Chapter2 Ver4

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science
CHAPTER 2 THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS

Step one for scientific literacy
Science is an activity that is both undertaken by individuals and by communities. The practice of modern science involves a set of common norms for the individual scientist and the community. By understanding these norms, their strengths and their weaknesses, one can learn a lot about the reliability of a particular report, claim, or activity.
Expectations
The successful student is expected to gain familiarity with the following topics:
What it means that science is quantitative. An appreciation for the complexity of what is generally called the scientific method, and how it is not a simple step by step process. The use of operational definitions in science. How scientists address conflicts between models and experiments. The tension between normal science and paradigm shifts. The role of organized skepticism in the scientific process. The structure of the scientific community. The connection between science and other intellectual disciplines.
38
Version 4: Last updated: 1/19/2013, copyright Pearson, for personal use only, not for reproduction.
2-A. The Nature of Science

We discussed in Chapter 1 that the philosophical foundation for modern science rests on the idea that the universe is knowable via the use of our senses; and that we can make precise measurements in this process. We expect the universe to be regular and predictable. In a regular universe, the laws of nature are the same everywhere and for all time. Predictability means that we can use natural laws and a current description of the universe to predict the behavior of the universe in the future. It also implies that we can look backward in time to reveal the state of the universe at an earlier time. But, we also believe that there is always more to learn about the universe, and that this is achievable through the process of modern science. The process of modern science involves many different activities and levels, and this allows for many different approaches to the study of the nature of science. For example, one can approach a study of the nature of science from a philosophical or sociological point of view, each of which would fill an entire textbook. In this text, we will constantly return to the following practical questions: What are the characteristics of modern science that contribute to its ability to make reliable predictions? If I understand specific characteristics of modern science, how will it help me make judgments about what is and isnt reliable science?
As outlined in Chapter 1, answering these two questions requires knowledge of three aspects of the scientific effort: the process of science, the language of science (mathematics), and scientific content. The trick is determining how much and exactly what from each of these areas forms the minimal knowledge necessary to answer our questions. This chapter focuses on the nature, or process, of science, which will motivate the need to better understand the language of science and the content of science. We will focus on three broad aspects of the nature of science: 1) quantitative methods 2) the scientific method 3) the scientific community. Perhaps the most frightening element of modern science is the use of quantitative methods. Quantitative methods are ones that rely on an understanding of numbers as they relate to measurements. This means that theories and measurements are both associated with numbers. It is then crucial to understand the uncertainties associated with those numbers. The concepts of precision and accuracy are used to evaluate the reliability of the process of comparing experiment with theory. In fact, quantities are defined by the operations used to measure them. This concept of operational definitions is crucial to being quantitative. All of these elements of modern science require the use of mathematics. It is this reason that we suggest this is the most frightening element of modern science, and we devote the next two chapters to demystifying this process! Perhaps the most comfortable element of modern science is the scientific method (simplified version). This is because we all learn it in grade school and have had plenty of time to be used to it. In its most simplified form, it means that theories are constructed based on observations and measurements of natural phenomena. Then experiments are designed to test the theory in a new regime. Sometimes we use new observations when it is impossible to manipulate Nature so that a controlled experiment can be performed. For example, we cannot create real stars of special kinds. Scientists cannot create black holes of immense gravity in the laboratory, but they have searched, with success, to find black holes
39 Version 4: Last updated: 1/19/2013, copyright Pearson, for personal use only, not for reproduction.

that occur naturally. Measurements made of black holes have agreed with theories that predicted the possibility of their existence. Comparison of observational measurements with theoretical predictions is the crux of the scientific method. Understanding the uncertainties in this comparison process is of prime importance, and brings us back to an understanding the concept of quantitative methods. But, it also requires an understanding of what is really meant by a scientific theory, law or model. Note one goal is to achieve our best explanations of Natures laws. These explanations may be given a wide variety of names: models, hypotheses, principles, laws, etc. For our purposes, the most general term to use is probably model, and we will use that for most of this text. Model conveys the important ideas behind a scientific explanation of natural phenomenon: 1) They are at best an approximation, or representation, of reality. 2) They take many forms: pictorial, verbal, mathematical. 3) They ideally have predictive power. Also, the use of the word model avoids the misconceptions associated with the word theory and law. Though at times, we will still refer to theories, laws, hypothesis, etc., when it serves a particular purpose. Scientific models generally evolve as experiments improve, and may be overthrown at a later time. We saw this in Chapter 1 in the discussion of the transition from a geocentric to heliocentric model of the universe. The science community tries to find models that are simple, and it also tries to conduct simple experiments. The selection of the simplest theory is referred to as Occams razor. The bias toward this has usually been very helpful in scientific undertakings. Finally, the least understood element of modern science is how the community of scientists functions. It is a strange community because in the ideal it is neither authoritarian nor democratic. In other words, there is not one person in charge, and decisions are not made by majority vote! At its heart is the concept of organized skepticism. This is where a community of knowledgeable people agrees to aggressively review each others work in order to weed out errors and bad ideas. Rigorous logic combined with precise numbers is a crucial tool in this effort and central to the process of organized skepticism. (Again, we return to mathematics!) The combination of these factors means that although the scientific approach to understanding nature is not perfect, it is very dependable. This is especially true for topics that have been subjected to careful peer review for an extended period of time. Of all the areas of human knowledge, knowledge of the sciences has been the most precisely tested and is the most reliable for making predictions. Though an incredible achievement, the reader should remember that this reliability with regard to accurate predictions does not necessarily imply that science is the most important or the most interesting discipline just that it is relatively unique in a number of ways.
2-B. Science is Quantitative: Operational Definitions

