1

What is science?
The word “science” probably brings to mind many different pictures: a fat textbook,
white lab coats and microscopes, an astronomer peering through a telescope, a natu-
ralist in the rainforest, Einstein’s equations scribbled on a chalkboard, the launch of
the space shuttle, bubbling beakers …. All of those images reflect some aspect of sci-
ence, but none of them provides a full picture because science has so many facets:

These images all show an aspect of science, but a complete view of science is more than any particular
instance.

• Science is both a body of knowledge and a process. In school, science may

sometimes seem like a collection of isolated and static facts listed in a textbook,
but that’s only a small part of the story. Just as importantly, science is also a pro-
cess of discovery that allows us to link isolated facts into coherent and compre-
hensive understandings of the natural world.
• Science is exciting. Science is a way of discovering what’s in the universe and
how those things work today, how they worked in the past, and how they are like-
ly to work in the future. Scientists are motivated by the thrill of seeing or figuring
out something that no one has before.
• Science is useful. The knowledge generated by science is powerful and reliable.
It can be used to develop new technologies, treat diseases, and deal with many
other sorts of problems.
• Science is ongoing. Science is continually refining and expanding our knowledge
of the universe, and as it does, it leads to new questions for future investigation.
Science will never be “finished.”
• Science is a global human endeavor. People all over the world participate in
the process of science. And you can too!

Diver photo provided by OAR/National Undersea Research Program (NURP); lab photo courtesy of Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory; photo of geologists on volcano by J.D. Griggs; photo of scientist in corn field by Scott Bauer; image of Mars
rover courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech.

© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
 2

Discovery: The spark for science

“Eureka!” or “aha!” moments
may not happen frequently, but
they are often experiences that
drive science and scientists. For
a scientist, every day holds the
possibility of discovery—of com-
ing up with a brand new idea or
of observing something that no
one has ever seen before. Vast
bodies of knowledge have yet to be built and many of the most basic questions about
the universe have yet to be answered:
• What causes gravity?
• How do tectonic plates move around on Earth’s surface?
• How do our brains store memories?
• How do water molecules interact with each other?
We don’t know the complete answers to these and an overwhelming number of other
questions, but the prospect of answering them beckons science forward.

EVERYDAY SCIENCE QUESTIONS

Scientific questions can seem complex
(e.g., what chemical reactions allow cells
to break the bonds in sugar molecules),
but they don’t have to be. You’ve prob-
ably posed many perfectly valid scientific
questions yourself: how can airplanes fly,
why do cakes rise in the oven, why do ap-
ples turn brown once they’re cut? You can
discover the answers to many of these
“everyday” science questions in your lo-
cal library, but for others, science may not
have the answers yet, and answering such questions can lead to astonishing new
discoveries. For example, we still don’t know much about how your brain remem-
bers to buy milk at the grocery store. Just as we’re motivated to answer ques-
tions about our everyday experiences, scientists confront such questions at all
scales, including questions about the very nature of the universe.

Discoveries, new questions, and new ideas are what keep scientists going and
awake at night, but they are only one part of the picture; the rest involves a lot
of hard (and sometimes tedious) work. In science, discoveries and ideas must be
verified by multiple lines of evidence and then integrated into the rest of science,
a process which can take many years. And often, discoveries are not bolts from
the blue. A discovery may itself be the result of many years of work on a particu-
lar problem, as illustrated by Henrietta Leavitt’s stellar discovery …

Photo of Spiral Galaxy M81 provided by NASA, ESA, and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA); photo of water provided
by Andrew Davidhazy.

© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
 3

STELLAR SURPRISES
Astronomers had long known about the existence of variable
stars—stars whose brightness changes over time, slowly
shifting between brilliant and dim—when, in 1912, Henrietta
Leavitt announced a remarkable (and totally unanticipated)
discovery about them. For these stars, the length of time
between their brightest and dimmest points seemed to be
related to their overall brightness: slower cycling stars are
more luminous. At the time, no one knew why that was the
case, but nevertheless, the discovery allowed astronomers
Henrietta Leavitt to infer the distances to far-off stars, and hence, to figure
out the size of our own galaxy. Leavitt’s observation was a true surprise—a dis-
covery in the classic sense—but one that came only after she’d spent years care-
fully comparing thousands of photos of these specks of light, looking for patterns
in the darkness.

The process of scientific discovery is not limited to professional scientists working in

labs. The everyday experience of deducing that your car won’t start because of a bad
fuel pump, or of figuring out that the centipedes in your backyard prefer shady rocks
shares fundamental similarities with classically scientific discoveries like working out
DNA’s double helix. These activities all involve making observations and analyzing
evidence—and they all provide the satisfaction of finding an answer that makes sense
of all the facts. In fact, some psychologists argue that the way individual humans
learn (especially as children) bears a lot of similarity to the progress of science: both
involve making observations, considering evidence, testing ideas, and holding on to
those that work.

Photo of Henrietta Leavitt provided by the American Association of Variable Star Observers (AAVSO).

© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
 4

A science checklist
So what, exactly, is science? Well, science turns out to be difficult to define precisely.
(Philosophers have been arguing about it for decades!) The problem is that the term
“science” applies to a remarkably broad set of human endeavors, from developing la-
sers, to analyzing the factors that affect human decision-making.
To get a grasp on what science is, we’ll look at a checklist that summarizes key char-
acteristics of science and compare it to a prototypical case of science in action: Ernest
Rutherford’s investigation into the structure of the atom. Then, we’ll look at some oth-
er cases that are less “typical” examples of science to see how they measure up and
what characteristics they share.
This checklist provides a guide for what sorts of activities are encompassed by sci-
ence, but since the boundaries of science are not clearly defined, the list should not be
interpreted as all-or-nothing. Some of these characteristics are particularly important
to science (e.g., all of science must ultimately rely on evidence), but others are less
central. For example, some perfectly scientific investigations may run into a dead end
and not lead to ongoing research. Use this checklist as a reminder of the usual fea-
tures of science. If something doesn’t meet most of these characteristics, it shouldn’t
be treated as science.
Science asks questions about the
natural world
Science studies the natural world. This in-
cludes the components of the physical
universe around us like atoms, plants, eco-
systems, people, societies and galaxies, as
well as the natural forces at work on those
things. In contrast, science cannot study su-
pernatural forces and explanations. For ex-
ample, the idea that a supernatural afterlife
exists is not a part of science since this af-
terlife operates outside the rules that govern
the natural world.

Anything in the natural world—from exotic ecosystems to urban smog—can be

the subject of scientific inquiry.

Cococino National Forest photo by Gerald and Buff Corsi © California Academy of Sciences; Jupiter photo by NASA/JPL/
Space Science Institute; photo of smoggy skyline by EPA; fungus photo by Dr. Robert Thomas and Dorothy B. Orr ©
California Academy of Sciences.

© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
 5
Science can investigate all sorts of questions:
• When did the oldest rocks on earth form?
• Through what chemical reactions do fungi get energy from the nutrients they
absorb?
• What causes Jupiter’s red spot?
• How does smog move through the atmosphere?
Very few questions are off-limits in science—but the sorts of answers science can pro-
vide are limited. Science can only answer in terms of natural phenomena and natu-
ral processes. When we ask ourselves questions like, What is the meaning of life?
and Does the soul exist? we generally expect answers that are outside of the natural
world—and hence, outside of science.

A SCIENCE PROTOTYPE: RUTHERFORD

AND THE ATOM
In the early 1900s, Ernest Rutherford studied (among
other things) the organization of the atom—the fun-
damental particle of the natural world. Though atoms
cannot be seen with the naked eye, they can be studied
with the tools of science since they are part of the natu-
ral world.
Rutherford’s story continues as we examine each item
on the Science Checklist. To find out how this investiga-
tion measures up against the rest of the checklist, read
on.
Ernest Rutherford

Rutherford photo from the Library of Congress.

© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
 6

Science aims to explain and understand

Science as a collective institution aims to
produce more and more accurate natural ex-
planations of how the natural world works,
what its components are, and how the world
got to be the way it is now. Classically, sci-
ence’s main goal has been building knowl-
edge and understanding, regardless of its
potential applications—for example, investi-
gating the chemical reactions that an organic
compound undergoes in order to learn about
its structure. However, increasingly, scientific
research is undertaken with the explicit goal
of solving a problem or developing a technol-
ogy, and along the path to that goal, new
knowledge and explanations are constructed.
For example, a chemist might try to produce
an antimalarial drug synthetically and in the
process, discover new methods of forming
bonds that can be applied to making other chemicals. Either way (so-called “pure” or
“applied” research), science aims to increase our understanding of how the natural
world works.
The knowledge that is built by science is always open
to question and revision. No scientific idea is ever
once-and-for-all “proved.” Why not? Well, science is
constantly seeking new evidence, which could reveal
problems with our current understandings. Ideas that
we fully accept today may be rejected or modified in
light of new evidence discovered tomorrow. For exam-
A coelacanth
ple, up until 1938, paleontologists accepted the idea
that coelacanths (an ancient fish) went extinct at the time that they last appear in the
fossil record—about 80 million years ago. But that year, a live coelacanth was discov-
ered off the coast of South Africa, causing scientists to revise their ideas and begin to
investigate how this animal survives in the deep sea.
Despite the fact that they are subject to change, scientific ideas are reliable. The ideas
that have gained scientific acceptance have done so because they are supported by
many lines of evidence. These scientific explanations continually generate expecta-
tions that hold true, allowing us to figure out how entities in the natural world are like-
ly to behave (e.g., how likely it is that a child will inherit a particular genetic disease)
and how we can harness that understanding to solve problems (e.g., how electricity,
wire, glass, and various compounds can be fashioned into a working light bulb). For
example, scientific understandings of motion and gases allow us to build airplanes that
reliably get us from one airport to the next. Though the knowledge used to design air-
planes is technically provisional, time and time again, that knowledge has allowed us
to produce airplanes that fly. We have good reason to trust scientific ideas: they work!

© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
 7

A SCIENCE PROTOTYPE: RUTHERFORD AND THE ATOM

Ernest Rutherford’s investigations were aimed at understanding a small, but illu-
minating, corner of the natural world: the atom. He investigated this world using
alpha particles, which are helium atoms stripped of their electrons. Rutherford
had found that when a beam of these tiny, positively-charged alpha particles is
fired through gold foil, the particles don’t stay on their beeline course, but are de-
flected (or “scattered”) at different angles. Rutherford wanted to figure out what
this might tell him about the layout of an atom.

Rutherford’s story continues as we examine each item on the Science Checklist.

To find out how this investigation measures up against the rest of the checklist,
read on.

© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
 8

Science works with testable ideas

Only testable ideas are within the purview of
science. For an idea to be testable, it must
logically generate specific expectations—
in other words, a set of observations that
we could expect to make if the idea were
true and a set of observations that would
be inconsistent with the idea and lead you
to believe that it is not true. For example,
consider the idea that a sparrow’s song is
genetically encoded and is unaffected by the
environment in which it is raised, in com-
parison to the idea that a sparrow learns
the song it hears as a baby. Logical reason-
ing about this example leads to a specific
set of expectations. If the sparrow’s song
were indeed genetically encoded, we would
expect that a sparrow raised in the nest of
a different species would grow up to sing a
sparrow song like any other member of its own species. But if, instead, the sparrow’s
song were learned as a chick, raising a sparrow in the nest of another species should
produce a sparrow that sings a non-sparrow song. Because they generate different
expected observations, these ideas are testable. A scientific idea may require a lot of
reasoning to work out an appropriate test, may be difficult to test, may require the
development of new technological tools to test, or may require one to make indepen-
dently testable assumptions to test—but to be scientific, an idea must be testable,
somehow, someway.

If an explanation is equally compatible with all possible observations, then it is not

testable and hence, not within the reach of science. This is frequently the case with
ideas about supernatural entities. For example, consider the idea that an all-powerful
supernatural being controls our actions. Is there anything we could do to test that
idea? No. Because this supernatural being is all-powerful, anything we observe could

© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
 9
be chalked up to the whim of that being. Or not. The point is that we can’t use the
tools of science to gather any information about whether or not this being exists—so
such an idea is outside the realm of science.

A SCIENCE PROTOTYPE: RUTHERFORD AND THE ATOM

Before 1910, Ernest Rutherford and
many other scientists had the idea that
the positive charge and the mass of an
atom were evenly distributed through-
out the whole atom, with electrons
scattered throughout. You can imagine
this model of the atom as a loosely
packed snowball (the positive mass
of the atom) with a few tiny grains of
sand (the electrons) scattered through-
out. The idea that atoms are arranged
in this way can be tested by firing an
alpha particle beam through a piece of
gold foil. If the idea were correct, then
the positive mass in the gold foil would
be relatively diffuse (the loosely packed
snow) and would allow the alpha par-
ticles to pass through the foil with only minor scattering.
Rutherford’s story continues as we examine each item on the Science Checklist.
To find out how this investigation measures up against the rest of the checklist,
read on.

© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
 10

Science relies on evidence

Ultimately, scientific ideas must not only be
testable, but must actually be tested—prefer-
ably with many different lines of evidence by
many different people. This characteristic is
at the heart of all science. Scientists actively
seek evidence to test their ideas—even if
the test is difficult and means, for example,
spending years working on a single experi-
ment, traveling to Antarctica to measure car-
bon dioxide levels in an ice core, or collecting
DNA samples from thousands of volunteers
all over the world. Performing such tests is
so important to science because in science,
the acceptance or rejection of a scientific
idea depends upon the evidence relevant to
it—not upon dogma, popular opinion, or tra-
dition. In science, ideas that are not support-
ed by evidence are ultimately rejected. And
ideas that are protected from testing or are only allowed to be tested by one group
with a vested interest in the outcome are not a part of good science.

A SCIENCE PROTOTYPE: RUTHERFORD AND THE ATOM

Ernest Rutherford’s lab tested the idea that an atom’s positive mass is spread out
diffusely by firing an alpha particle beam through a piece of gold foil, but the evi-
dence resulting from that experiment was a complete surprise: most of the alpha
particles passed through the gold foil without changing direction much as expect-
ed, but some of the alpha particles came bouncing back in the opposite direction,
as though they had struck something dense and solid in the gold foil. If the gold
atoms were really like loosely packed snowballs, all of the alpha particles should
have passed through the foil, but they did not!
From this evidence, Rutherford con-
cluded that their snowball model of
the atom had been incorrect, even
though it was popular with many
other scientists. Instead, the evidence
suggested that an atom is mostly
empty space and that its positive
charge is concentrated in a dense
mass at its core, forming a nucleus.
When the positively charged alpha
particles were fired at the gold foil,
most of them passed through the
empty space of the gold atoms with
little deflection, but a few of them
ran smack into the dense, positively
charged nucleus of a gold atom and
were repelled straight back (like what
would happen if you tried to make the
north poles of two strong magnets touch). The idea that atoms have positively
charged nuclei was also testable. Many independent experiments were performed
by other researchers to see if the idea fit with other experimental results.
Rutherford’s story continues as we examine each item on the Science Checklist.
To find out how this investigation measures up against the rest of the checklist,
read on.

© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
 11

Science is embedded in the scientific

community
The progress of science depends on interac-
tions within the scientific community—that is,
the community of people and organizations
that generate scientific ideas, test those
ideas, publish scientific journals, organize
conferences, train scientists, distribute re-
search funds, etc. This scientific community
provides the cumulative knowledge base that
allows science to build on itself. It is also re-
sponsible for the further testing and scrutiny
of ideas and for performing checks and bal-
ances on the work of community members.
In addition, much scientific research is col-
laborative, with different people bringing
their specialized knowledge to bear on differ-
ent aspects of the problem. For example, a
2006 journal article on regional variations in
the human genome was the result of a collaboration between 43 people from the U.K.,
Japan, the U.S., Canada, and Spain! Even Charles Darwin, who initially investigated
the idea of evolution through natural selection while living almost as a hermit at his
country estate, kept up a lively correspondence with his peers, sending and receiving
numerous letters dealing with his ideas and the evidence relevant to them.
In rare cases, scientists do actually
work in isolation. Gregor Mendel, for
example, figured out the basic principles
of genetic inheritance as a secluded
monk with very little scientific inter-
action. However, even in such cases,
research must ultimately involve the
scientific community if that work is to
have any impact on the progress of sci-
ence. In Mendel’s case, the ultimate
involvement of the scientific community
through his published work was criti-
cal because it allowed other scientists
to evaluate those ideas independently,
investigate new lines of evidence, and
develop extensions of his ideas. This
community process may be chaotic and
slow, but it is also crucial to the prog-
ress of science.
Scientists sometimes work alone and sometimes work
together, but communication within the scientific
community is always important.

© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
 12

A SCIENCE PROTOTYPE: RUTHERFORD AND THE ATOM

Though Ernest Rutherford came up with
the idea that atoms have positively
charged nuclei, the research that led to
this idea was a collaborative effort: Ruth-
erford was assisted by Hans Geiger, and
the critical alpha-scattering experiment
was actually carried out by Ernest Mars-
den, an undergraduate student working in
Rutherford’s lab.
Furthermore, after his discovery of the Ernest Rutherford (right) and Hans Geiger
layout of the atom, Rutherford published in the physics laboratory at Manchester
a description of the idea and the relevant University, England, circa 1912. Permission
evidence, releasing it to the scientific of the Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington,
New Zealand, must be obtained before any
community for scrutiny and evaluation. re-use of this image. Reference number:
And scrutinize they did. Niels Bohr no- PAColl-0091-1-011.
ticed a problem with Rutherford’s idea:
there was nothing keeping the orbiting electrons from spiraling into the nucleus
of the atom, causing the whole thing to collapse! Bohr modified Rutherford’s basic
model by proposing that electrons had set energy levels, which helped solve the
problem and earned Bohr a Nobel Prize. Since then, many other scientists have
built on and modified Bohr’s model.

