of its method of verifying its knowledge, using a priori rather than empirical methods. Formal science, which also includes statistics and logic, is vital to the empirical sciences. Major advances in formal science have often led to major advances in the empirical sciences. The formal sciences are essential in the formation of hypotheses, theories, and laws, both in discovering and describing how things work (natural sciences) and how people think and act (social sciences).”
Notice that this definition includes the idea that the practice of science is capable of making predictions. Usually we think that means imagining what we will find in the future, but it also can mean discovering things that we didn’t know about the past but that our explorations say we should find if we look hard enough in the right place using the correct methods. Evolution, for example, is “historical”, and when we make new connections in that field, they often lead us to expect to find other manifestations in the past.
It’s also important to recognize that scientific work must be repeatable by others under the same conditions. That’s why “controlled” is such an important idea in science. If a scientific discovery cannot be reproduced by others, it is still considered to be an open question. Cold fusion is one such idea that pops immediately into my mind. Some scientists claim to have achieved cold fusion, but their results have not yet been duplicated, so it remains unproven.
So, how do scientists actually “do” science? The technique most often employed is called the scientific method. Let’s go back to Wiki:
“A scientific method seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way, and to use these reproductions to make useful predictions. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural events under controlled conditions. It provides an objective process to find solutions to problems in a number of scientific and technological fields.
Based on observations of a phenomenon, a scientist may generate a model. This is an attempt to describe or depict the phenomenon in terms of a logical physical or mathematical representation. As empirical evidence is gathered, a scientist can suggest a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon. This description can be used to make predictions that are testable by experiment or observation using scientific method. When a hypothesis proves unsatisfactory, it is either modified or discarded.
While performing experiments, scientists may have a preference for one outcome over another, and it is important to ensure that this tendency does not bias their interpretation. A strict following of a scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of a scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. This can be achieved by correct experimental design, and a thorough peer review of the experimental results as well as conclusions of a study. After the results of an experiment are announced or published, it is normal practice for independent researchers to double-check how the research was performed, and to follow up by performing similar experiments to determine how dependable the results might be.
Once a hypothesis has survived testing, it may become adopted into the framework of a scientific theory. This is a logically reasoned, self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of certain natural phenomena. A theory typically describes the behavior of much broader sets of phenomena than a hypothesis—commonly, a large number of hypotheses can be logically bound together by a single theory. These broader theories may be formulated using principles such as parsimony (traditionally known as "Occam's Razor"). They are then repeatedly tested by analyzing how the collected evidence (facts) compares to the theory. When a theory survives a sufficiently large number of empirical observations, it then becomes a scientific generalization that can be taken as fully verified.
Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them. Critical to this process is making every relevant aspect of research publicly available, which allows ongoing review and repeating of experiments and observations by multiple researchers operating independently of one another. Only by fulfilling these expectations can it be determined how reliable the experimental results are for potential use by others.”
I teach high school science (but I am not a scientist nor do I claim to have any special expertise). In my classes, I offer the following simplified version of the above:
1] Scientists state a problem by asking a question that can be answered by
collecting and analyzing enough information.
2] The next step is to suggest an answer. This suggestion is called a hypothesis.
The hypothesis clearly says what we expect to find out and must include
something that can be tested. When hypotheses have been repeatedly tested and
the results support the original answer, that set of hypotheses becomes a theory.
3] Once the testable hypothesis has been stated, scientists must design experiments
to test their idea(s). Every good experiment has variables and constants, both of
which should be controlled.
4] Scientists make a lot of notes about what they do and how they do it, as well as
recording the results they get, including results they didn’t expect or didn’t want
to find. Once the experiment is done, all that data must be analyzed.
5] Once the data has been analyzed, the scientist(s) draw a conclusion; they clearly
state what they think they’ve found and how that data either does or does not
support their original hypothesis.
6] The final step is writing a report and publishing the results. Scientists should be
careful to write about any possible sources of error in their methodology. The
report should clearly say exactly what they did and did not do so that anyone
else who cares to can repeat the same experiment. Such reports often lead to
additional questions, hypotheses, and experiments.