The starting point for any observations of the world around us is the defining of the terms used to describe the world. But, how to select what to define and how do we define them? Science depends on certain important, elementary concepts that are not easy to define. These concepts are length, time, and mass.
40
The man is measuring the depth of his filing cabinet by comparing this distance with a standard distance observed and read from the meter stick.
If you try to define one of these quantities purely with language, you have trouble. What is length? The dictionary defines length as a measured distance. And what is distance? It is the separation between two points. And what is separation? It is an intervening space. And so forth. These definitions are examples of circular reasoning. Although it is difficult to avoid circularity in defining these elementary concepts strictly via language, scientists have no difficulty applying them. This is because science is based on measurement. Although it is difficult to define what a length is, it is quite easy to measure what a length is by comparing it with a device like a meter stick. Such a comparison is at the heart of all measurements in science. Measurement is a process or operation. It is observed and performed with the use of our senses. Let us re-answer the question posed above: What is length? Length is the characteristic of an object that you measure by comparing the object with a meter stick. We are describing an action about which we can be perfectly clear. operational definition. Such an answer is called an
An operational definition defines a quantity by specifying how to measure it. This is one of the most important ideas in science! In a language sense, an operation is a process or action, a task you perform. The verb operate is an active verb. Such a definition does not actually say what the quantity is in the traditional dictionary sense. But by rigorously specifying the steps (or operations) by which the quantity is measured, it makes the quantity useful in a way that the dictionary definition does not. It also immediately makes the definition quantitative! The operation is defined in such a way that a number and units are assigned to the quantity of interest. We will revisit numbers and units in Chapter 3, but it is important to recognize this aspect of operational definitions.
Thought Exercise: There are a number of ways we can define length. Consider the following two definitions: (1) length is measured by comparing an object to the Kings or (2) length is measured by comparing an object to standard metal bar. What are the practical differences of these two definitions? What would make one better than the other?
41
When concepts (such as length, mass, time, force, etc.) are defined by operational methods, they are then amenable to quantitative analysis in depth with high precision. The associated topics (physical science, engineering, etc.) result in knowledge that is relatively unambiguous, objective, and reliable. In addition, as we will see in detail in Chapter 3, operational definitions allow us to quantify the error in the analysis and measurements in a given situation. In other words, even though physical science is not perfectly (100%) unambiguous, objective, and reliable, we can measure the degree to which it is not! There are many concepts that are challenging to define in an operational way. Some concepts resist operational definition because they are fundamentally value judgments: beauty, good, evil, etc. Ultimately, the problem is not necessarily defining them; it is agreeing on a definition! Other concepts are challenging because we do not have the necessary measurements to provide a definition, and it is unclear if we ever will. These include concepts that are both abstract ideas and emotions: love, hate, generosity, greed, anger, etc. Being emotions, there is a deep connection between these concepts and biological processes, so there is clearly the potential for operational definitions, but the complexity of these processes presents great challenges. The example of emotions provides an excellent illustration of the rapid change in knowledge associated with the soft sciences social sciences, psychology, economics, etc. In general, a goal of the soft sciences is to make predictions about human behavior. As our measurement techniques continue to improve (ranging from brain imaging to statistical studies of aggregates of organisms), our ability to develop operational definitions and quantitative measurements of these quantities will improve. In turn, this will improve our predictive ability. Our distinction between quantities with operational definitions and those without does not mean that length is more real (whatever that means) than love. It doesnt mean that physics is more important (or more interesting) than social sciences or humanities. It does mean that our knowledge of physical science allows us to make accurate predictions about the behavior of physical objects in our world. In contrast, the Humanities provide us with critical interpretations of our experiences, and possible responses to them. Therefore, if it proves to be impossible to form an operational definition of some concept, then that concept is probably not suitable for scientific inquiry. This does not mean that is should not be pursued or studied, only that other methods are required.
Example: Lets return to our example from Chapter 1 of climate change. (a) Consider the following aspects of climate change, and write an operational definition for each: average temperature of the Earth, sea level, and ice coverage. (b) Consider the process of making an operational definition for whether or not climate change is good or bad. What are the challenges with this process? Answer: (a) For the definition of average temperature, there are two pieces to worry about average and temperature. Following our discussion of length, the operational definition of temperature is to use a standard thermometer in contact with the object you want to measure the temperature of. For average, you start with the mathematical definition: taking a series of measurements, adding them together, and dividing by the number of measurements. The decisions you need to make are: how many measurements; do you want to average in time or location or both; and do
42

you want to average atmospheric, land, or water temperatures, or some combination? Once you make this decision and specific your choices, you will have an operational definition. Sea level is an interesting challenge. For now, we will ignore the questions of averaging it and looking at different locations because we discussed that for temperature. If you want to make a simple to use operational definition of sea level at one location near the shore, you can define it as the height of the water relative to a fixed stick placed in the ocean near the shore. There are certainly more sophisticated measurements, but operational measurements do not need to be complicated, just reproducible. Finally, for ice coverage, as with temperature, you do have a decision to make: do you mean area or volume? Surface area is the easiest as we already have an operational definition of length, and area can be defined in terms of length times width. Obviously, when dealing with objects as large as ice sheet, comparing to a standard ruler is a challenge. One option is to define length in terms of how long it takes a laser to travel the distance. Because the speed of light is constant, this allows us to turn things around and make the speed of light the fundamental definition and length the derived quantity. This is the principle behind laser range finders use in such diverse activities as golf and targeting. (b) The challenge with providing an operational definition of good and bad is the element of a value judgment. Most people would probably agree that rising seas levels that wipe out coastal cities is bad. Even so, it is not guaranteed that people would all agree on whether or not a given impact of climate change is bad or good.
An important aspect of operational definitions is the use of mathematical operations to increase the complexity of the definitions by building on the basic concepts. For example, physics uses the elementary concepts of length and time mentioned above to build more complicated concepts, such as speed. Quantities that are expressed in terms of the elementary concepts are called derived quantities.
EXAMPLE: A very important and common derived quantity is the average speed of an object defined as: Average speed is the total distance covered divided by the time interval. From this we can make an operational definition of average speed: 1) Measure the total distance covered by the object by comparing that distance with a meter stick. 2) Measure the time interval involved by comparing the duration with a stopwatch. 3) Divide the total distance covered by the time interval to find the average speed. You can see that this takes a lot more words, but this operational definition contains all the steps necessary to measure average speed. You should also see the beginnings of why mathematics is the language of science. It takes all these words used to make the operational definition but mathematics provides an incredibly useful shorthand: equations! We will have much more to say on this in Chapter 3 and 4.

Of course, it would be suitable to use, for example, a yardstick or some other standard of distance instead of a meter stick, but the principle would remain exactly the same. Likewise, a stopwatch or sand-filled hourglass can be used to produce an operational definition of time.
Another feature of operational definitions is that we can continually refine them. For example, we may improve the operational definition. Or perhaps we may obtain a better tool, such as a meter stick that does not change its length when the temperature changes. Or we may come to a different understanding of the concept behind the definition. For example, Einsteins theory of relativity implies that when you measure the length of an object, you will get different results depending on how fast the object moves with respect to the meter stick. With this new understanding, the definition of length is still unambiguous and useful, but our concept of length has been altered.
According to Einstein, the bullets length will be affected by its velocity relative to the observer making the measurement. Now, if he can just handle the meter stick and stopwatch quickly enough . . .
Finally, because measurement is at the heart of science, anything that affects the quality of a measurement is important. For example, we have seen how to form an operational definition of length, but often we find that persons measuring the same object may disagree on their results. How can we explain such discrepancies? They arise because measurement always involves error: measurement can never be completely exact. (Note, however, that counting can be exact.) Hence when giving the results of some measurement, you need to give not only the quantity being measured, but also an estimate of any errors or uncertainties involved. One of the strengths of physical science is the fact that we have a quantitative measure of quantities that we care about and we have a quantitative estimate of the error in that same quantity. We measure quantities and we understand the uncertainties in those measurements quantitatively! In Chapter 3, we will discuss error in some detail, but a short illustration is important. If someone said that the length of a room was 3.2576 meters, I would distrust the result because this quotation is more precise than is appropriate. This is so because the length of the room could be measured several times and the variations would cause a noticeable change in the number quoted above. On the other hand, if they said that the length was 3.25 0.03 meters, then I would understand (and believe) that the length probably lies between 3.22 meters and 3.28 meters. Notice, the inclusion of the error INCREASES our confidence in the result, which is often the opposite of our intuitive reaction to hearing that there is an error!
EXAMPLE: Returning to our example of the climate change debate, one of the issues that regularly came up is the question of the measurement of the average temperature change. As concerns over climate

change were first raised, people questioned if the temperature was even increasing. In a situation where the daily temperature varies by 10s of degrees Fairenheight, and the temperature can vary significantly more across seasons and regions of the Earth, how can one be sure of changes in the average temperature of fractions of a degree? This is why understanding the basic mathematics of averages, statistics, and fluctuations is so important. Also, knowing how scientists analyze the error in their measurements is helpful. Generally, even if you cannot understand the details of the report, you can understand their explanation of the error in their measurement and use this as a guide. We will return to this important example in Chapter 3.
To summarize our discussion of the quantitative nature of science, we say that science is a special area of knowledge, in which 1) the knowledge gathered is obtained by quantitative measurements based on operational definitions, and 2) these results are associated with a quantified degree of error. To the degree that other areas of knowledge fail to have one or both of these characteristics, they are not scientific in the sense used in this book. Notice, this is not an all or nothing definition, but it is one of degree. For example, many problems in the social sciences are currently too complex to allow for complete operational definitions and quantitative measurements, but as the field of mathematics and the tools of experimentation continue to improve, these areas of study constantly become more quantitative. Finally, it is important to understand the connection between operational definitions and the philosophical idea of reproducible and repeatable introduced in Chapter 1. It is through careful definitions and quantitative measurements that researchers have enough information to even consider repeating results!
2-C The Scientific Method