Lithium atoms, diagrammed in the Rutherford

and Bohr models. Rutherford’s model does not
differentiate between any of the electrons, while
Bohr’s places electrons into orbits with set energy
levels.
Rutherford’s story continues as we examine each item on the Science Checklist.
To find out how this investigation measures up against the rest of the checklist,
read on.

© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
 13

Scientific ideas lead to ongoing research

Science is an ongoing endeavor. It did not
end with the most recent edition of your col-
lege physics textbook and will not end even
once we know the answers to big questions,
such as how our 20,000 genes interact to
build a human being or what dark matter is.
So long as there are unexplored and unex-
plained parts of the natural world, science
will continue to investigate them.
Most typically in science, answering one
question inspires deeper and more detailed
questions for further research. Similarly,
coming up with a fruitful idea to explain a
previously anomalous observation frequently
leads to new expectations and areas of re-
search. So, in a sense, the more we know,
the more we know what we don’t yet know.
As our knowledge expands, so too does our awareness of what we don’t yet under-
stand. For example, James Watson and Francis Crick’s proposal that DNA takes the
form of a double helix helped answer a burning question in biology about the chemi-
cal structure of DNA. And while it helped answer one question, it also generated
new expectations (e.g., that DNA is copied via base pairing), raised many new ques-
tions (e.g., how does DNA store information?), and contributed to whole new fields
of research (e.g., genetic engineering). Like Watson and Crick’s work, most scien-
tific research generates new expectations, inspires new questions, and leads to new
discoveries.

A SCIENCE PROTOTYPE: RUTHERFORD AND THE ATOM

Niels Bohr built upon Ernest Rutherford’s work to develop
the model of the atom most commonly portrayed in text-
books: a nucleus orbited by electrons at different levels.
Despite the new questions it raised (e.g., how do orbiting
electrons avoid violating the rules of electricity and mag-
netism when they don’t spiral into the nucleus?), this
model was powerful and, with further modification, led to
a wide range of accurate predictions and new discover-
ies: from predicting the outcome of chemical reactions,
to determining the composition of distant stars, to con-
Niels Bohr ceiving of the atomic bomb.
Rutherford’s story continues as we examine each item on the Science Checklist.
To find out how this investigation measures up to the last item of the checklist,
read on.

© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
 14

Participants in science behave scientifically

Science is sometimes misconstrued as an
elite endeavor in which one has to be a
member of “the club” in order to be taken
seriously. That’s a bit misleading. In fact, sci-
ence is now open to anyone (regardless of
age, gender, religious commitment, physical
ability, ethnicity, country of origin, political
views, nearsightedness, favorite ice cream
flavor—whatever!) and benefits tremendous-
ly from the expanding diversity of perspec-
tives offered by its participants. However,
science only works because the people in-
volved with it behave “scientifically”—that is,
behave in ways that push science forward.

But what exactly does one have to do to behave scientifically? Here is a scientist’s
code of conduct:
1) Pay attention to what other people have already done. Scientific knowledge
is built cumulatively. If you want to discover exciting new things, you need to
know what people have already discovered before you. This means that scientists
study their fields extensively to understand the current state of knowledge.
2) Expose your ideas to testing. Strive to describe and perform the tests that
might suggest you are wrong and/or allow others to do so. This may seem like
shooting yourself in the foot but is critical to the progress of science. Science
aims to accurately understand the world, and if ideas are protected from testing,
it’s impossible to figure out if they are accurate or inaccurate!
3) Assimilate the evidence. Evidence is the ultimate arbiter of scientific
ideas. Scientists are not free to ignore evidence. When faced with evidence

© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
 15
contradicting his or her idea, a scientist may suspend judgment on that idea
pending more tests, may revise or reject the idea, or may consider alternate
ways to explain the evidence, but ultimately, scientific ideas are sustained by evi-
dence and cannot be propped up if the evidence tears them down.
4) Openly communicate ideas and tests to others. Communication is important
for many reasons. If a scientist keeps knowledge to her- or himself, others can-
not build upon those ideas, double-check the work, or devise new ways to test
the ideas.
5) Play fair: Act with scientific integrity. Hiding evidence, selectively reporting
evidence, and faking data directly thwart science’s main goal—to construct ac-
curate knowledge about the natural world. Hence, maintaining high standards of
honesty, integrity, and objectivity is critical to science.

A SCIENCE PROTOTYPE: RUTHERFORD AND THE ATOM

Ernest Rutherford and his colleagues acted in ways that moved science forward:
• They understood the relevant knowledge in their field. Rutherford had
studied physics for more than 20 years when he proposed the idea of the
nucleus.
• They exposed their ideas to testing. Even though his original view of the
atom suggested that no backscattering should occur, Rutherford decided to
look for backscattered alpha particles anyway, just to be thorough.
• They assimilated the evidence. When their experimental results did not sup-
port the “snowball” model of the atom, instead of writing those results off as
an anomaly, they modified their original ideas in light of the new evidence.
• They openly communicated their ideas so that other physicists could test
them as well. Rutherford published the experimental results, a description of
his reasoning, and the idea of the nucleus in 1911 in a scientific journal.
• They acted with scientific integrity. In his paper on the topic, Rutherford as-
signed credit fairly (citing the contributions of his colleagues, Geiger and
Marsden) and reported his results honestly—even when experimental results
and his theoretical calculations did not match up perfectly.
The scientists involved with this investigation lived up to the five points in the sci-
entist’s code of conduct. In this way—and judging by the other items on the Sci-
ence Checklist—this investigation of atomic structure is well within the purview of
science.

© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
 16

Beyond physics, chemistry, and biology

We’ve seen that scientific research generally
meets a set of key characteristics: it focuses
on improving our understanding of the natu-
ral world, works with testable ideas that can
be verified with evidence, relies on the scien-
tific community, inspires ongoing research,
and is performed by people who behave
scientifically. While not all scientific inves-
tigations line up perfectly with the Science
Checklist, science, as an endeavor, strives
to embody these features. Ernest Ruther-
ford’s discovery of the atomic nucleus, for
example, satisfied those characteristics quite
neatly. But how would a less stereotypically
“scientific” investigation—one that wouldn’t
show up in a high school science textbook—
measure up against the Science Checklist?
To find out, we’ll look at an example from the
field of psychology …
Beyond the prototype: Animal psychology
Most of us have probably wondered how other animals think and experience the world
(e.g, is Fido really happy to see me or does he just want a treat?)—but can that cu-
riosity be satisfied by science? After all, how could we ever test an idea about how
another animal thinks? In the 1940s, psychologist Edward Tolman investigated a re-
lated question using the methods of science. He wanted to know how rats success-
fully navigate their surroundings—for example, a maze containing a hidden reward.
Tolman suspected that rats would build mental maps of the maze as they investigated
it (forming a mental picture of the layout of the maze), but many of his colleagues
thought that rats would learn to navigate the maze through stimulus-response, asso-
ciating particular cues with particular outcomes (e.g., taking this tunnel means I get a
piece of cheese) without forming any big picture of the maze.

Here’s how Tolman’s investigation measures up against our checklist:

Natural world?
The brains of rats and their workings are a part of the natural world, as is the behav-
ior of rats.
Aims to explain?
Tolman aimed to explain how rats navigate their surroundings.
Testable ideas?
The two ideas about how rats navigate (mental maps vs. stimulus-response) are
testable, but figuring out how to test them required some clever and logical thinking
about experimental design. To test these ideas, Tolman and his colleagues trained rats
in a maze which offered them many different tunnels to enter first. One of the tunnels

© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
 17

twisted and turned but consistently led to the reward, and the rats quickly learned to
go down that tunnel. Then the experimenters blocked the entrance to the reward tun-
nel. What would the rats do? Tolman reasoned that if the rats were navigating with a
mental map, they would pick another tunnel that, according to their mental map of
the maze, led in the direction of the food. But if the rats were navigating via stimulus-
response, Tolman reasoned that they would choose the tunnel closest to the original
reward tunnel, regardless of where it led, since that was closest to the stimulus with
the pay-off.
Relies on evidence?
Tolman and his colleagues tested the mental map idea with several experiments, in-
cluding the tunnel experiment described above. In that experiment, they found that
most of the rats picked a tunnel that led in the direction of the food, instead of one
close to the original reward tunnel. The evidence supported the idea that rats navigate
using something like a mental map.

© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
 18
Scientific community?
Tolman published many papers on this topic in scientific journals in order to explain
his experiments and the evidence relevant to them to other psychologists.
Ongoing research?
This research is a small part of a much larger body of ongoing psychological research
about how organisms learn and make decisions based on their representations of the
world.
Scientific behavior?
Edward Tolman and his colleagues acted with scientific integrity and behaved in ways
that push science forward. They accurately reported their results and allowed others
to test their ideas.

© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
 19

Science in disguise
Our Science Checklist fits well with a wide range of investiga-
tions—from developing an Alzheimer’s drug, to dissecting the
structure of atoms, to probing the neurology of human emo-
tion. Even endeavors far from one’s typical picture of science,
like figuring out how best to teach English as a second lan-
guage or examining the impact of a government deficit on the
economy, can be addressed by science.
Disguised as science

Teaching is an example of However, other human endeavors, which might at first seem
a challenge that can be like science, are actually not very much like science at all. For
addressed by science. example, the Intelligent Design movement promotes the idea
that many aspects of life are too complex to have evolved
without the intervention of an intelligent cause—assumed by most proponents to be a
supernatural being, like God. Promoters of this idea are interested in explaining what
we observe in the natural world (the features of living things), which does align well
with the aims of science. However, because Intelligent Design relies on the action of
an unspecified “intelligent cause,” it is not a testable idea. Furthermore, the move-
ment itself has several other characteristics that reveal it to be non-science.
Western astrology aims to explain and predict events on Earth in terms of the posi-
tions of the sun, planets, and constellations; hence, like science, astrology focuses on
explaining the natural world. However, in many other ways, astrology is not much like
science at all.

Western astrology is not science.

© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
 20

Science has limits: A few things that

science does not do
Science is powerful. It has generated the knowledge that allows us to call a friend
halfway around the world with a cell phone, vaccinate a baby against polio, build a
skyscraper, and drive a car. And science helps us answer important questions like
which areas might be hit by a tsunami after an earthquake, how did the hole in the
ozone layer form, how can we protect our crops from pests, and who were our evolu-
tionary ancestors? With such breadth, the reach of science might seem to be endless,
but it is not. Science has definite limits.
Science doesn’t make moral judgments
When is euthanasia the right thing to do?
What universal rights should humans have?
Should other animals have rights? Ques-
tions like these are important, but scientific
research will not answer them. Science can
help us learn about terminal illnesses and
the history of human and animal rights—
and that knowledge can inform our opinions and decisions. But ultimately, individual
people must make moral judgments. Science helps us describe how the world is, but it
cannot make any judgments about whether that state of affairs is right, wrong, good,
or bad.
Science doesn’t make aesthetic
judgments
Science can reveal the frequency of a
G-flat and how our eyes relay informa-
tion about color to our brains, but sci-
ence cannot tell us whether a Beethoven
symphony, a Kabuki performance, or a
Jackson Pollock painting is beautiful or
dreadful. Individuals make those decisions for themselves based on their own aes-
thetic criteria.
Science doesn’t tell you how to use sci-
entific knowledge
Although scientists often care deeply about
how their discoveries are used, science itself
doesn’t indicate what should be done with
scientific knowledge. Science, for example,
can tell you how to recombine DNA in new
ways, but it doesn’t specify whether you
should use that knowledge to correct a genetic disease, develop a bruise-resistant
apple, or construct a new bacterium. For almost any important scientific advance, one
can imagine both positive and negative ways that knowledge could be used. Again,
science helps us describe how the world is, and then we have to decide how to use
that knowledge.
Science doesn’t draw conclusions
about supernatural explanations
Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities
intervene in human affairs? These ques-
tions may be important, but science won’t
help you answer them. Questions that deal
with supernatural explanations are, by
definition, beyond the realm of nature—
and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such

© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
 21
questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality.
Moral judgments, aesthetic judgments, decisions about applications of science, and
conclusions about the supernatural are outside the realm of science, but that doesn’t
mean that these realms are unimportant. In fact, domains such as ethics, aesthetics,
and religion fundamentally influence human societies and how those societies interact
with science. Neither are such domains unscholarly. In fact, topics like aesthetics, mo-
rality, and theology are actively studied by philosophers, historians, and other schol-
ars. However, questions that arise within these domains generally cannot be resolved
by science.

© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
 22

Science in sum
In this section, we’ve seen that, though
hard to define concisely, science has a
handful of key features that set it apart
from other areas of human knowledge.
However, the net cast by science is wide.
The Science Checklist matches up to a
diverse set of human endeavors—from un-
covering the fundamental particles of the
universe, to studying the mating behavior
of lobsters, to investigating the effects of
different economic policies. We’ve also
seen that science has limits: some ques-
tions that are an important part of the hu-
man experience are not answerable within
the context of science.
So science isn’t everything, but it is impor-
tant. Science helps us construct knowledge
about the natural world—knowledge that
can then be harnessed to improve our lives and solve problems. How does science do
it? To find out, read on …

© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
Christine V. McLelland
GSA Distinguished Earth Science Educator
in Residence
 Reviewers and Contributors:

Gary B. Lewis
Director, Education and Outreach,
Geological Society of America

Contributing GSA Education

Committee members:

Rob Van der Voo

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Keith A. Sverdrup
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wis.
Mary M. Riestenberg
College of Mount Saint Joseph, Cincinnati, Ohio
Virginia L. Peterson
Grand Valley State University, Allendale, Mich.
Wendi J.W. Williams
University of Arkansas, Little Rock, Ark.
Sandra Rutherford
Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, Mich.
Larissa Grawe DeSantis
University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla.
Aida Awad
Des Plaines, Ill.
Stephen R. Mattox
Grand Valley State University, Allendale, Mich.
Steve Boyer
Tacoma, Wash.
Jo Laird
University of New Hampshire, Durham, N.H.

Cover image: A basalt dike cuts through rocks of Permain age on Wasp Head, NSW Australia. Photo by Gary B. Lewis.
 Table of Contents

What is Science? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Scientific Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Fact: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Hypothesis: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Scientific Theory (or Law): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Science Through the Recent Ages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Scientific Method and Earth Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Talking Points about Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

On the Nature of Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
On Evolution, Creation Science,
and Intelligent Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Bibliography and Additional Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

iii
 Nature of Science and the Scientific Method
“The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.”
—Albert Einstein

What is Science? false is not amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations

that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not a part of sci-
Science is a methodical approach to studying the natural ence (National Academy of Sciences, 1998).
world. Science asks basic questions, such as how does the world Science is, however, a human endeavor and is subject to
work? How did the world come to be? What was the world like personal prejudices, misapprehensions, and bias. Over time,
in the past, what is it like now, and what will it be like in the however, repeated reproduction and verification of observations
future? These questions are answered using observation, test- and experimental results can overcome these weaknesses. That
ing, and interpretation through logic. is one of the strengths of the scientific process.
Most scientists would not say that science leads to an Scientific knowledge is based on some assumptions (after
understanding of the truth. Science is a determination of what is Nickels, 1998), such as
most likely to be correct at the current time with the evidence at • The world is REAL; it exists apart from our sensory per-
our disposal. Scientific explanations can be inferred from con- ception of it.
firmable data only, and observations and experiments must be • Humans can accurately perceive and attempt to under-
reproducible and verifiable by other individuals. In other words, stand the physical universe.
good science is based on information that can be measured or • Natural processes are sufficient to explain or account
seen and verified by other scientists. for natural phenomena or events. In other words, scien-
The scientific method, it could be said, is a way of learning tists must explain the natural in terms of the natural (and
or a process of using comparative critical thinking. Things that not the supernatural, which, lacking any independent
are not testable or falsifiable in some scientific or mathematical evidence, is not falsifiable and therefore not science),
way, now or in the future, are not considered science. Falsifi- although humans may not currently recognize what those
ability is the principle that a proposition or theory cannot be sci- processes are.
entific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false. • By the nature of human mental processing, rooted in
Science takes the whole universe and any and all phenomena in previous experiences, our perceptions may be inaccu-
the natural world under its purview, limited only by what is fea- rate or biased.
sible to study given our current physical and fiscal limitations. • Scientific explanations are limited. Scientific knowledge
Anything that cannot be observed or measured or shown to be is necessarily contingent knowledge rather than abso-
lute, and therefore must be evaluated and assessed, and
is subject to modification in light of new evidence. It is
impossible to know if we have thought of every possible
alternative explanation or every variable, and technology
may be limited.
• Scientific explanations are probabilistic. The statistical
view of nature is evident implicitly or explicitly when
stating scientific predictions of phenomena or explaining
the likelihood of events in actual situations.
As stated in the National Science Education Standards for
the Nature of Science:

Scientists formulate and test their explanations of nature using

observation, experiments, and theoretical and mathematical
models. Although all scientific ideas are tentative and subject
to change and improvement in principle, for most major ideas
in science, there is much experimental and observational con-
firmation. Those ideas are not likely to change greatly in the
future. Scientists do and have changed their ideas about nature
when they encounter new experimental evidence that does not
match their existing explanations. (NSES, 1996, p. 171)
Layers rocks making up the walls of the Grand Canyon.