I’d also like to include this note from The American Heritage Science Dictionary concerning the differences between hypothesis, theory, and law because there seems to be a great deal of either real or feigned ignorance about these terms:
“The words hypothesis, law, and theory refer to different kinds of statements, or sets of statements, that scientists make about natural phenomena. A hypothesis is a proposition that attempts to explain a set of facts in a unified way. It generally forms the basis of experiments designed to establish its plausibility. Simplicity, elegance, and consistency with previously established hypotheses or laws are also major factors in determining the acceptance of a hypothesis. Though a hypothesis can never be proven true (in fact, hypotheses generally leave some facts unexplained), it can sometimes be verified beyond reasonable doubt in the context of a particular theoretical approach. A scientific law is a hypothesis that is assumed to be universally true. A law has good predictive power, allowing a scientist (or engineer) to model a physical system and predict what will happen under various conditions. New hypotheses inconsistent with well-established laws are generally rejected, barring major changes to the approach. An example is the law of conservation of energy, which was firmly established but had to be qualified with the revolutionary advent of quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle. A theory is a set of statements, including laws and hypotheses, that explains a group of observations or phenomena in terms of those laws and hypotheses. A theory thus accounts for a wider variety of events than a law does. Broad acceptance of a theory comes when it has been tested repeatedly on new data and been used to make accurate predictions. Although a theory generally contains hypotheses that are still open to revision, sometimes it is hard to know where the hypothesis ends and the law or theory begins. Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, for example, consists of statements that were originally considered to be hypotheses (and daring at that). But all the hypotheses of relativity have now achieved the authority of scientific laws, and Einstein's theory has supplanted Newton's laws of motion. In some cases, such as the germ theory of infectious disease, a theory becomes so completely accepted, it stops being referred to as a theory.”
~~~~~~~~~~**********~~~~~~~~~~
It’s important, too, to remember that scientists are people, with all the socio-politico-cultural-religious biases that we all have. Careful scientists try hard to take these into account as they design, carry out, analyze and report on the experiments they do. Like the rest of us, they sometimes make mistakes. That, to me, is one of the really wonderful aspects of the scientific enterprise: it’s absolutely and designedly open to correction. Our understanding of the material world has come a long way since the days of the ancient Greeks such as Aristotle (384 BC–322 BC), through Roger Bacon (1214-1294), Nicholas Copernicus (1473–1543), Galileo (1564 –1642), Newton (1643–1727), all the way up to Einstein (1879–1955) … * [see note at end]
~~~~~~~~~~**********~~~~~~~~~~
There are, of course, other ways of ‘knowing.’ The universe has dimensions other than the merely material. Those dimensions, however, fall outside the purview of science. I am not ignoring them, but I don’t think they belong in an article about science. Science is a uniquely human preoccupation, and it has its limitations. But if you really want to understand the material world, how it’s made, what its connections are, what makes it all go, then science is where you need to look for answers.
Some people seem to feel that science is somehow ‘against’ religion. It is true that some scientists are belligerent atheists, but it is equally true that the scientific community includes believers of many faiths. There is nothing inherent in the search for truths about the material universe that needs to conflict with a belief in god(s). Actually, if you take a look at the history, it is usually religion that has been against science rather than the other way around. The Roman Catholic Church actively persecuted early scientists including Copernicus and Galileo. But now in the 21st century, most major religions recognize that science is not a threat to their belief system.
Ø 1950 - Pope Pius XII issued the papal encyclical Humani Generis, which states that evolution is compatible with Christianity …. On 22 October 1996 … Pope John Paul II declared the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin as factual, and wholly compatible with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
Ø … the National Center for Science Education found that "of Americans in the twelve largest Christian denominations, 89.6% belong to churches that support evolution education". These churches include the United Methodist Church, National Baptist Convention USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), National Baptist Convention of America, African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church, and others. A poll in 2000 done for People for the American Way found that 70% of the American public felt that evolution was compatible with a belief in God.
Ø Of the five founding fathers of twentieth-century evolutionary biology — Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright, J. B. S. Haldane, Ernst Mayr, and Theodosius Dobzhansky — one was a devout Anglican who preached sermons and published articles in church magazines, one a practicing Unitarian, one a dabbler in Eastern mysticism, one an apparent atheist, and one a member of the Russian Orthodox Church and the author of a book on religion and science.
Ø Buddhism has increasingly entered into the ongoing science and religion dialogue.