The purpose of physics is to discover the laws that govern the behavior of the physical universe. The purpose of biology is to determine the laws that govern the behavior of biological systems. What these, and other scientific endeavors, have in common is the scientific method. The scientific method is a system for understanding what steps are involved in discovering the laws that are part of a particular scientific discipline. Simply put, the scientific method is common sense carried to its logical extreme. It also requires hand-to-brain coordination in the comparison of data with models.
45
Example of a scientist involved in the scientific method. The astronomer has made an observation and is now planning to compare with models using calculations. The following list is a brief outline of the scientific method. Construct a model that conforms to what is understood about the observational evidence. This is usually done by constructing a general model from particular observational evidence. This is called inductive reasoning, and it is a creative form of thought. However, one need not come up with a model via logic of any kind. This first step (model propositions) has an arbitrary nature. The model could, in principle, be proposed by a monkey sitting at a typewriter. As long as the model matches the data, the model is acceptable. Predict new results using this model. Working from a model to predict new results is called deductive reasoning. This is a very systematic and dependable process. This is the key element of science that we emphasized in our practical approach: the ability to make predictions. Test the predictions quantitatively (when possible) through suitable experimentation or by making new observations. When the tools for quantitative experiments are not available, qualitative tests serve as an important first step. This can often be the case in certain aspects of biological, medical, and social sciences where the process of interest are sufficiently complex, or in new and emerging fields where a complete set of operational definitions and quantitative measurement tools are not developed. Interpret the observations to see if the experimental facts are valid, and to see if the model predictions are in accord with the experimental facts.
We have purposely avoided numbers in this list as the process can start at any of the four steps, and often the four steps are mixed up and interchanged! The following figure provides a visual representation of this process in its ideal form.
46
The cyclical nature of this process is evident in the figure. According to this scheme, science advances by constructing models of broader validity, capable of explaining and predicting a wider range of experiences and observations. The figure is itself a model, but it is not a physics model. It is a sociological model describing the behavior of scientists. Physics models are much more precise; they may describe the behavior of electrons, pulleys, magnets, billiard balls, internal combustion engines, binary stars etc., etc. The figure above presents a very crude approximation to what really happens in the process of modern science. The next few paragraphs will elaborate on this theme. In fact, real science does not always advance in such an orderly way. Real science advances in ways that are as many and various, as orderly and disorderly, as are the individual scientists involved. The above description of the scientific method may appear dry and mechanical, but this is decidedly untrue. Any of the four steps can require intuition, insight, and creativity. In fact, this is almost always necessary! The insight and inductive logic required to create new models are rarely straightforward where one step follows inevitably from the preceding step. Similar comments apply to all four steps. One interesting example is that creativity and/or insight is required just to pick out a specific problem for which predictions can be made from the theory. The real creative scientists not only pick out problems that allow for predictions that can be tested; they pick out problems that produce interesting results. Only after the problem has been selected will creativity be applied to the calculations needed to make predictions, etc. When all is done and published, the four steps will be described in a simple and orderly fashion that is easy to read, but its systematic nature will be misleading. The intuition, the clever shortcuts, and the creativity are hidden. However, the rigorous deductive logic and the precision of all operations will be discussed at length. The same care will be given to peer review and organized skepticism (discussed in the later sections). Hidden also are the false starts, the equipment breakdowns, the blunders. Sometimes, science may advance purely by chance. Roentgen was studying cathode rays, which are produced by high voltages in a vacuum-filled tube (cathode rays, which are in fact electrons, that make the picture in your television set) when he noticed that a mineral six feet from his equipment was emitting light. Roentgen guessed that the cathode-ray tube must be emitting a new form of radiation. Thus were x-rays discovered, though they had nothing to do with the purposes of Roentgens original experiment. One could also fairly argue that Roentgens success was the result of alert open-mindedness and contentious labor rather than just dumb luck.
47
Figure: Sketch of the experiment performed by Roentgen. Sketches like this one are important for conveying the main ideas behind an experiment. It is an important part of the repeatability of experiments. Notice, even though this is not a detailed drawing of how to put the experiment together, it provides the main information on the experiment. There have been many instances in the history of science where basic discoveries were missed by scientists who ignored distracting results that were inconsistent with their expectations. An important observation is useless if the observer is not prepared to recognize its significance. This often happens because people tend to interpret new observations in terms of familiar, past experience. In 1788 William Herschel observed a fuzzy new object through his telescope; because it was uncharted, he believed that he had found a new comet. Fortunately, he did not stop with his analysis at that point. Once its orbit was calculated, it was evident that this object was no comet, but a new planet. Thus, Uranus was discovered. Because Herschel knew of only six planets in the solar system, and because no new planets had been discovered during recorded history, he had no basis for interpreting the object as a new planet when he first observed it. Indeed, Uranus had been observed numerous times (it is possible than Galileo himself may have seen it) during the previous century, but none of these earlier scientists realized the significance of their observation. A key element of the scientific methods is the question of experimental design. Loosely speaking, experiments can be grouped into two different categories: 1) Hypothesis driven: Hypothesis driven experiments are aimed at answering a very specific question called the hypothesis. An example might be the case we opened the book with: high levels of cholesterol increase the chance of heart disease. The experiments will be designed with care to control for other factors and isolate the effect you are interested in the impact of cholesterol on heart disease. In this type of research, developing a careful and testable hypothesis is as important as the design of the experiment. 2) Discovery based experiments: For discovery based experiments, one is making measurements on a system that is of interest, but does not necessarily have a specific hypothesis in mind. The example of Herschel discovering Uranus is in this category. He did not have any initial hypothesis when he observed the new object. He was just interested in careful observations of the sky to find any new objects that might be there.