1
 The Nature of Science and the Scientific Method 2

The Standards for Science Teacher Preparation correctly elements that are applicable to most experimental sciences,
state that such as physics and chemistry, and is taught to students to aid
their understanding of science.
Understanding of the nature of science—the goals, values and That being said, it is most important that students realize
assumptions inherent in the development and interpretation of that the scientific method is a form of critical thinking that will
scientific knowledge (Lederman, 1992)—has been an objective
of science instruction since at least the turn of the last century. be subjected to review and independent duplication in order to
It is regarded in contemporary documents as a fundamental reduce the degree of uncertainty. The scientific method may
attribute of science literacy and a defense against unquestioning include some or all of the following “steps” in one form or
acceptance of pseudoscience and of reported research. Knowl- another: observation, defining a question or problem, research
edge of the nature of science can enable individuals to make (planning, evaluating current evidence), forming a hypothesis,
more informed decisions with respect to scientifically based
issues; promote students’ in-depth understandings of “tradi- prediction from the hypothesis (deductive reasoning), experi-
tional” science subject matter; and help them distinguish sci- mentation (testing the hypothesis), evaluation and analysis,
ence from other ways of knowing… peer review and evaluation, and publication.

Research clearly shows most students and teachers do not Observation

adequately understand the nature of science. For example,
most teachers and students believe that all scientific investiga-
tions adhere to an identical set of steps known as the scientific The first process in the scientific method involves the
method, and that theories are simply immature laws. Even when observation of a phenomenon, event, or “problem.” The dis-
teachers understand and support the need to include the nature covery of such a phenomenon may occur due to an interest on
of science in their instruction, they do not always do so. Instead the observer’s part, a suggestion or assignment, or it may be
they may rely upon the false assumption that doing inquiry leads an annoyance that one wishes to resolve. The discovery may
to understanding of science. Explicit instruction is needed both
to prepare teachers and to lead students to understand the nature even be by chance, although it is likely the observer would be
of science. (NSTA, 2003, and references therein, p. 16) in the right frame of mind to make the observation. It is said
that as a boy, Albert Einstein wanted to know what it would be
like to ride a light beam, and this curious desire stuck with him
Scientific Method throughout his education and eventually led to his incredible
theories of electromagnetism.
Throughout the past millennium, there has been a real-
ization by leading thinkers that the acquisition of knowledge Question
can be performed in such a way as to minimize inconsistent
conclusions. Rene Descartes established the framework of the Observation leads to a question that needs to be answered
scientific method in 1619, and his first step is seen as a guiding to satisfy human curiosity about the observation, such as why or
principle for many in the field of science today: how this event happened or what it is like (as in the light beam).
In order to develop this question, observation may involve tak-
…never to accept anything for true which I did not clearly know ing measures to quantify it in order to better describe it. Scien-
to be such; that is to say, carefully to avoid precipitancy and tific questions need to be answerable and lead to the formation
prejudice, and to compromise nothing more in my judgment
than what was presented to my mind so clearly and distinctly of a hypothesis about the problem.
as to exclude all ground of methodic doubt. (Discours de la
Méthode, 1637, section I, 120) Hypothesis

By sticking to certain accepted “rules of reasoning,” scien- To answer a question, a hypothesis will be formed. This is
tific method helps to minimize influence on results by personal, an educated guess regarding the question’s answer. Educated
social, or unreasonable influences. Thus, science is seen as a is highlighted because no good hypothesis can be developed
pathway to study phenomena in the world, based upon repro- without research into the problem. Hypothesis development
ducibly testable and verifiable evidence. This pathway may take depends upon a careful characterization of the subject of the
different forms; in fact, creative flexibility is essential to scien- investigation. Literature on the subject must be researched,
tific thinking, so there is no single method that all scientists use, which is made all the easier these days by the Internet (although
but each must ultimately have a conclusion that is testable and sources must be verified; preferably, a library data base should
falsifiable; otherwise, it is not science. be used). Sometimes numerous working hypotheses may be
The scientific method in actuality isn’t a set sequence of used for a single subject, as long as research indicates they are
procedures that must happen, although it is sometimes pre- all applicable. Hypotheses are generally consistent with exist-
sented as such. Some descriptions actually list and number ing knowledge and are conducive to further inquiry.
three to fourteen procedural steps. No matter how many steps A scientific hypothesis has to be testable and also has to be
it has or what they cover, the scientific method does contain falsifiable. In other words, there must be a way to try to make
3 The Nature of Science and the Scientific Method

The Pineal Gland and the “Melatonin

Hypothesis,” 1959–1974, from public file
“Profiles in Science, National Library of
Medicine.”

the hypothesis fail. Science is often more about proving a sci- a reaction). There should be no other variables in the experi-
entific statement wrong rather than right. If it does fail, another ment that may affect the dependent variable.
hypothesis may be tested, usually one that has taken into con- One thing is clear about the requirement of the testability
sideration the fact that the last tested hypothesis failed. of hypotheses: it must exclude supernatural explanations. If the
One fascinating aspect is that hypotheses may fail at one supernatural is defined as events or phenomena that cannot be
time but be proven correct at a later date (usually with more perceived by natural or empirical senses, then they do not fol-
advanced technology). For example, Alfred Wegener’s idea that low any natural rules or regularities and so cannot be scientifi-
the continents have drifted apart from each other was deemed cally tested. It would be difficult to test the speed of angels or
impossible because of what was known in the early 1900s about the density of ghosts when they are not available in the natural
the composition of the continental crust and the oceanic crust. world for scientific testing, although certainly people have tried
Geophysics indicated the brittle, lighter continents could not drift to determine if such entities are real and testable, and it cannot
or be pushed through dense ocean crust. Years later, it was shown be precluded that someday technology may exist that can test
that one aspect of Wegener’s idea, that the continents were once certain “supernatural” phenomenon.
together, was most likely correct (although not as separate units
but as part of a larger plate). These plates didn’t, however, have to Experiment
plow through ocean crust. Instead, magma appears to have arisen
between them and formed new oceanic crust while the plates car- Once the hypothesis has been established, it is time to test
rying the continents diverged on either side The exact mechanism it. The process of experimentation is what sets science apart
of how the plates were pushed apart from the rising magma, or from other disciplines, and it leads to discoveries every day.
were pulled apart, allowing magma to rise between them, or a An experiment is designed to prove or disprove the hypoth-
combination of both, is still not completely understood. esis. If your prediction is correct, you will not be able to reject
The hypothesis should also contain a prediction about the hypothesis.
its verifiability. For example, if the hypothesis is true, The average layperson may think of the above kind of pic-
then (1) should happen when (2) is manipulated. ture when thinking of science experiments. This may be true
The first blank (1) is the dependent variable (it depends in some disciplines, but not all. Einstein relied on mathematics
on what you are doing in the second blank) and the second to “predict” his hypotheses on the nature of space and time in
blank (2) is the independent variable (you manipulate it to get the universe. His hypotheses had specific physical predictions
 The Nature of Science and the Scientific Method 4

about space-time, which were shown to be accurate sometimes journals, and in truth, many scientific papers submitted to
years later with developing technology. peer-reviewed journals are rejected. The evaluation process in
Testing and experimentation can occur in the laboratory, in science truly makes it necessary for scientists to be accurate,
the field, on the blackboard, or the computer. Results of testing innovative, and comprehensive.
must be reproducible and verifiable. The data should be avail- To better understand the nature of scientific laws or theo-
able to determine if the interpretations are unbiased and free ries, make sure students understand the following definitions.
from prejudice.
As the National Science Education Standards state: Definitions
In areas where active research is being pursued and in which Fact: 1. A confirmed or agreed-upon empirical observa-
there is not a great deal of experimental or observational evi- tion or conclusion. 2. Knowledge or information based on real
dence and understanding, it is normal for scientists to differ with
one another about the interpretation of the evidence or theory occurrences: an account based on fact. 3. a. Something demon-
being considered. Different scientists might publish conflicting strated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering
experimental results or might draw different conclusions from is now a fact. That Einstein was a real person is an undisputed
the same data. Ideally, scientists acknowledge such conflict and fact. b. A real occurrence; an event.
work towards finding evidence that will resolve their disagree- Hypothesis: An educated proposal to explain certain facts;
ment. (NSES, 1996, p. 171)
a tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or sci-
entific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
It is interesting that other scientists may start their own Scientific Theory (or Law): An integrated, comprehen-
research and enter the process of one scientist’s work at any sive explanation of many “facts,” especially one that has been
stage. They might formulate their own hypothesis, or they might repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make
adopt the original hypothesis and deduce their own predictions. predictions about natural phenomena. A theory can often gener-
Often, experiments are not done by the person who made the ate additional hypotheses and testable predictions. Theories can
prediction, and the characterization is based on investigations incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses.
done by someone else. Published results can also serve as a Unfortunately, the common/non-scientific definition for
hypothesis predicting the reproducibility of those results. theory is quite different, and is more typically thought of as a
belief that can guide behavior. Some examples: “His speech
Evaluation was based on the theory that people hear only what they want
to know” or “It’s just a theory.” Because of the nature of this
All evidence and conclusions must be analyzed to make definition, some people wrongly assume scientific theories are
sure bias or inadequate effort did not lead to incorrect conclu- speculative, unsupported, or easily cast aside, which is very far
sions. Qualitative and quantitative mathematical analysis may from the truth. A scientific hypothesis that survives extensive
also be applied. Scientific explanations should always be made experimental testing without being shown to be false becomes a
public, either in print or presented at scientific meetings. It scientific theory. Accepted scientific theories also produce test-
should also be maintained that scientific explanations are tenta- able predictions that are successful.
tive and subject to modification.
Again, the National Science Education Standards state:

It is part of scientific inquiry to evaluate the results of scientific

investigations, experiments, observations, theoretical models,
and the explanations proposed by other scientists. Evaluation
includes reviewing the experimental procedures, examining the
evidence, identifying faulty reasoning, pointing out statements
that go beyond the evidence, and suggesting alternative expla-
nations for the same observations. Although scientists may dis-
agree about explanations of phenomena, about interpretations
of data, or about the value of rival theories, they do agree that
questioning, response to criticism, and open communication
are integral to the process of science. As scientific knowledge
evolves, major disagreements are eventually resolved through
such interactions between scientists. (NSES, 1996, p. 171)

Thus, evaluation is integral to the process of scientific

method. One cannot overemphasize the importance of peer-
review to science, and the vigor with which it is carried out. Fossil Lab at John Day Fossil Beds National Monument. Photo courtesy
Full-blown academic battles have been wagged in scientific of National Park Service.
5 The Nature of Science and the Scientific Method

Theories are powerful tools (National Science Teachers niques that were scientific in nature. Science has its historical
Association, The Teaching of Evolution Position Statement): roots in two primary sources: the technical tradition, in which
practical experiences and skills were passed down and devel-
Scientists seek to develop theories that oped from one generation to another; and the spiritual tradition,
• are firmly grounded in and based upon evidence; in which human aspirations and ideas were passed on and aug-
• are logically consistent with other well-established principles;
• explain more than rival theories; and mented (Mason, 1962). Observations of the natural world and
• have the potential to lead to new knowledge. their application to daily activities assuredly helped the human
race survive from the earliest times. In western society, it was
Scientific theories are falsifiable and can be reevaluated or not until the Middle Ages, however, that the two converged into
expanded based on new evidence. This is particularly important a more pragmatic method that produced results with both tech-
in concepts that involve past events, which cannot be tested. nical and philosophical implications.
Take, for example, the Big Bang Theory or the Theory of Bio- An excellent example of the development of science and the
logical Evolution as it pertains to the past; both are theories that scientific method is the demise of the geocentric view of the solar
explain all of the facts so far gathered from the past, but cannot system. Although it strongly appears to the naked eye that the sun
be verified as absolute truth, since we cannot go back to test and moon go around Earth (geocentric), even ancient astral observ-
them. More and more data will be gathered on each to either ers noted that stars moved in a different yearly pattern, and certain
support or disprove them. The key force for change in a theory planets or “wanderers” had even stranger movements in the night
is, of course, the scientific method. sky. In the 16th and 17th centuries, observers began to make more
A scientific law, said Karl Popper, the famous 20th century detailed observations of the movements of the stars and planets,
philosopher, is one that can be proved wrong, like “the sun always made increasingly complex with the aide of the newly invented
rises in the east.” According to Popper, a law of science can never telescope. Galileo improved the telescope enough to observe the
be proved; it can only be used to make a prediction that can be phases of Venus as seen from Earth. With the application of mathe-
tested, with the possibility of being proved wrong. For example, matics to their precise measurements, it became obvious to astron-
as the renowned biologist J.B.S. Haldane replied when asked what omers like Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo that the planets and
might disprove evolution, “Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian.” Earth must revolve around the sun (heliocentric). It is necessary,
So far that has not happened, and in fact the positive evidence for however, to backtrack here a little and make clear that, as early as
the “theory” of evolution is extensive, made up of hundreds of the third century B.C., the Greek astronomer Aristarchus proposed
thousands of mutually corroborating observations. These come that Earth orbited the sun. Earth’s spherical nature was not only
from areas such as geology, paleontology, comparative anatomy, well known by about 300 B.C., but good measurements of Earth’s
physiology, biochemistry, ethnology, biogeography, embryology, circumference had already been made by that time. Unfortunately,
and molecular genetics. Like evolution, most accepted scien- throughout history, knowledge from one culture has not necessar-
tific theories have withstood the test of time and falsifiability to ily been passed on to other cultures or generations.
become the backbone of further scientific investigations. New discoveries and technological advancements led to
what is known as the Scientific Revolution, a period of time
Science Through the Recent Ages between Copernicus and Sir Isaac Newton during which a core
transformation in “natural philosophy” (science) began in cos-
The term science is relatively modern. Nearly all civiliza- mology and astronomy and then shifted to physics. Most pro-
tions, however, have evidence of methods, concepts, or tech- foundly, some historians have argued, these changes in thinking
brought important transformations in what came to be held as
“real” and how Europeans justified their claims to knowledge.

The learned view of things in 16th-century thought was that

the world was composed of Four Qualities (Aristotle’s Earth,
Water, Air, and Fire). By contrast, less than two centuries later
Newton’s learned contemporaries believed that the world was
made of atoms or corpuscles (small material bodies). By New-
ton’s day most of learned Europe believed the Earth moved, that
there was no such thing as demonic possession, that claims to
knowledge … should be based on the authority of our individ-
ual experience, that is, on argument and sensory evidence. The
motto of the Royal Society of London was: Nullius in Verba,
roughly, Accept Nothing on the Basis of Words (or someone
else’s authority). (Hatch, 1991, p. 1)

The Mid-Atlantic Ridge (N is to upper left) on the 2005 Geologic Map of One of the first to put this idea in print was Rene Descartes.
North America. Location near 50N, 30W. Although the exact dates of the Scientific Revolution may be
 The Nature of Science and the Scientific Method 6

disputed by science historians, Newton is most commonly con-

sidered the “end” of the revolution, because his work brought
the heavens and Earth together as a universe that operates under
universal laws of motion, changing forever how scientists studied
it. This new world picture, quantitative, logical, comprehensible,
made science a justifiable pursuit, and the study of natural expla-
nations for the world around us grew exponentially. Humans felt
free to not be told how things happen, but to study and detect and
experiment with how the world works in their own ways. Science
has expanded rapidly since the Scientific Revolution (Crowe,
1991), and the scientific method is well used.

Scientific Method and Earth Sciences

Finding fossils in Silurian rocks in Canberra, Australia.
The scientific method is not an exact recipe. There are many
ways to apply the scientific thought process without necessar-
ily using all the steps listed previously. Even when you encoun-
ter a simple, everyday problem, like the failure of your car to 5. Make predictions based on the model. The prediction
start when you turn the key in the ignition, you will likely use a would be that upon drilling to the bottom of the glacier,
thought process much like the scientific method. Your mind will a wet material would be found that is not found under
jump through a succession of hypotheses that you will test until other areas of the glacier.
you find the hypothesis that is correct. For example, you will ask 6. Test the predictions in the field by designing an experiment
yourself, is the car out of gas (check gas gauge or remember when to collect the right type of data to answer the questions.
you last filled up), is the battery dead (do the lights work?), is In this case, samples were indeed collected from beneath
there a short in the ignition apparatus (jiggle the key and the igni- specific areas of the glacier, a difficult and sometimes
tion), etc. You will continue thinking of hypotheses and testing dangerous task. Results showed that underlying the faster-
them until you have found one that is correct, and if you don’t, moving areas of ice was a wet mud and gravel slurry not
you will call in an expert who will go through the same process found in other areas, perhaps from an old stream bed, that
but with a more educated background in the possible solutions. provided lubrication for the ice above it.
Earth science is the study of the physical Earth, from the outer Using the scientific method can sometimes be complicated
reaches of the atmosphere to the center of the planet, including all for geologists because Earth is their laboratory and it has many
the interrelationships between atmosphere, water, and rock. This variables and is NOT a controlled environment. Controlled
study is necessary in order to understand the natural world around experiments (usually carried out in laboratories) are carefully
us, including natural disasters (from hurricanes to earthquakes to designed to test a specific hypothesis, and they can be repeated.
volcanoes) and where to find and get natural resources (including Unfortunately, many hypotheses in geology cannot be directly
energy, minerals, and fresh water) (Punaridge.org, 1998). tested in a controlled experiment (e.g., the origin of the Grand
As an example of using the scientific method, consider a Canyon cannot be discovered by using this approach). Geolo-
study of faster flowing sections of ice that lie within large gla- gists must collect data by mapping or collecting specimens.
ciers in the Antarctic: They must rely on circumstantial evidence, which is subject to
1. Research all previous studies in the area and on the topic, interpretation, and therefore can be challenged.
collecting all data, photos, papers, satellite images, etc., The Theory of Plate Tectonics again is an excellent exam-
if there are any. ple. Alfred Wegener took some of his own studies and the work
2. Make field observations of the glacier being studied and of others and realized that the continents on opposite sides of the
the exceptional “rivers” of ice that flow faster than the Atlantic Ocean fit together, and not just in shape, but in geology
ice around them. and fossil content as well. He proposed a hypothesis that the
3. Identify physical conditions and take measurements continents had drifted apart based on this “circumstantial evi-
with all necessary technology at your disposal and over dence,” which was not accepted in his lifetime. It took decades
a certain prescribed time frame at the glacier. for technology to advance enough for scientists to discover
4. Construct a model describing a possible method for the additional evidence to support his claim that the continents
ice in this one section of the glacier to move faster than had once been together (the Atlantic Ocean floor was younger
the ice around it, as shown by the data collected. One than the continents and had formed between them). As more
geologist’s hypothesis was that some liquid material and more evidence was produced, his hypothesis was modi-
underlies the area of the glacier in question, providing a fied and refined into a theory we now know as Plate Tectonics.
lubricant for the ice. This theory revolutionized the way humans look at Earth. Many
7 The Nature of Science and the Scientific Method

