Download Understanding the Nature of Science: Inquiry, Hypotheses, and Self-Correction and more Slides Biology in PDF only on Docsity!
What is Science?
"...science is simply common sense at its best; that
is, rigidly accurate in observation and merciless to
fallacy in logic." Thomas Henry Huxley, 1880
"Scientists are critical realists.” John Polkinghorne
"Science is properly described as ‘organized
skepticism,’ a realm in which nothing is to be
accepted without question.” Philip W. Anderson
…nevertheless, and probably quite accurately,
Margaret Wertheim replies with: "Science has
always had a huge component of faith."
This latter statement reflects the idea that ultimately
not everything (nothing?) can be proven to
100% confidence; A good scientist
nevertheless allows that even those things she
accepts on faith could very well be incorrect
Science, A Few More Ideas
(^) "…scientists are not a select few intelligent enough to think
in terms of ‘broad sweeping theoretical laws and principles.’ Instead, scientists are people specifically trained to build models that incorporate theoretical assumptions and empirical evidence. Working with models is essential to the performance of their daily work; it allows them to construct arguments and to collect data." Peter Imhof "Science is [best] understood by observing it than by trying to create a precise definition. The word science is derived from a Latin verb meaning ‘to know.’ Science is a way of knowing. It emerges from our curiosity about ourselves, the world, and the universe. Striving to understand seems to be one of our basic drives. At the heart of science are people asking questions about nature and believing that those questions are answerable." your text (older edition) “At the heart of science is Inquiry , a search for information and explanation, often focusing on specific questions.” Campbell and Reece (2005, p. 19)Docsity.com
Doing Science
Doing science involves:
- Asking good questions
- Coming up with good, plausible answers (a.k.a., hypotheses)
- Testing these hypotheses robustly, unambiguously, and honestly (the latter from the point of view of both yourself and that of others) "Science is a creative human endeavor that involves asking questions, making observations, developing explanatory hypotheses, and testing those hypotheses.“ your lab text It is "important for you to learn, by example and by practice, how the process of science works." your text "Anyone going into biology expecting to find the sorts of exceptionless laws that characterize physics will be sorely disappointed." Ernst Mayr
Time-Wasting Avoidance
Science is a means of timing-wasting avoidance
Doing science poorly (or not doing science at
all) results in failing to answer questions
efficiently
Doing science poorly can result in wasting other’s
time (with poorly thought out hypotheses or results)
The cost of wasting the time of others is
ostracism—nobody wants to have their time wasted
by incompetent boobs!
Nevertheless, often there is a fine line between
doing difficult science and wasting time—this is
one reason the easy-to-solve problems tend to be
solved sooner
The "open-mindedness" that non-scientists often
feel comes from lacking a well-developed
compunction to answer hard questions rigorously
(i.e., robustly, unambiguously, and honestly) Docsity.com
Questions Addressed
Is the endpoint worthwhile? Are the resources necessary to solve the problem in excess of the perceived worth? Is the endpoint likely to be reached?
For conservative, applied research, using established techniques, the answers generally are yes, yes, and yes (even when the scientific questions aren't terribly interesting) For speculative, basic, or extremely difficult research, the answers can be no, no, no Ultimately whether a question is pursued is a function of the amount of resources a society is willing to devote to science The consequence is that science does not always work toward its own goals with the efficiency it (or we) would prefer Wild card: questions (& means to answering questions) that are interesting in their own right
Succeeding in Science
"Success in science is rewarded with attention. You gain
full membership in the scientific community only by
receiving the attention of your fellow scientists. Earning
this attention ‘income’ is a prime motive for becoming a
scientist and for practicing science. In order to
maximize this income, you have to employ your own
attention in the most productive way. It does not pay
to find things out anew that have been discovered already.
Nor is reinvention rewarding in terms of the attention
paid. It pays to pay attention to the work done by others."
Georg Franck
In school, doing science well is rewarded with good
grades in science class—the same skills that allow one to
do science well will allow one to succeed in biology
class: learning, understanding, synthesis, an ability to
communicate your thoughts well, etc.