As with most aspects of the scientific method, the reality generally blends these two styles of research. When performing hypothesis driven experiments, the best scientists are still open to new discoveries that are not necessarily driven by their hypothesis. Likewise, it is rare to do purely discovery based work. Generally, one has some model or idea in mind that has lead you to believe the system is of interest.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN ISSUES: (1) Double-blind studies: One standard method of testing new medicines is to give the experimental medicine to trial groups, while at the same time administering a placebo (something that looks like a medicine, but isnt) to a control group. Such studies are often arranged so that neither the administering scientists nor the patients know until afterwards who got the medicine and who got the placebo. Since both groups are blind, this is called a double-blind study. If only the patients do not know what they are getting, it is a blind study! A double-blind protocol prevents scientists who study either group from the bias that might emerge if they knew whether a particular patient was a member of the trial group or the control group. And it prevents cures that are psychological in nature. That is, it eliminates those cases where patients get better because their belief in medicine induces a belief that they are better. (2) Computer modeling: As scientists attack increasingly complex problem, computer modeling plays a critical role in interacting with experimental data. An excellent example of this is climate studies. Often the data is clearly dependent on a wide range of complex factors. For example, the average temperature depends on the energy output of the sun, reflectivity of clouds in the atmosphere, reflectivity of ice coverage on the surface, relative refection and absorption of energy by human made structures, interaction between solar radiation and a wide range of chemicals in the atmosphere, etc.. And most of these factors all depend on each other. Therefore, the experiment is relatively simple: measure and average temperatures from a range of locations and times. The design challenge in this case is often developing a model that captures the essential factors and comparing that model to the experimental data. This aspect of the scientific methods will be addressed in some detail in Chapter 4.
Perhaps the greatest challenge for a scientist is to keep looking for problems with their experiment when they get the answer they expect! In other words, when can you declare your experiment done and that it has actually demonstrated an important new result? This challenge for individual scientists is one critical reason that we have the scientific community. It is the best guard against the challenges of combining theory and experiment. However, there are conventions in science regarding proof, and we will give them their own subsection!
2-C.1: Testing predictions or what is scientific proof?
49
Figure: Detective in search of proof!
Before discussing the concept of proof in science, it helps to provide some context. Human society has an interesting relationship with proof. We generally equate it with finding the truth, and hope for that one right answer. But, as we saw in the context of operational definitions, despite our desire for absolutes regarding true and false, these concepts can be difficult to define. Our instincts about proof come from the many contexts in which we experience it, but the ideas from one context often do not apply to another. For example, as we pointed out, one goal of the arts and humanities is the interpretation of experiences. In this context, truth is often not absolute, and multiple views can be equally valid for a number of reasons. In contrast, we have an expectation that there is one correct answer in the context of legal proceedings. But, is this expectation valid? It is almost impossible to watch American television and not hear the phrase innocent until proven guilty. And yet, what does this simple phrase even mean? How do twelve jurors decide that some is guilty beyond reasonable doubt? What is reasonable anyway? After all, even a unanimous jury determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has been known to result in the conviction of innocent people. Are there areas of human exploration where one right answer is possible? Ironically, one place that has certainty when it comes to proofs is the one area that many people most fear: math! At some point in their education, most students are asked to perform some level of mathematical proofs, so the certainty implied by this process is part of most peoples view of proof. In mathematics, proof is significantly more clear-cut. The rules are well-defined and the goal of much of mathematics is to prove theorems, such as the Pythagorean Theorem illustrated below for right triangles.
Figure: An example of a right triangle for which it can be proved that on a flat surface: a 2 + b 2 = c 2 This example of proof depends on a careful list of assumptions and then the precise application of logic. Notice how we specified that this is true for a flat surface. A common example in mathematics classes involving geometric proofs is to show how the Pythagorean Theorem is not true on the surface of a sphere. In some ways, the opposite extreme of the abstract proofs in mathematics is proof in engineering. Proof in engineering is pragmatic. If a design works again and again, it is considered proven. Engineering often deals with complex systems, and the kinds of problems engineers deal with (such as designing bridges)

are problems for which there are no unique solutions. But there are solutions that are definitively incorrect. For example, the bridge that falls down is incorrect! In order to achieve reliability for such complex systems, standard engineering practice requires that large safety factors be included. For example, an engineer might choose a beam that is five times as strong as that required to handle the heaviest anticipated load. Also, standard engineering practice requires that, wherever possible, designs be developed so that they are fail safe. This means that if something goes wrong, no injury should occur when the product fails. However, economic considerations sometimes require engineers to compromise on safety, because the price for zero risk is exorbitant. A failure to understand this fact creates problems in a number of social issues. When it comes to science, most people are familiar with the concept that science can only prove things false. This represents an imperfect understanding of proof in science, and it is worth exploring the subtle aspects of the issue. At its heart, proof in science is connected to the philosophical idea that the universe is knowable and regular. Because it is knowable, it is reasonable to endeavor to understand the rules that govern physical behavior. Because it is regular, the rules will not change arbitrarily. So, if we determine something to a high degree of reliability, than we can trust that it will continue to be true. If we determine something to be false, or unreliable, it will remain so. Another way to say this is that scientists have the concept that things can be confirmed to a reasonable degree of accuracy and than one can proceed as if it was true, until one finds evidence to the contrary. Lets consider the following aspects of proof in science one at a time, even though they are really interrelated: 1) Proving a model or hypothesis false. 2) Confirming something to a high degree of reliability 3) How scientists react when experiments contradict a current model. In principle, the easiest thing to do in science is to prove a hypothesis false. Given that the goal of any hypothesis is to make quantitative predictions, and that experiments are quantitative measurements, each with known errors, if the two disagree, you have proven the hypothesis false. This is one reason many experiments are explicitly set up to prove a hypothesis false, as opposed to confirming one. Ruling out potential models, parameters, theories, and principles is a great way to make progress. More challenging can be the proving a model or concept to be true. Therefore, instead of referring to models as true, it is often common in science to refer to them as confirmed. One can then use adjectives to represent the degree of confidence in the model. Though one can provide a fine level of nuance by your choice of adjectives, there are three basic levels: 1) Tentatively/conditionally confirmed how a model might described the first few times the same researcher can repeat the results. 2) Confirmed how a model might be described after two or more groups have reproduced the results in completely independent experiments. 3) Highly confirmed this usually involves two aspects: (1) significant experimental evidence, usually under a range of conditions; and (2) a solid theoretical explanation in the form of a careful model/principle.
51

Example of Proof: We already discussed a famous example of scientific proof: Galileo (allegedly) dropping different weights from the Leaning Tower of Pisa to show that they fell at (nearly) the same rate. (The truly convincing experimental work on this subject was done by Galileo rolling balls down inclined planes.) His main goal was to demonstrate that Aristotles view that the rate at which object fell depended on their mass was false. In this context, the experiments were very clear on establishing the fact that the objects Galileo used fell at close enough to the same rate that Aristotle was incorrect. However, the other goal was to confirm Galileos view that the rate at which objects fell was independent of their mass. This provided initial confirmation of his ideas, but at this point, his views were not considered proven correct. It was only after, significantly more experiments before the ideas were highly confirmed, and in the context of Newtons work took on the title of law. Even in modern times, after quantum mechanics and relativity revealed short-comings in Newtons laws, the title has not been revoked. They are still viewed as flawless within the constraints of speeds well below the speed of light and sizes significantly larger than the scale of atoms.
The real challenge in science is knowing how to react to the situation when there are contradictions between a model and experiment. There are two basic questions. First, is there something wrong with your model? Recall the discussion of the conflict between the geocentric and heliocentric views of the solar system. As measurements became more accurate, the geocentric view required additional refinements circles within circles added to orbits to maintain the fundamental model of circles and an unmoving Earth. The other option was to completely change the model to the heliocentric view. How does one decide which to do? Second, is there something wrong with your experiment? A great example of this occurred in the fall of 2011. A major physic collaboration announced evidence for a particle moving faster than the speed of light. If correct, this represented a major change to our understanding of a fundamental model: Special Relativity. The challenge for the scientists was the fact that the experiments were incredibly complicated, so it was difficult to determine if they really had not made an error. But, given their best effort, they did the reasonable thing and published their results so that the community could review them. Eventually, an error was found with the experiment and Special Relativity did not require any modification. But, this does point to the challenge that as experiments become even more complicated and technical, finding experimental errors requires even greater diligence and creativity. It is important to recognize that even when scientists act upon a model or principle that is highly confirmed as if it had been proven, they are still open to the idea that it could require modification. For example, when it was announced in 2011 that a particle was observed to go faster than the speed of light, two apparently contradictory actions happened. First, most scientists assumed there was an experimental error because of how well-confirmed Special Relativity is (acting as if Special Relativity is true). Second, many scientists started to consider how to modify Special Relativity to account for the result (being open to needing to change Special Relativity). Both of these actions are completely consistent with the scientific process extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof but nothing is assumed to be absolutely true. This apparent dichotomy can make science appear mysterious, and even contradictory. We have already explored the concept that the more complicated the question or system, the harder it is to be quantitative. This challenge also impacts the ability to confirm models in the scientific sense, as this is fundamentally a quantitative exercise. When one deals with highly complex systems, as in many medical studies and the social sciences, there are many variables interacting with each other, some of which (love, hate, greed, or generosity, for example) can be hard to specify quantitatively. In this situation, models are frequently based strongly on statistics, and results are often discussed more explicitly in terms of the likelihood of certain outcomes. A particular challenge is models for complex