Buddhism encourages the impartial investigation of Nature … evolution, quantum
~~~~~~~~~~**********~~~~~~~~~~
Science is an ancient and increasingly sophisticated method of exploring the physical manifestations of the universe in which we live, but it is not the only way. It does, however, operate through a system of rules and procedures, which, when properly used, allow us unprecedented access to the secrets and mysteries of the material world. Although some will undoubtedly disagree with me, I personally do not believe there is any necessary conflict between the various ways of knowing. The brain of Homo sapiens has developed amazing ways of measuring and analyzing the processes that drive the unfolding of the cosmos of which we are a part. It would be a shame and a pity to waste those abilities.
As always, your comments are welcome. I’m not much interested in argument, but I will say one last thing: if because of your religious beliefs you try to include ‘creation science’ (what an oxymoron that is!) in the curriculum of a public school which is supported by my tax dollars, I will fight you with absolutely every tool at my disposal. You are welcome to your beliefs, but you have no right to demand my financial support for them. Brainwash your own children if you must, but leave mine alone.
~~~~~~~~~~**********~~~~~~~~~~
* I know this is a very Eurocentric list, and I do not mean to make light of the contributions made by non-European people – Chinese, Indian, Islamic, Meso-American – but it does seem to me to be historically true, at least since the Renaissance, that the culture of Europe has been more thoroughly ‘scientific’ than any other for a more extended period of time.
“…ancient Chinese philosophers made significant advances in science, technology, mathematics, and astronomy. The first recorded observations of comets, solar eclipses, and supernovae were made in China. Traditional Chinese medicine, acupuncture and herbal medicine were also practiced. The four Great Inventions of ancient China: the compass, gunpowder, papermaking, and printing, were among the most important technological advances, only known in Europe by the end of the Middle Ages. The Tang Dynasty (AD 618 - 906) in particular, was a time of great innovation.”
“Prehistoric activity at Mehrgarh, an archaeological site in present-day Pakistan, has yielded evidence of domestication of plants and animals between 9000-8000 BCE. … evidence of dentistry being practiced by 7000 BCE … with drills… Modern reconstruction of this form of dentistry has showed that the methods used were reliable and effective. Settled agriculture led to domestication of cattle and rice between 6700-4500 BC. Irrigation was developed in the Indus Valley Civilization by around 4500 BCE. … planned settlements making use of drainage and sewers. Sophisticated irrigation and water storage systems were developed by the Indus Valley Civilization, including artificial reservoirs at Girnar dated to 3000 BCE, and an early canal irrigation system from circa 2600 BCE. By 2800 BCE private bathrooms, located on the ground floor, were found in many houses of the Indus civilization. Pottery pipes in walls allowed drainage of water … Large-scale sanitary sewer systems were in place by 2700 BCE. The inhabitants of the Indus valley developed a system of standardization, using weights and measures… This technical standardization enabled gauging devices to be effectively used … for construction. The world's first dock at Lothal (2400 BCE) … Modern oceanographers have observed that the Harappans must have possessed knowledge relating to tides … as well as exemplary hydrography and maritime engineering. Excavations at Balakot (c. 2500-1900 BC), present day Pakistan, have yielded evidence of an early furnace… used for the manufacturing of ceramic objects … The use of large scale constructional plans, cosmological drawings, and cartographic material was known in India with some regularity since the Vedic period (1st millennium BCE). Archeo-logical evidence of an animal-drawn plough dates back to 2500 BC in the Indus Valley Civilization. The earliest available swords of copper discovered from the Harappan sites date back to 2300 BC.”
“The most prominent view [of Islamic science] in recent scholarship… holds that Muslim scientists did help in laying the foundations for an experimental science with their contributions to the scientific method and their empirical, experimental and quantitative approach to scientific inquiry … Ibn al-Haytham's Book of Optics which is widely considered a revolution in the fields of optics and visual perception. During the Islamic Golden Age, Muslim scholars made significant advances in science, mathematics, medicine, astronomy, engineering, and many other fields. The number of important and original Arabic works written on the mathematical sciences is much larger than the combined total of Latin and Greek works on the mathematical sciences.”
“The Inca … performed successful skull surgery, which involved cutting holes in the skull in order to alleviate fluid buildup and inflammation caused by head wounds. Architecture was by far the most important of the Inca arts ... Machu Picchu was constructed by Inca engineers [using] mortarless construction that fit together so well that a knife could not be fitted through the stonework. Although the Mesoamerican calendar did not originate with the Maya, their subsequent extensions and refinements of it were the most sophisticated.”
