Notes on the Web - Unit One- Part 1
Defining Science, Critical Thinking, and the Value of Science
Bruce G. Stewart
General Objectives and Study Guide
Your objectives for these Notes on the Web and associated readings and exercises are:
What is Science?
Science is a certain kind of process by which knowledge about the physical universe is obtained, interpreted, and explained. Julian Huxley stated that science is just an extension of common sense! We also think of the knowledge gained through the scientific process as being science. According to Moore (1993), "Science is both knowledge of the natural world expressed in naturalistic terms and the procedures for obtaining that knowledge."
Sonleitner (1994) stated that "The long term goal of science is to explain and understand as much as possible about the universe in which we live. Moore (1993) emphasized the process when he wrote: "Science is a way of knowing by accumulating data from observations and experiments, seeking relationships of the data with other natural phenomena, and excluding supernatural explanations and personal wishes. It has proved a powerful procedure for understanding nature." Carl Sagan once said, "Science delivers the goods!"
What Is Not Science?
Matters of opinion, morality, and spiritual beliefs that cannot be tested with empirical evidence are not within the domain of science. "Natural" means explainable and understandable, that is capable of being explained, whereas "supernatural" means unexplainable—beyond human understanding. Thus, supernatural beliefs are excluded from science because they deny the very essence of science, not because scientists are atheists as many people belief. Scientists, like any other segment of our society, have a wide range of spiritual beliefs.
Pre-conceived beliefs that are held without having a weight of supporting observation-based evidence are also not a part of science. It is generally possible to find some evidence, however scant, to support almost any claim, even that the Earth is flat as claimed by the Flat Earth Society. This does not make such claims scientific just because some groups hold such positions. Public opinion, community norms, or any other form of democratic ‘vote’ does not make any particular claim scientifically true. As we will see, many scientists have been persecuted because of their scientific discoveries when these discoveries were hard for the public to believe. However, in no case has public outcry changed a single natural law!
The term "non-science" is not a derogatory label! It is simply a catchall category for all human activities excluding science. Many such activities and beliefs are critically important in our individual lives and in our society. Arts and humanities, for example, teach us what it means to be "human" and places into perspective our own emotions and passions about our role in the world in which we live. Religion for many provides a set of guidelines by which to live along spiritual lines according to each individual’s personal beliefs. Laws of society set a standard for "moral" behaviors that we, as a community of humans, find acceptable. These aspects of life are important to us all. Scientists, like any other segment of our society, have a wide range of moral and spiritual beliefs.
The Domain of Science
Fig. 1-1 illustrates graphically the domain of science. The oval represents the limits of our ability to observe natural things in the universe. Based on this, it becomes clear that a balanced life includes far more than science. Science, while important, is not the answer to all things.
The corollary to science having limits to what it can offer is that other areas of human thought also have their limits. To be truly scientifically literate requires, in my view, an understanding of the limits of spirituality, morality, and legality. None of these have the capacity to understand natural laws and processes in the universe with the proven effectiveness and reliability of science.
FIGURE 1-1—The Domain of Science
Essential Characteristics of Science, or How Can You Distinguish Science From Non-Science
Public confusion over just exactly what constitutes science has resulted in many court cases in which the debate centered on the question of whether or not a particular view or activity actually was or was not science. For example, the well-known psychic, Uri Geller, once sued the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) claiming that he was harmed by CSICOP’s articles that exposed Geller’s claims as being non-science. After a long period of litigation, Geller not only lost, but also was directed to pay CSICOP $100,000 in damages and for legal costs the society incurred during the court battle.
Another highly publicized case involved an Arkansas State law that required public schools to teach a non-science, religious belief about creation. This law was struck down for the same basic reason that Uri Geller lost his case against CSICOP, it just was not science. Judge Overton (1982) summarized the criteria of science that became apparent during the Arkansas trial as follows:
Any claim can be evaluated to see if it meets these criteria. If it does not meet one or more of these criteria then it is simply not science! Furthermore, a claim that is not science cannot be disproved! It is possible for me to assert that creation occurred at 10:00pm last night, and you will not be able to disprove it! I have borrowed this example from George O. Abel to challenge you to think about the nature of proof in science.
Think about my hypothetical assertion that the ‘creation’ occurred at 10:00pm last night. In the following blanks, write three points of evidence you could use to disprove my claim, before you read further.
1._________________________________________________________________________
2._________________________________________________________________________
3._________________________________________________________________________
Now that you have come up with some evidence, let me demonstrate how your evidence can be asserted away. I have used this exercise for many years in classes that I teach, so I will address some common types of evidence that have been presented by my students.