systems are often discussed in terms of levels of correlations that exist. Correlation in this context means that if you measure A than you are likely, but not guaranteed, to measure B. For example, you might find a strong correlation in a particular class between tall students and better grades. But, this could be a coincidence of the sample you are studying and that in fact, being tall does not cause better grades. This has lead to the common warning: correlation does not mean causation, and adds a level of difficulty to statistical studies that scientists have to treat carefully. It is worth noting that despite the challenge facing the social sciences, even as this text is being written, more areas of the social science become tractable by quantitative means and people are constantly improving the methods used to study these issues.
EXAMPLE: Consider the hypotheses that a recent increase in street crime is caused by an increased demand for illicit drugs. How could you design a controlled experiment to study this? At this point, such an experiment is not really possible, so your main option is to gather careful statistics on different aspects of the situation. One option is to monitor street crime and drug demand for three years. If you find that both street crime rises by a certain amount during this period and that the demand for illicit drugs also rises during the same period, you have established a correlation. But simply because two things show similar behavior over time does not mean that they are causally linked; other explanations might be equally plausible. For example, if unemployment has risen during the last three years, it is possible that unemployment caused both the street crime and the drug demand. This should give you an idea of the real challenge in designing studies and analysis that can provide insight into complex social issues.
Ultimately, our challenge for proving models to be true is that Mother Nature makes up the rules without telling us what they are. This was the concept introduced in Chapter 1 of a knowable universe that exists in an objective sense. Our job is to try to discover those rules. The measurements we make to probe those rules are never perfect so our models are always some form of an approximation. Even though our senses can be extended by instruments (such as microscopes and compasses), our measurements are ultimately limited by our senses. Furthermore, we can never be sure we have examined all the possible interesting situations. We are seeking the truth with respect to natural phenomena, but we dont expect to obtain ultimate truth everlasting using the scientific process.
2-C.2: Using Scientific Models: Paradigms and Normal Science

The previous section raised a critical issue: how do we handle situations in which experiment and models disagree with each other? Before answering this general question, we do have to recognize that we are using the word model in a very broad sense. We need to briefly address the different types of models that occur in science that may or may not disagree with a particular experiment. A challenge in this discussion is that even though science is relative precise in its practice, the language used to describe science is often less precise! This is where it is useful to consider the wide range of words that are used: model, theory, law, paradigm, principle, hypothesis, etc. Many of these words are interchangeable, and some are more historic. For example, the word law is rarely applied to relatively recent ideas in science. Historically, it was applied to ideas that achieved a high degree of confirmation, such as Newtons Laws of Motion and the Ideal Gas Law. The word theory is perhaps the most confusing as it is generally used for a model that is relatively well confirmed: theory of special relativity or the theory of evolution. This is in contrast with the common usage of the word theory to mean a possible solution or proposal to be tested. In science, the word hypothesis

is reserved for proposed ideas or models requiring testing. Though we will use model in a very general sense in this text, it is often used in science to refer to a specific mathematical or graphical representation of a system or process. This is to distinguish from a general principle or rule that nature follows. For example, the Law of Conservation of Energy is best described as a principle it is a rule that we expect nature to follow, but the mathematical description of the energy of a particular system might be referred to as a model for the system. Finally, one might classify a group of ideas as a particular paradigm. A paradigm represents a particular way to view a wide class of systems. For example, one can refer to particles versus waves, or classical mechanics versus quantum mechanics. Exactly what distinguishes these different classes of systems is something we will return to in later chapters. Having established that models can refer to a range of ideas, we can now explore the two parts to an answer to the general question of what to do when a model and an experiment disagree: 1) The reliability and nature of the model/principle that contradicts the experiment. 2) The nature of the required change to the model to match experiment. Why are there these two parts to our answer? This is best discussed in the context of two examples summarized in the table. Model/Principle Conservation of energy Short statement The energy of an isolated system remains constant in time, but energy can change its form. What might be the error? a) a new form of energy might be needed. b) the system might not be isolated c) the principle might be wrong Newtons Law of Gravity The force between two objects is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them: a) We may have not identified all the forces involved. b) The mathematical relation might need to be changed. c) The mathematical relation may be an approximation of a more general relation.
F =G
m1m2 r2
In the chapters on the science concepts, we will return to both of these models in some detail, but the table should make it clear some of the differences. In the first case, conservation of energy, we are not actually concerned with a particular mathematical model. We are concerned with a general idea, that is rooted in centuries of experiment and deep theoretical ideas related to symmetries. It is considered proven as strongly as any idea in science. Therefore, if you believe that your experiment is violating the principle of conservation of energy, you have three easy choices (and a few harder ones not mentioned): you have actually found a new form of energy, the system is not actually isolated, or you actually discovered a violation of this major principle. The last option is highly unlikely, so you time is best spent looking for something consistent with the first two options. And indeed, much of the history of science consists of people insisting that conservation of energy holds, and looking for new forms of

energy or interactions and making exciting discoveries because of this. We will come back to this idea, but we will call this normal science.
Historical Example: We pointed out in the text that adherence to the paradigms of science has led to many important discoveries. An example of this is the discovery of the neutrino. Nuclear scientists found that the neutron, a particle in most atomic nuclei, decays when it is isolated, transforming into a proton and an electron:
Initial beliefs about the decay of an isolated neutron transforming into a proton and an electron. The problemenergy was not being conserved.
The strong belief in the conservation of energy led physicists to propose that a particle was carrying off the missing energy. Through experiments this particle was confirmed and named the neutrino, which is represented by the Greek letter .
However, some difficulties arose in interpreting the results of neutron decay. One difficulty was that the energy of the proton plus the energy of the electron was different in different decays. If accurate, this contradicts the law of conservation of energy. That is, energy may change its form, but its amount always remains constant in any interaction. Neutron decay seemed to be an interaction that resulted in different amounts of energy. Pauli suggested that an unobserved particle was carrying off some of the energy. In the context of our table, this represents an interaction that was not identified. In other words, the system of neutron, proton, and electron is not isolated because it interacts with this other particle. The existence of this particle, named the neutrino by Fermi, was eventually directly confirmed some years later. So the proper way of describing neutron decay is
n p + e + ,
where , the Greek letter nu, represents the neutrino. When this is taken as the system, conservation of energy holds! Physicists did not abandon the conservation of energy paradigm simply because neutron
55

decay apparently violated it; instead, their acceptance of the paradigm led them to believe that the experiments on neutron decay were incompletely understood.
For our second example, we consider Newtons Law of Gravity, which is a specific mathematical model. In this case, if measurements disagree with this mathematical model, the approach is a little different. First, because the model is extremely successful in a wide range of situations, you would want to be really careful that you werent missing something in your experiment, like other forces in the problem. However, this is a case where sufficiently careful measurements have shown that this model is not accurate in all situations. Now, you have two fundamental choices listed in the table: throw out the model or check that is an approximation for a better model (see the Thought Question for an explanation of approximating a model). In the case of Newtons Law of Gravity we have found that it is an approximation to a more complete model, Einsteins Theory of General Relativity! The language we use is that the model is said to be superseded by a more general model, but the original model is still useful in the regime for which it makes accurate predictions! Why keep the original model when it has been superseded? Fundamentally, in the world of everyday objects, there is no measurably significant difference between Newtons Law and Einsteins theory, and Newtons Law is easier to use, so we keep using it!
Thought Question: Is the surface of the Earth flat or curved? If you answered curved, you are probably focusing on the fact that you know the Earth is round. But, if you focus on your everyday experience, you should probably answer flat. For most of what we do in our life, we can approximate surface of the Earth as flat. This is because the radius of the Earth is so large, and it makes life much easier because motion on a flat surface is easier to describe than motion on a curved surface. It is only when you travel large enough distances that you have to worry about it being curved. This is what we mean by a valid model that is an approximation to a more complete model.
The example we discussed in terms of energy conservation is a good example of what might be called normal science. Normal science consists of puzzle solving conducted within the framework of the existing paradigms of science. It produces evolutionary (as opposed to revolutionary) change and development. Other examples of normal science include: 1) Experiments focused on measuring physical constants to greater precision.
2) Applying paradigms are to provide solutions to engineering problems. 3) The previously discussed discovery of the planet Uranus was an example. Perhaps more dramatic was the discovery of Neptune. As astronomers studied the orbit of the recently discovered planet Uranus, they found that it deviated slightly from the orbit predicted using Newtons Universal Law of Gravitation. Instead of rejecting the observational evidence of deviations, and rather than supposing that Newtons Universal Law of Gravitation was defective or flawed, astronomers believed that the irregularities of Uranus orbit were due to the gravitational influence of still another, unobserved planet. Detailed studies of the irregularities led to predictions of the location of the new planet, which was soon discovered and named Neptune.
56