Good vs. Bad Questions
(^) "Does exposure to ultraviolet radiation cause
increased risk of skin cancer?" "Does good nutrition lead to increased intelligence?" "Why do cacti have spines?" "Was the malignant tumor found in the lungs of a 70- year-old man caused by his 45-year habit of smoking cigarettes?" Do good study habits result in good grades in science classes?
- Though these are all good questions, they are not necessarily easy to answer, however... Was Lee Harvey Oswald possessed by demons?
- Bad question:
- How do we define “demon”?
- How do we determine whether L.H.O. was possessed by one?
Forming Hypotheses
Asking Good Questions Forming Hypotheses Testing Hypotheses
“A hypothesis is a tentative answer to a well-framed question—an explantion on trial. It is usually an educated postulate, based on past experience and the available data of discovery science.” Campbell & Reece (2005), p. 20
“A hypothesis tentatively explains something observed.” your lab text
It is a proposed answer to a scientific question
More on Hypotheses
(^) Keep in mind that:
- Hypotheses represent possible causes
- They reflect past experience with similar questions
- Multiple hypothesis should be proposed if possible
- Hypotheses should be testable via the hypothetico- deductive approach
- Hypotheses can be eliminated
- But hypotheses cannot be confirmed with absolute certainty Note that in practice hypotheses are a dime a dozen— easy to propose, difficult to prove Also, very few are sufficiently comprehensive nor stand up sufficiently to the test of time and experimentation to achieve the status of a theory
Scientific Theories
A hypothesis becomes a theory following lots of testing (i.e., attempted falsifications), all of which fail to disprove the hypothesis An important aspect of this testing is that it is done by more than one (ideally by many) groups using more than one (ideally many) independent techniques In other words, a theory is a very robustly supported hypothesis Since, by definition, a theory has gone through considerable criticism and attempted falsifications, it is very unlikely that you or me or anyone we know or admire is going to successfully demonstrate that a well-established theory is false E.g., Darwin’s Theory of Evolution (which in lay language we would describe as a fact )
Scientific Facts
A fact is what is witnessed upon observation A scientific fact is only as good as the observer, method of observation, and degree to which the environment is sufficiently controlled during the observation Thus, facts are very fallible and must always be considered suspect especially if they are contrary to established theory and are not repeatable under well-controlled conditions In other words, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof In the semantics of science, a fact does not have explanatory or predictive power—one speaks of hypotheses and theories as ways of organizing, explaining, and extrapolating from facts This is why a scientist speaks of the theory rather than the fact of evolution
Scientific Law
A law is "a statement of order or relation holding for certain phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions” Webster In other words, a law, as far as we can tell, is an infallibly robust hypothesis In modern science it is considered reckless to call a theory a law
Inductive Reasoning
“Through induction, we derive generalizations based on a larger number of existing observations.” Campbell & Reece (2005) p. 20 Inductive reasoning is associated with great ideas but not necessarily very good experimental design For example, Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection was achieved via inductive reasoning: A great many observations were gathered and a unifying theme was discovered While inductive reasoning does not make for good hypothesis testing, the results of inductive reasoning can typically supply fertile ground for hypothesis making Another word for inductive reasoning is synthesis Synthesis , in general, is analogous to the more specific synthesis observed in chemistry laboratories. That is, synthesis is the build-up of a different whole from smaller parts. Docsity.com
Inductive Reasoning
"Many people associate the word discovery with
science. Often, what they have in mind is the
discovery of new facts. But accumulating facts is
not really what science is about; a telephone book is
a catalog of facts, but it has little to do with science.
It is true that facts, in the form of observations and
experimental results, are the prerequisites of
science. What really advances science, however, is
a new idea that collectively explains a number of
observations that previously seemed to be
unrelated. The most exciting ideas are those that
explain the greatest variety of phenomenon. People
like Newton, Darwin, and Einstein stand out in the
history of science not because they discovered a
great many facts but because they synthesized ideas
with great explanatory power." your text (older ed.)
Except, of course, Darwin did discover a huge number of facts!