On the Nature of Science 14. Science cannot make moral or aesthetic judgments.
Understanding how to clone a cat does not indicate
1. Science is a way of studying our natural environment, whether cloning is an acceptable endeavor by humans.
using a repeatable, methodical approach. Understanding what makes eyes blue or green does not
2. Science relies on evidence from the natural world, and indicate which is more beautiful.
this evidence is examined and interpreted through logic.
3. Science cannot be used, by definition, to study events or
On Evolution, Creation Science, and
phenomena that cannot be perceived by natural or empirical Intelligent Design
senses and do not follow any natural rules or regularities. 1. Creationism, creation science, Intelligent Design (ID), or
4. Science is a human endeavor; it is based on observations, any other spiritual concept, involve events or phenomena
experimentation, and testing. It allows us to connect the that cannot be tested, verified, or repeated through scien-
past with the present. tific methodology and, therefore, cannot be measured using
scientific practice. Because science is limited to explaining
5. Science provides us with a way to present ideas that can natural phenomena through the use of empirical evidence,
be tested, repeated, and verified. it cannot provide religious or ultimate explanations.
6. Scientific claims are based on testing explanations 2. Evolution is a theory greatly accepted by the scientific
against observations of the natural world and rejecting the community because all available evidence supports the
ones that fail the test. central conclusions of evolutionary theory, that life on
Earth has evolved and that species share common ances-
7. Scientists gather evidence (as opposed to “proof”) to sup-
tors and genomes.
port or falsify hypotheses. Hypotheses and theories may
be well supported by evidence but never proven. 3. Vigorous questioning of existing ideas is central to the
scientific process. Solid and long-held theories such as
8. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation for
evolution or relativity stand as important foundations of
a set of natural phenomena that has been tested and
science because they have proven, so far, unassailable
verified but is still subject to falsification. Theories are sup-
(but not from want of trying…).
ported, modified, or replaced as new evidence appears
and are central to scientific thinking. 4. Evolution is a theory that has developed since Darwin’s
initial concepts. It is not a static idea, but a growing
9. There is no such thing as “THE Scientific Method.” Scien-
concept added to by scientific observation, testing, and
tists in different fields often approach their scientific test-
debate.
ing in different ways.
5. Science teachers should not advocate any religious inter-
10. Science is non-dogmatic. Science never requires ideas to
pretations of nature and should be nonjudgmental about
be accepted on belief or faith alone.
the personal beliefs of students. (NSTA recommendation)
11. “Explanations on how the natural world changes based on
6. “Do you believe in evolution?” The answer might be,
myths, personal beliefs, religious values, mystical inspira-
“Believe is not the appropriate term, since it implies faith
tion, superstition, or authority may be personally useful
not based on evidence. I accept the inference that Earth
and socially relevant, but they are not science.” (NSES,
is very old and life has changed over billions of years
1996, p. 201)
because that is what the evidence tells us.” Science is not
12. The nature of science “is regarded in contemporary docu- about belief—it is about making inferences based on evi-
ments as a fundamental attribute of science literacy and dence, and there is overwhelming evidence for evolution
a defense against unquestioning acceptance of pseudo- from many different disciplines. (Adapted from the Under-
science and of reported research.” (NSTA, 2003. p. 16) standing Evolution Web site.)
13. Science does not prove nor disprove religious or spiritual
beliefs, nor does it replace either. Science provides a
method of understanding the natural world only.
 The Nature of Science and the Scientific Method 8

No one standing on the outside can predict what the individual

unexplained geologic phenomenon now make perfect sense in
scientist will do or what method he will follow. In short, science
the light of Plate Tectonics. is what scientists do, and there are as many scientific methods
Other Earth science–related discoveries that caused major as there are individual scientists.
conceptual changes in the way humans view their world were
the discovery that Earth is spherical and not flat; that all the
planets revolve around the sun, not around Earth; and that fos-
sils give us a detailed, logical record of the evolutionary devel- Bibliography and Additional Resources
opment of biological organisms on Earth. Today, incredible
discoveries are being made in the field of astronomy, all based The following were used in writing this synopsis or are
again on circumstantial evidence and observation with increas- listed as sources for additional information:
ingly more powerful and varied telescopes.
AAAS: Science and Evolution: http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/index.
shtml.
Conclusion Abd-El-Khalick, F., and Lederman, N.G. (2000). Improving science teachers’
conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature.
Percy W. Bridgman, author of Reflections of a Physicist in International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 655-701.
Crowe, Michael J., The History of Science: A Guide for Undergraduates, Notre
1955 and winner of the 1946 Nobel Prize in physics, perhaps Dame University, 1991.
most clearly states in “On Scientific Method” how the use of Farndon, J., Dictionary of the Earth, Dorling Kindersley, London, 192 pp., 1992.
the scientific method by scientists does not often follow a set Hatch, Robert A., The Scientific Revolution, University of Florida; http://web.
clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/03-Sci-Rev/SCI-REV-Teaching/03sr-defi-
formula or recipe, nor should it, since that may stifle human nition-concept.htm, 1991.
innovation and creativity, often necessary in producing new and Kramer, S. P., How to Think Like a Scientist, Thomas Crowell, New York,
revolutionary hypotheses: 44 pp., 1987.
Lederman, N.G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of
science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teach-
Scientific method is what working scientists do, not what other ing, 26(9), 771-783.
people or even they themselves may say about it. No working Mason, Stephen F., A History of the Sciences, Collier Books, New York, 1962.
scientist, when he plans an experiment in the laboratory, asks National Center for Science Education: http://www.ncseweb.org/.
himself whether he is being properly scientific, nor is he inter- National Science Board: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/.
ested in whatever method he may be using as method. When the National Science Board: Ch 7 Science and Technology Public Attitudes and
scientist ventures to criticize the work of his fellow scientist, as Understanding at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s2.htm.
is not uncommon, he does not base his criticism on such glitter- National Science Education Standards (NSES), National Academy Press,
ing generalities as failure to follow the “scientific method,” but Washington, D.C., 1996.
his criticism is specific, based on some feature characteristic National Academy of Sciences, Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of
Science, Working Group on Teaching Evolution, 1998.
of the particular situation. The working scientist is always too National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), Standards for Science Teacher
much concerned with getting down to brass tacks to be willing Preparation, http://www.nsta.org/main/pdfs/NSTAstandards2003.pdf,
to spend his time on generalities. revised, 2003.
NSTA Press, Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science. http://www.
nsta.org, ISBN13: 978-0-30906-364-7, 1998.
But to the working scientist himself all this [the steps of sci- Percy W. Bridgman, “On Scientific Method” in Reflections of a Physicist, 1950,
entific method] appears obvious and trite. What appears to from Collected Experimental Papers, 7 vol., 1964.
him as the essence of the situation is that he is not consciously Popper, Karl, The Logic of Scientific Discovery. (translation of Logik der For-
following any prescribed course of action, but feels complete schung). Hutchinson, London, 1959.
freedom to utilize any method or device whatever, which in the Punaridge.org, 1998, The Scientific Method: http://www.punaridge.org/doc/
particular situation before him seems likely to yield the correct teacher/method/default.htm (last accessed August 2006).
answer. In his attack on his specific problem he suffers no inhi- University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for
Science Education, “Understanding Evolution” Web site: http://evolution.
bitions of precedent or authority, but is completely free to adopt berkeley.edu.
any course that his ingenuity is capable of suggesting to him.
Chapter 3: How Non-scientists use the Scientific Method
The scientific method is used unconsciously by many people on a daily basis, for tasks such as
cooking and budgeting. The same elements present in traditional scientific inquiry are present in
these everyday examples. Understanding how to apply the scientific method to these seemingly
non-scientific problems can be valuable in furthering one's career and in making health-related
decisions.

This chapter captures the essence of this course. Its goal is to explain the workings of the
scientific method in a familiar context. The scientific method is not just for scientists, but is for
lawyers, business executives, advertising and marketing analysts, and many others. We will
discuss several examples and explain how each is composed of the 5 scientific method elements.