Probably more than 99% of the activity in science takes place within normal science. That is to say, almost all science consists of problem solving using the accepted (well-established) and shared paradigms of science. Because scientific knowledge usually advances within the well-established paradigmatic structure of science, and because scientists are usually cautious and meticulous about testing and presenting their results, normal science is partially authoritative, and it is not easily changed. The body of knowledge that has been validated time and again is the core of normal science. The fact that the scientists share in common the paradigms of science is one of the principal strengths of science. It is a strength because it provides scientists with a common language and intellectual framework for obtaining, expressing, and communicating their results. We have already observed that it can be a weakness when it makes it difficult to communicate with groups, like the general public, who do not share the same understanding of the bases of science. It can also present problems in those rare instances when scientific advances are slowed or prevented by flaws in the paradigms of science. At this point, we observe that science is characterized by an essential tension. Specifically, a scientist needs to be open to and skeptical of new ideas. When a truly new idea is needed or confirmed, then we have an example of a revolution in science.
Normal Science versus Social Revolutions: The study of the global climate change is an interesting one from the perspective of normal science versus revolutions. From the scientific perspective, it is a great example of the power of normal science. The challenge of climate studies is the complexity of the system, and the wide-range of scientific fields that are brought together to understand the issues. But, there are no truly revolutionary principles, just incredibly clever and challenging applications of existing ideas. What makes the study of the global climate interesting is the potential for social revolutions as the climate is understood in better detail!
Our example of Newtons Law of Gravity being superseded by Einsteins Theory of Relativity is an example of a revolution. Revolutions can involve changes in the paradigms of science, either by exposing the inadequacies of old paradigms (Einsteins theory superseded but did not completely replace Newtons) or by replacing old paradigms with better ones (heliocentric view of the solar system completely replaced the geocentric view). Because paradigms involve trust and an intellectual commitment (a belief), changes of this kind are not easily made. Thus, a sense of crisis (usually) precedes a scientific revolution. In other words, theory and experiment get seriously out of sync with each other; the universe appears, in part, to be irregular and unknowable. This was most certainly the case in the early part of the 20th century, just before physicists developed quantum mechanics. At that time classical physics was faced with serious problems. One classical theory, for example, predicted that a hot radiating body would give off an infinite amount of energy. This prediction, called the ultraviolet catastrophe, was clearly nonsense, and the discovery of quantum mechanics resolved the difficulty. As we discussed, the first major revolution in science included the acceptance of the heliocentric solar system, overturning the geocentric model, observing that heavenly bodies were imperfect (via Galileos telescope) and discovering that the laws of nature describing motion were the same on the earth as in the heavens (via Newtons mechanics). This was The Scientific Revolution, but the most crucial outcome of this event was the establishment of the process of modern science. All other revolutions pale by comparison to the first one. Despite this dramatic first revolution, the complete overthrow of a previous paradigm is rare. The more common situation is an extension of an existing model to a new regime, as we discussed with gravity. Another important example is that we still use most of classical physics to describe everyday behavior well after the development of quantum mechanics.
REVOLUTIONS IN MEDICINE: We mentioned that the complexity of medical questions makes medical studies particularly challenging. This is also an area in which the research is constantly suggesting new ideas. It is too common to hear the phrase revolutionary new drug/procedure/surgery, etc. In reality, most drugs and procedures are examples of normal science. They may represent important steps forward, but they are based firmly in the current paradigm of biochemistry and diseases in terms of bacteria, viruses, and breakdowns of the biochemistry of cellular processes. An excellent example of a true revolution in medicine/biology was the recognition of the role of bacteria and germs as the causes of many diseases and how to fight them! This provided significant improvement over earlier paradigms, especially with the simple addition of understanding the importance of washing and cleaning wounds, or even daily hand washing! One could argue that the understanding DNA and the genetic code is another revolution, and it is exciting to speculate how this will ultimately transform society and our understanding of medicine.
We have looked at a few examples in detail, but it is worth briefly summarizing some revolutions in physics, to help illustrate the different forms that revolutions can take. We have already discussed some of these, but it is worth repeating here. 1. The heliocentric (sun-centered) solar system, developed by Copernicus, replaced the geocentric (earth-centered) model of the solar system. This represented a complete overthrow of the previous paradigm. It was necessary because the geocentric model, though it had served well for many centuries, was not accurate enough in its predictions of the motions of the planets, and because the heliocentric model was more accurate and simpler. Also, there was no sense it which the old model was an approximation to the new one, so it was replaced. In addition to the scientific conflict, the new view removed humanity from the center of the universe. This new attitude caused much psychological and philosophical discomfort. This doctrine was threatening to the church and other politically powerful groups because it contradicted the opinions expressed by both religious and secular authorities that had long been based on the philosophies of Aristotle. 2. Newtonian mechanics was revolutionary because it held that the same laws (Newtons three Laws of Motion and the Universal Law of Gravitation) that govern the motions of objects on earth also govern the motions of objects in the heavens. The heliocentric model did not become fully established until Newton provided the needed foundation via his laws of motion and universal gravitation. The older view attributed to Aristotle (and others) was completely overthrown by Newtons work. 3. Quantum mechanics was revolutionary because it showed that the behavior of objects as small as atoms could not be described adequately by Newtonian mechanics. It was also revolutionary because its predictions, unlike those of Newtonian Mechanics, were probabilistic (statistical in natureor governed by rules of chance) rather than deterministic. It also muddied the waters on the concept of cause and effect. This created philosophical discomfort for many physicists, including Einstein, who had been one of the key contributors to the development of quantum ideas. His famous quote: God does not play at dice reflected this discomfort. In this case, quantum mechanics did not involve a complete overthrow of Newtonian mechanics, because it is very difficult to apply quantum mechanics to large (everyday) objects. To our best knowledge, Newtonian mechanics (often called classical mechanics) is an excellent approximation to quantum mechanics when applied to the everyday object for which it was first developed. Therefore, we continue to use Newtonian mechanics as it is accurate and simple for those objects!
58

4. Relativity was revolutionary because it showed that Newtonian mechanics cannot be used to describe the behavior of very fast objects. For example, it overthrew some basic concepts of physics by showing that moving observers will disagree with stationary observers on the lengths of objects and the durations of events. But, relativity did not involve a complete overthrow of Newtonian mechanics, because relativity reverts to Newtonian mechanics when velocities are small compared to the speed of light. 5. Chaos is a revolutionary development because the scientific community had forgotten an old idea. It reminded us that even deterministic mechanical systems could behave in ways that were essentially unpredictable. The old dream of Newtons age said that you could predict all future mechanical behavior if the physical laws were deterministic, and if you knew the initial conditions. Chaos makes this dream philosophically untenable because you cannot know the initial conditions perfectly. Even the tiniest of changes in initial conditions can lead to enormous changes in the evolution of some mechanical systems.
2-D. The Scientific Community