We have memories that extend into the past before 10:00pm last night. However, I can assert that these memories were created last night when the Earth was created! You may have pointed out that you have documents such as a birth certificate with dates prior to 10:00pm last night. However, I can assert that these documents where created last night along with our memories of such dates and everything else. You may have pointed out that places like the Grand Canyon had to have taken longer than a few hours to create because erosion and weathering are natural process that have proven to take millions of years to create such a canyon. However, I can assert that the Grand Canyon was created simply looking old.
The argument presented above can be described as an assertion "that the Earth is young but was created with the appearance of great age." In fact, this assertion is not science. Why? It violates every single criterion of science. Such claims are not based on natural law. They cannot be explained with reference to natural law. They are not testable and cannot be falsified. And finally, ‘true believers’ in a 10:00pm last night creation would not be open to modifying this time based on any scientific evidence that might be presented to them!
The assertion that the Earth was created a 10:00pm last night seems absurd. Yet, the logic required is exactly the same logic required to believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Irish Arch Bishop James Ussher in the 1600’s determined that according to his biblical interpretation the Earth was created in the year 4004BC. The scientific evidence is that the Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old. Yet there are some that claim that there is scientific evidence that supports Bishop Ussher’s date. This has never been substantiated; such claims have no scientific validity. Just as common sense tells us that the Earth was not created last night at 10:00pm, scientific evidence shows us that the Earth was not created a few thousand years ago. To accept either of these beliefs, a person must fall back on the assertion that the Earth was created "with the appearance of great age." Both beliefs are equally scientifically ludicrous!
Click on the image below to visit the web site of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
See if you can understand the logic and purpose of this seemly odd website. What do you think is their point? How does the information on that site relate to the material in the previous few paragraphs of our Notes on the Web?
Benefits of Science & The Importance of Protecting the Integrity of Science
Our understanding of all aspects of nature are derived from science-based knowledge. Recall that the term "nature" includes the entire physical universe. Thus, important aspects of our society like medicine, agriculture, technology, environmental biology, and other similar areas of human endeavor are based on scientific knowledge.
Have you ever had an illness? Have you been to a doctor for an illness? Have you taken medicine prescribed by a doctor that helped cure an illness? For most of us the answer to these questions is resounding "yes!" I have personally had a number of illnesses that most likely would have killed me had science not discovered antibiotics and other medicines that can cure formerly deadly human diseases.
A friend’s pet dog, Sadie, once bit me on the hand after the sweet but psychologically disturbed (in my view!) dog had rolled in a dead carcass. (By the way, my opinion on the "mental state" of Sadie had nothing to do with her rolling in the dead carcass! Dogs just seem to benefit from this behavior in some manner not clearly understandable to me.) Two or three days after the small bite occurred, I noticed a red streak running up my arm, evidence of blood poisoning. By the time I could get to the doctor the red streak of bacterial infection had reached my underarm, on its way toward my heart. Massive doses of antibiotics combated the infection and probably prevented my death.
The little finger on my left hand is a bit shorter than on my right hand. Never mind the details but suffice to say that the end of my little finger was smashed off with a rock! I went to the doctor who tried to sew the end back on. One day in my office at an environmental consulting firm in Austin, Texas, I noticed an odd rotten smell. I looked around the office to see if a mouse had died. I found nothing. Then I looked at the large bandage around my finger and took a whiff. It was my finger that was rotting! Gangrene had struck. I called my doctor who told me to meet him at the emergency room, immediately! When I arrived, he operated to remove the rotting tissue. This was followed by massive doses of antibiotics that prevented the reestablishment and spread of the gangrene. Once again, science and medical research saved my life.
In this age of science and technology, we often take for granted the ways scientific knowledge and applications of that knowledge have improved our lives. We cannot afford to become complacent about the importance of the scientific process. Give some thought to the positive effect science has produced in your own life. How would things be different for you if scientific processes were to be outlawed or compromised? How might our society and your life be different without science and technology?
We must protect the integrity of scientific processes in our society in order to continue to develop functional knowledge of nature. If any person or group claims to have scientific evidence for any particular view, then that "evidence" must withstand the scientific process. If the "evidence" in question does not meet the criteria of science or if the interpretation of that evidence is biased or illogical, then those views must be cast aside as being non-scientific. Part 2 of Unit One Notes on the Web explores the practical workings of science. Part 3 of Unit One Notes on the Web elaborates on and exposes the fallicies and dangers of false science (pseudoscience).
© 1999, 2005, 2007 Bruce G. Stewart Except for Link Images to Other Sites
| Back to Top | To Notes on the Web - Methods of Science |
| Biology Homepage |
 |
Back to sciencethinking.org |
| Zoology Homepage |
Last Updated: 25-Jul-2008 9:08 PM