Bluffton University

NSC111: Physics/Earth/Space
Resource page: What is science?

I. How science works

  1. The Scientific Method
  2. Guiding scientific practice
  3. Is it basic or applied science?
  4. Further reading

A. The Scientific Method

Science is often characterized by a rigid, linear scheme called "the scientific method." This entails several steps, for example

  1. Observation
  2. Pattern recognition
  3. Hypothesis
  4. Prediction
  5. Testing

As a frequent science fair judge, I see every project jammed into this mold, whether it fits or not. This view of science is at least a myth, if not an outright lie. For more detail, see the reserve articles.

Science is not really a linear process. The steps given above can be fitted nicely into a circular pattern, as shown.

One can and does enter the circle from any point: from inside if one already has ideas about how the world works, or from the outside if one is simply trying something to see what happens. A good deal of productive work has resulted from the question "What would happen if...?"

Chance favors the prepared mind.

-- Louis Pasteur

back totop of file

Guiding scientific practice

Some of the assumptions involved in measurement, and in science in general, are

  • Regularity. Events recur according to discoverable patterns.
  • Predictability. Future events can be predicted on the basis of past events.
  • Quantifiability. The universe can be described by simple mathematical relationships.
  • Causality. Events have discoverable causes.

These assumptions guide the practice of science, and may even be said to govern what is the domain of science and what isn't. For example, if after study there is no discernible pattern to a set of events, and no discernible natural cause, the events in question are normally considered to be beyond the scope of science.

Many scientists will say that such events are nonsense; others will continue to try to address them using the assumptions of science, believing that there must be some natural cause and some regularity to the events. Many things once thought to be inexplicable have eventually been shown to result from natural and predictable causes.

There are a number of things worth knowing, and not all of them come under the purview of science. Science is limited to topics that are accessible, in principle, to anyone at all. This gives science its power and universal applicability, but we should never forget that the scientific view is self-limited.

Any scientific question or topic usually has at least three components: reproducibility, explanatory power, and falsifiability.

  • An observation or experiment must be reproducible: anyone with the requisite training should, at least in principle, be able to observe or perform the same thing.
  • Theories should have explanatory power: they should explain a range of related -- or better yet, seemingly unrelated - observations.
  • Scientific statements should be falsifiable: there must be the possibility of evidence which will conclusively disprove them.
The Mad Scientist Network For further discussion, see this reserve article.

back totop of file

Is it basic or applied science?

People normally talk about "basic research" -- in which scientists pursue a problem for its own sake, without worrying about applicability -- and "applied research" -- in which solutions to particular "practical" problems are sought. But this is a false dichotomy: the two go hand in hand.

I think there is another another possible way of classifying research: "thought-driven research," in which a scientist uses known theory or experiment to predict a result, then goes to find it; and "technology-driven research," in which a scientist gets a new piece of equipment and sees how it applies to her particular problems, or just what it will do. Again, these types usually overlap. See this reserve article on the interplay between science and techology.

back totop of file

Further reading

For more, see the following articles:

What is the difference between a theory and a law?
Dan Berger wrote this answer for the Mad Scientist Network. It is closely related to the article by McComus ("Ten Myths of Science").

Ten Myths of Science: Reexamining what we think we know...
William McComus critically examines the "Received View" of science (see the article on philosophy of science, by Philip Clayton) in a readable and helpful way.

Philosophy of Science: What One Needs to Know
This article by Philip Clayton is reprinted from Zygon. It is intended for use by teachers of science and science-and-religion courses, and while it is well-written and clear it is a bit heavy on philosophy.
back totop of file

return to index
go up one level next document
 
Copyright © 2001 by Daniel J. Berger. This work may be copied without limit if its use is to be for non-profit educational purposes. Such copies may be by any method, present or future. The author requests only that this statement accompany all such copies. All rights to publication for profit are retained by the author.