The difference between normal science and revolutions in science has been described. But, how do we decide when a new idea is a revolutionary advance or just a crazy idea? How does the community of scientists act? How can you as a spectator evaluate if a new idea is a true revolution or just a crazy idea? This is our last piece of the nature of science that we will explore in this chapter, and it involves the entire scientific community.
2-D.1. Behavioral Norms

The scientific community consists of those who understand and use the paradigms of science, mainly for solving puzzles about the physical universe. It is generally true that scientists exhibit similar kinds of attitudes and behavioral norms, at least when dealing with scientific matters. In reality, individual human beings cannot (and should not) be expected to live up to these standards perfectly. Still, quantitative work via operational definitions sets science apart for successful puzzle solving while trying to abide by these standards. The following behavioral norms and attitudes approximately characterize a significant portion of the scientific community. 1. Organized skepticism: Knowledge is not accepted on the basis of authority, but on the basis of scientific evidence (that is, on the consistent agreement of experiment with theory). The attitude is as follows: every new (or old) idea or piece of data might be flawed, and scientists work hard to discredit every idea and every piece of data. The community institutionalizes criticism in depth. This is the most important of all of the behavioral norms. Journals are published and conventions are held primarily to expedite this process. Scientists are expected to critique their own work carefully; in particular they are expected to demonstrate that their results are reproducible. This requires demonstrations that the same result is obtained time after time when an experiment (or calculation) is repeated. Scientists are also encouraged to review and replicate each others work with the goal of finding errors. At the same time, this criticism is to be given and received in an impersonal and constructive manner.
WARNING: There is a danger when considering organized skepticism to equate this with being skeptical of every result. It is important to keep in mind the discussion of normal science at this point. An important feature of organized skepticism is constant comparison to well-established principles. If a new result is consistent with the big ideas and has no obvious problems, it is more likely to be conditionally accepted, pending further studies, then a result in apparent violation of a fundamental principle, such as energy conservation. In this latter case, the result will receive significantly more scrutiny and require greater proof. Because of this, fraud is difficult to perpetrate in science. In general, fraud is only valuable

if it is an important result, and those get the closet scrutiny. So, it may take time, but the fraud can not stand up to the close inspection for long!
2. Disinterestedness: Researchers are expected to approach their work objectively/without bias. They are also expected to be receptive to new ideas no matter how well established the traditional (and differing) viewpoint may be. Judgment must be suspended (and is always provisional) until Nature (in the form of careful experiments) indicates otherwise. This behavioral norm is connected to and in tension with the behavioral norm of organized criticism. Its hard to believe that every idea or data point might be correct while working hard to find its flaws. Thomas Kuhn refers to this as the essential tension of science; and it really is essential! 3. Knowledge-centered: The focus of the scientific community is mainly on expanding the content of science. Discoveries are highly prized and widely acknowledged. A passion for new knowledge is expected. But this may mean some tension with the need to be disinterested.
Image of the Earth that is used to represent the universal nature of science!
4. Universal openness: Scientific knowledge is not based on national or political ideologies, and so science transcends local boundaries. Science is open to everyone. Scientists are expected to share their data and ideas. Nature sets the example here because natural laws are the same everywhere and forever; they are available to all researchers regardless of race, religion, gender, etc. The tradition of international cooperation is routine and well established. 5. Aesthetics valued: This shared value is sometimes surprising, but important. Scientists find beauty and excitement in their pursuit of natures laws. In the presence of two equivalent ways of approaching a problem, scientists will favor the method that is simpler and/or more elegant and/or more beautiful. An example of this is found in the development of quantum electrodynamics, the study of how electrons interact with light. Two theories emerged in the late 1940s. The theory of Julian Schwinger was mathematically intricate, while the theory (Feynman diagrams) of Richard Feynman was easy to visualize and apply. The latter was more appealing intuitively. Although these two theories were shown to be entirely equivalent (Schwinger and Feynman shared the Nobel prize in 1953), physicists greatly preferred Feynmans simpler and more elegant theory, and have since adapted his methods for other technical topics.
EXAMPLE: Individual scientists, while practicing science, often undergo emotional and aesthetic experiences associated with those of artists. In a lecture in Kyoto, Einstein referred to the insight that led him to the General Theory of Relativity: I was sitting in a chair in the patent office at Bern when all of a sudden a thought occurred to me: If a person falls freely, he will not feel his own weight. I was startled. This simple thought made a deep impression on me. Elsewhere he refers to this as the happiest thought of my life.
60

6. Belief in an ordered physical universe: We have already commented in Chapter 1 on the idea that the universe is simple, regular (uniform and with invariant laws) and understandable influences the behavior of scientists. But, it is sufficiently important to repeat here, and emphasize that experience confirms that this view is productive. Science is not a mystery wrapped in an enigma! Though ultimately this is a philosophical perspective, scientists justification for belief in an ordered physical universe is validated by vast experimental measurements of significant reliability. 7. Collective effort: In the end, it is the exhaustive application of the process of modern science that draws scientists together in an unusual kind of consensus for professional matters. Values that motivate the scientific community as a whole may not correspond exactly to the motivations of individual scientists. For example, the scientific community may be knowledge-centered, but an individual scientist, while valuing knowledge, may also be concerned with personal issues such as family, wealth, fame, and security. In addition, the values that make one a success within the scientific community may not guarantee success outside of science. For example, the behavior of being aggressively critical of ideas proposed by others meets with disapproval in many groups. The reader is advised to remember that scientists are human beings first and scientists second. Their political views, religious views, artistic tastes and so on are widely varied, as is true for society as a whole. They have both weaknesses and strengths (in science or elsewhere); and they have character flaws! As a spectator of sports, too often we are disappointed by the behavior of individual athletes. But, this does negate the value of the entire sport, and we typically remain a fan. Likewise, the behavioral norms of the science community are idealistic, and individuals will stumble from time to time, particularly if they are involved in a controversy. And, yes, there will be departmental or agency politics getting out of hand on occasion. Still, the community as a whole does remarkably well. The first behavioral norm of institutionalized criticism frequently sees to a full discussion of the issues, even when the topic is not of a technical nature.
2-D.2. Scientific Institutions

An aspect of science that is unfamiliar to a significant portion of the population is the structural organization of science in institutions and societies. If you ask the average person to describe a scientist, the description often includes something similar to anti-social, un-social, socially awkward. And yet, scientists are extremely social, at least with each other! They are organized into societies that are not just responsible for a range of science stuff publishing journals, providing forums for organizing and discussing funding and future directions of science, planning scientific meetings but also provide an important social function. Most scientific meetings include banquets, trips to local sights of interest, awards and ceremonies, and even the occasional talent show! These activities are not just for fun, though they are fun. It is often during the informal activities that the best science is done. By its nature, modern science is addressing ever more complex questions that require active collaboration among groups of scientists. This collaboration is improved when the people in question know and trust each other to a high degree. As any company or organization knows, planning and holding a wide range of activities, ranging from skills building activities to purely social ones, build morale and efficiency within the company. Science is no different, and it is often the scientific societies that serve the role of the company. Examples of scientific societies in physics include: the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Acoustical Society of America, the Optical Society of America, and American Association of Physics Teachers.
61

FUN ACTIVITY: If you have never done so, you should go to the website of some of the major societies. Explore the website and see what it is they are doing. Most of them have sections specifically on outreach to the public, and it is a great way to find out the most recent scientific results.
In addition to the scientific societies, most scientific work currently takes place in the context of a formal organization. The days of the independent scientist working in his home are numbered. Again, this is largely a result of addressing ever increasingly complex questions that involve a wide range of tools and significant money! It is worth highlighting the main categories of institutions that support scientists.
Aerial view of the Stanford Linear Accelerator facility
Schematic of Accelerator.
the
Stanford
Linear
Figure: The Stanford Linear Accelerator is an example of a major academic research center. 1. Research Universities. The United States tends to have two types of Universities or Colleges. Research universities view their primary mission as scientific research and the training of Ph.D. students (prospective research leaders). The scientific work is funded by many external agencies: federal agencies, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); the armed forces through their research divisions; industrial companies such as IBM; and private foundations. In return for providing facilities and personnel for scientific research, universities charge fees for the research. Teaching is still valued, but it is often teaching motivated by current research. Generally, student tuition funds the teaching mission and administrative aspects of the University. This split in funding sources and focus on research and teaching is often misunderstood by the students and public. 2. Teaching Universities and Colleges. There are many other Universities and Colleges where research is conducted on a much smaller scale, if at all, and the faculty are expected primarily to be teachers. Generally, these institutions do not grant Ph.D.s, and they have substantially less in external funding. 3. National research and development laboratories. These federally subsidized laboratories offer support for research requiring specialized facilities. Examples include the Stanford Linear Accelerator in California, Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, and the National Magnet Laboratory in Florida. Although much research at these facilities is supported by the NSF and other funding agencies, the facilities themselves are supported by independent allocations authorized by Congress.