Trial and Error

In the simplest terms, common uses of the scientific method involve trial and error. Consider
automobile repair. Every weekend handyman, and every high school student with a passing
interest in autos knows about the method of trial and error. Your car is starting to run poorly, and
you take matters into your own hands in an attempt to fix it. The first step is to guess the nature
of the problem (your model). Acting on your hunch, you proceed to exchange a part, adjust a
setting, or replace a fluid, and then see if the car runs better. If your initial guess is incorrect and
the car is not improved, you revise your guess, make another adjustment, and once again test the
car. With patience and enough guesses, this process will often result in a operable car. However,
depending on one's expertise, quite a few trials and errors may be required before achieving
anything remotely resembling success.

The methods scientists use to evaluate and improve models are very similar to the method of trial
and error, and are the subject of this chapter. You may be reluctant to think that the bungling
process of trial and error is tantamount to the scientific method, if only because science is so
often shrouded in sophistication and jargon. Yet there is no fundamental difference. It might
seem that scientists start with a more detailed understanding of their problem than the weekend
car mechanic, but in fact most scientific inquiries have humble and ignorant beginnings. Progress
can occur just as assuredly via trial and error as in traditional science, and the scientist isn't
guaranteed of success any more than is the handyman: witness the failure to develop a vaccine
for AIDS. One of the themes of this book/course is that the scientific method is fundamentally
the same as these simple exercises that most people perform many times in their lives.

Cooking from a recipe

Another activity familiar to all of us is cooking. Although the microwave oven has reduced our
dependency on preparing food for ourselves, many of us still face the need to perform
rudimentary culinary skills. The preparation of most dishes begins with a recipe - a list of
ingredients and instructions for mixing and cooking them. However, rare is the chef, whether
budding or accomplished, that follows the recipe to the letter and does not taste and modify the
dish during the cooking process. Modifications are attempted until the preparation meets the
cook's approval, whence the food is served. Any significant alterations to the recipe may be
adopted as permanent modifications, to become part of the recipe itself in the future.

Although it is likely that all of us can identify with this example, it may be less obvious how this
example bears on our scientific method template. Returning to our template of 5 elements, we
may dissect this example as follows:

Scientific Method Template

GOAL To prepare a food dish

MODEL The recipe

DATA Tastings during preparation or when served

EVALUATION Decisions on how it tastes

REVISION Changes to the recipe

Let's consider each of these elements again. In the cooking example, the goal is to prepare a
specific kind or quality of food dish. The model is simply the recipe you use. It is a model
because it is an abstraction of the actual process used in preparing the food; it is essential,
because you could not plan to prepare a specific kind of food dish without some guidance based
on previous preparations. Here, the data are simply your tastings of the dish before or after it's
finished. Evaluation is performed when you compare the actual taste (the data) to your idea of
how the food should taste. If it tastes better (or worse) than you expect, you then try to figure out
how to revise the recipe accordingly. These revisions may be short-term (how you modify the
recipe on this particular occasion) or permanent changes to the written recipe.
The recipe example was chosen because it is commonplace. Yet it is extremely apt. The
procedures that scientists use may be slightly more stereotyped and formal than those of the
ubiquitous household chef, but the way you work with a recipe, garment pattern, and any of a
number of other daily experiences are not fundamentally different than the way a career scientist
operates. Lab chemistry and molecular biology is filled with just as many miserable failures as
are our nations kitchens, and in both cases the mistakes are used to foster improvements for the
future.

Writing a News Story

A newspaper article about a murder starts as scribbled notes in the reporters notebook (first
version of the model), then progresses to a rough draft (second version of the model), which is
read by the editor and rewritten by the reporter to become the published article (third version of
the model). Using our template:

Scientific Method Template

GOAL Write a stimulating article

MODEL Current draft

DATA Reactions of you and others to the draft

EVALUATION Are the reactions achieved by your draft those

you want to achieve?

REVISION New drafts

Progress occurs as new drafts are written, in response to the reactions of the author and others
(the data), and according to the author's intended responses (evaluation).

Designing Advertisements

Advertising agencies use the scientific method explicitly to improve the effectiveness of the ads
they compose. Ads are models that manipulate consumer behavior, and they are designed with a
great deal of scientific input. Each ad has many dimensions that need be considered in detail,
such as what headline to use, what size type to use, whether to use pictures, and how large the ad
should be. All these questions can be answered using the principles of model evaluation and
improvement.

The most useful evaluation of ads comes from mail order returns. To determine whether an ad
with a picture sells more gizmos than one of the same size with only text, one simply has to
gather some data: place one ad in half the copies of the February issue of a magazine, and the
alternative ad in the remaining copies. Put different 800 phone numbers or P.O. Box numbers in
the two ads, so you will know which ad generates more responses. The evaluation in this
example comes when you compare the responses generated by the two ads, and the progress
(model improvement) comes when future ads are changed to reflect the ad that generated the
most responses. Again, in template form:

Scientific Method Template

GOAL Improve sales

MODELS Current and modified ads

DATA Responses to each ad in trials

EVALUATION Deciding which ad most closely achieves your

goal in numbers of responses

REVISION Adopting an ad for general distribution

Corporate Finances

Tangible examples of the scientific method also abound in business. Consider a corporation's
financial planning. The most basic goal of the corporation is to survive economically. This goal
requires a complicated, formal business plan, to control and monitor the company's finances.
Data accumulate during the year in the form of actual revenues and expenditures, and these data
are compared to the model (the model is evaluated) to determine whether further changes
(revisions) are warranted:
Scientific Method Template

GOAL Increase profits

MODEL A plan showing anticipated revenues and

expenses

DATA Actual revenues and expenses

EVALUATION Comparison of plan to data

REVISION Modifications of the plan in response to the

evaluation

In-class examples: (1) Lamp switch; (2) Wheel of Fortune

The scientific method template can be applied to any trial-and-error problem. The
demonstrations used in class are but two of countless examples that can be offered. (You must
attend this lecture to obtain the information.)

When it's not Science

Omit any of these 5 elements, and the scientific method cannot operate. Despite the ubiquity of
illustrations of the scientific method in everyday life, society is filled with examples that fall
short of science in one or more steps.

(1) Most prominently, religion is not science, nor does it pretend to be. Most religions are based
on specific doctrines and codes of conduct that followers agree to accept. There is no attempt to
"improve" religion by changing the mores every few years and assessing the impact. (An
exception applies to the Hawaiian ruler Kamehameha II, who in 1819, abolished the nation�s
traditional religion, apparently partly in response to the changing economic and cultural
conditions in Hawaii brought about by trade with Europeans and the influx of missionaries.)
(2) Nearly all government agencies are established with some specific (or broad) goal. They are
also provided with a set of rules (a model) of how that goal should be pursued. But there is rarely
a formal procedure for evaluating whether the goal is achieved, and there is almost never a
procedure for implementing a new model when the old one is deemed inadequate. Elected
officials can and so sometimes bring about change, and the political climate now is more
demanding of government accountability than in the past, but agencies generally are not
established with the kind of built-in self-improvement system that underlies the scientific
method. The federal and state constitutions DO specify how to implement a new model - via
amendments.

(3) Our criminal justice system comes fairly close to fulfilling all 5 elements. The jury has the
goal of discovering whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. This is the goal of deciding
between the model advocated by the defense, and the model advocated by the prosecution. Data
are presented by the defense and prosecution during the trial, and the jury evaluates the two
models based on that evidence. The verdict (guilty or not guilty) is the jury's evaluation of which
model best fits the data, with the proviso that in order to return a guilty verdict, the jury must
find that the data presented supports this model "beyond a reasonable doubt." In terms of our
discussion of the inevitable incompleteness of any model (chapter 5), the jury is instructed to
interpret uncertainty so as to benefit the defense. Appeal of a verdict would appear to be an
example of revision, and it is. However, the types of model revision permitted on appeal are
somewhat restricted. For example, after a defendant has been found guilty, it is very difficult to
obtain a new trial and introduce into court factual evidence that exonerates him/her. Conversely,
the prohibition against double jeopardy prevents the prosecution from reopening a case after a
"not guilty" verdict has been returned, even in light of new and compelling data suggesting that
the defendant was actually guilty.

(4) Technology does not imply science. Living in the U.S., we are continually bombarded with
changes in technology - advances in computers, communications, household appliances, and
transportation. Technology and science are interrelated, and technology enables us to do better
science, but technology is not science. Science is the process used to develop better technology,
whereas technology is simply the application of what has been learned with science. For
example, using a computer to analyze data does not increase the scientific content of the
analysis; if the analysis was not scientific to begin with, a computer won't change that.

(5) Astrologers (psychics) claim to have ways of forecasting the future, if only in vague terms.
However, their predictions are virtually never evaluated by their clients, at least in a rigorous
fashion. So the example of astrology predictions contains goals and models, but the other
elements are absent.

(6) Consider the difference between someone playing a card game versus a slot machine. Use of
the slot machine is presumably just chance by pulling a lever or pushing a button, a fully
automated process, so it does not allow any revision in how the game is played. Playing cards,
however, can use the scientific method because there is a lot of strategy that can be adopted and
altered by the player.

Table of contents
Problems
Copyright 1996-2000 Craig M. Pease & James J. Bull