The Nature of Scientific Investigation

Chances are you are not a scientist (or even know any scientists).  Yet we seem to rely on science so much to solve our many daily problems.  This can be seen in the medicines we take, the high tech gadgets we use, and even the food we eat.  Some people praise scientists for the lucrative lifestyle their technology produces.  Others mistrust scientists for the new problems that arise from their work.  Both views have valid points. There is very little doubt that science has yielded great benefits but also inflicted new dangers in our lives.  But most people should realize that "science" is only a process of learning.  It is entirely a different matter deciding how that knowledge is used and who uses it.   Let us try to separate these two different (important) aspects of science and concentrate on the former - the process of science.  Somewhere in high school you surely learned about (or heard the phrase) the "scientific method".    You probably got the impression that this is only something done by a nerd wearing a white jacket in some basement of a government-funded building.  No! It is probably something you did recently!  It is a common sense way of looking at something and trying to figure out "what gives???".

The Scientific Method

Suppose you were confronted with a problem or perhaps you observed something that puzzled you.  What would you do or how would you handle it?  If you were to think like a scientist .... you would have to be open to new ideas.  You must be willing to let go of traditions and "rules" which may have been handed down by authority and explore the possibility of a new way.  Most teenagers have no problem with this!!!! 

Example: Suppose you were a radio technician, and you kept getting radio static from your receiver.  Most technicians would spend countless hours trying to find flaws in the way the radio was put together.  But the technician who thinks like a scientist may explore the possibility that the radio is just fine ... there may be some kind of unknown radio signal hitting the antenna.

This is the next step ... offering an alternative idea to explain the problem.  This is known as a hypothesis.

So, if the radio is receiving signals that show up as static ... what is the source of these signals?  Are they coming from something local or from a distant place?  Is the signal stronger in one direction than another?

So now comes the crucial step: a test!  You set up your antenna and find it produces the same annoying static no matter which way you point it.  You get the same thing day and night.  You even go out of your way to eliminate all known sources of radio noise.   It will not go away.  The conclusion of the experiment:  The radio could be receiving radio signals (noise) from all directions at all times!  Does this prove that radio signals are coming from all directions at all times?  NO!  The radio could still be malfunctioning. 

If this is the way you would have approached the problem ... too late!  Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson received the Nobel Prize by providing the best evidence (in 1964) to support another idea that the universe started  in a Big Bang.

A closer look at the process

Science is a process of learning about the world around us.  It is based on the idea that everything in the universe works in ways that can be understood.  That is, events and changes we observe do so because the behavior of all matter and energy are guided by certain fundamental "laws".  The goal of science is to discover these "laws" and give understanding to the cause of events.  This understanding allows us to predict the future behavior of the universe.

It is an unbiased way of understanding nature because it can be reproduced by anyone inclined to refute its claims.  Because of the way science proceeded, it is always subject to scrutiny ... in science, nothing can be proved ... it can only be shown false.  Let's look at the finer points of the scientific method.
 

Once people thought that the sun (and all planets) went around a stationary Earth.  This was known as the geocentric hypothesis ... in fact, it was the longest held hypothesis in the history of science.  We all know that it is wrong!  Then Nicholas Copernicus (1543) postulated that Earth (and all planets) moves around a stationary sun (heliocentric hypothesis).  He offered no evidence to support his position but invoked Occam's Razor to say that this is the simplest explanation.  Can you offer any test to support the hypothesis of Copernicus?  The test came from Galileo.

Why do we bring up Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)?  Because he is known as the "Father of the Scientific Method".  Galileo challenged several "laws" proposed by the ancient Greeks.  One dealt with the natural way objects fell.  The Greeks (Aristotle) proposed that heavy objects fell fast ... light objects fall slower (ever drop a leaf?).  Galileo proposed that objects fall at the same rate (in a vacuum) and then performed experiments to test his idea.  He was the first to propose this method of investigation.
 

Strengths of the Scientific Method

The weaknesses of the scientific method are:

The steps outlined above are a general guide to the way science works.  On occasion, great discoveries are made by pure dumb luck.  These serendipitous discoveries, such as the discovery of X-Rays and many others, are examples of scientific "short cuts" and can be considered a bonus.  I made a short list here.

Why do we need to know all this?

It is important to understand the way science works.  It gives you an opportunity to see that science is a journey, not an answer.  This journey is filled with dead ends, rough roads, and many hills, but despite its flaws, it is a logical path to understanding the universe we live in.

 My goal for you is to:  

When you have finished this class, you will have a much better understanding about the world around you and, hopefully, acquire a sense of curiosity about things you still don't understand as well.
 
ŠJim Mihal 2004, 2014- all rights reserved