4. Military research and development laboratories. In addition to funding research, the Army, Navy, and Air Force also conduct research in their own laboratories. This research is not always in topics of direct military application; the military services also fund basic research in certain areas. In addition, some of the military services run schools that include research as an important element; the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, is an example.
NASA space shuttle.
5. NASA labs. NASA runs several laboratories for research related to space projects. The Ames Research Laboratory in Mountain View, California, is an example.
A schematic of a nuclear power plant that would be licensed and regulated by the independent U.S. government agencythe Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)that supervises the civilian uses of nuclear materials.
6. Government regulators. Federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency support some scientific research. This research is generally focused in the areas for which those agencies are responsible.
63

7. Government funding agencies. Several of these were mentioned above. The National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Health, and the Department of Energy (DOE) are the main federal agencies for science funding. The DOE funds the largest group of national labs. Most of them were created to support the nuclear energy programs of the U.S. It is critical to recognize that society benefits from the collective funding of science in a number of ways. Here is a list of some of the main impacts: (1) the generation of new knowledge; (2) the generation of new technologies; (3) improvements in health care; (4) the training of the next generation of scientists and engineers; and (5) general training of students to be critical citizens. This list is not exhaustive, but it is important as a science spectator to understand the major sources of funding and how we are able to keep moving science forward. 8. Business laboratories. Many large industrial companies conduct scientific research in specialized laboratories. IBM, for example, sponsors the Almaden Research Center in South San Jose, California. 9. Contract research firms. A recent phenomenon is the growth of independent companies set up to perform research and development for hire. These science job shops represent a mix of entrepreneurial business with science. They are sometimes referred to as beltway bandits because their offices are frequently located near freeways that ring metropolitan centers such as Los Angeles and particularly Washington, D.C. The elaborate structure of the scientific community in the United States is a product of direct government involvement in furthering scientific research. It had its beginnings at the time of World War I. But before World War II, federal involvement in scientific research was modest and the scientific community was relatively small. Those who did science were most likely to be motivated by curiosity and love of science, since the odds on recognition outside of science were rather small. World War II produced immense federal expenditures supporting scientific research, in the effort to develop radar and particularly in the Manhattan Project, which resulted in production of the first nuclear weapons. The technical achievements produced by applications of big science in WWII were impressive, and these large projects served as a prototype to be copied. This inaugurated the era of Big Science, in which large groups of scientists worked with expensive equipment on all kinds of largescale projects. Here we see a strong coupling of the value systems of society (with significant but weak dissent) with science and technology. Historically, it has been frequently the case that science and technology got a boost from war. Federal involvement in scientific research persisted after World War II because the government felt that research helped the country maintain a technological advantage over its rivals in both the military and the economic arenas. The space program provides a good example in which the main motivation was not of a military nature. As time has passed since World War II, the ability of society to agree on the goals for science and technology has weakened. Spending some tax dollars on medical research usually gets approval, but even here there are disagreements. On what areas should the bulk of research dollars be spentAIDS, cancer, nutrition, cardiology, etc.? This is major place for the science spectator to play a role as you are better informed on what science can and does do, you can have a more relevant influence on the role of government and society in science.
2-D.3. The International Nature of Science

An amazing feature of science is how international the scientific effort truly is. We gave a very brief historical and sociological overview of the conditions necessary for science, and possible reasons that modern science evolved in the context of Western Europe in the 17th and following centuries. But, we also saw how the roots of modern science existed in almost every culture and human enterprise.
64

Currently, science is practiced on every continent and is truly an international endeavor. This can be seen in many different ways. One of the most obvious signs of the international nature of science is the breadth of international meetings. Many countries have conference centers which regularly host meetings that bring scientists together from around the world. These meetings are highly dynamic enterprises and demonstrate the vast diversity of scientists. Another growing trend is the growth of universities around the world. Though at the time of writing this book, the United States was still one of the major centers for training scientists, there has been a real shift in what they do when they finish training. A growing number of recently trained scientists are returning to their country of origin and strengthening the universities at home. This in turn, increases the number of scientists those countries are able to train locally! The growth of the internet and the ease of travel and communication is only increasing this transition as knowledge becomes easier to access from anywhere in the world. Another aspect of science are large international collaborations. We already mentioned the idea of big science. Some efforts are so expensive (massive particle accelerators, huge telescopes, etc.) that they can only be funded by more than one country. Examples of these collaborations include CERN in Europe, Super-K in Japan and telescopes in South America.
2-E. Science and Other Disciplines

We have already touched on the difference between the scientific process and other human endeavors. However, it is worth spending a little space discussing two distinct comparisons between scientific and non-scientific methods. The first is the difference between scientific and non-scientific efforts to increase human knowledge or improve the human experience. As we have discussed, science is not designed to answer every question of interest to people. Therefore, we require other methods of gaining knowledge. The second issue we will address is the area of pseudo-science. This can be a challenge to define precisely, but one definition is non-scientific claims packaged as science to gain credibility. This can be a particularly dangerous non-scientific area as it can be connected with outright fraud.
2-E.1. Scientific Methods and Non-Scientific Methods Compared

One way to consider the different ways humans approach knowledge is to look at the structure of universities. The organization of universities into departments implies that knowledge also comes in compartmentalized areas. This is certainly not true, but can be a useful starting point. Such divisions include, but are not limited to, physical science, life science, engineering, social science, humanities, liberal arts, fine arts, and education. This trend toward compartmentalization has increased over time, and it encourages specialization that develops in depth knowledge in specific disciplines. One finds, paradoxically, That the individual disciplines become increasingly sub-subdivided (physics is divided into thermodynamics, nuclear physics, optics, and so forth. Individuals tend to specialize in applied physics, experimental physics, or theoretical physics within these various subdivisions), but That connections develop among previously unrelated disciplines that lead to new and exciting understanding. This is general referred to as inter- or multi-disciplinary. Examples of such connections include cross over in the sciences biological physics, bioinformatics
65

and cross over between humanities, arts, and social sciences to study multicultural issues. There are even fun connections, such as the physics of music or the chemistry of cooking! The separations between different disciplines reflect both differences in subject matter and differences of activity. The scientific method may not be appropriate for disciplines such as religion and literature, which are focused on interpretation of experience. These areas of study often involve understanding based on experiences (where careful operational definitions and measurements are not possible) or exploration of a particular value system. It is important to keep in mind that all quests for knowledge share one aspect in common; they all have underlying beliefs or assumptions. Recall that science rests on the simple idea that the physical universe is predictable and knowable and as with many strong beliefs it is one that is confirmed by repeated experience.
WHY versus HOW: A reasonable, and common, distinction between question science can address and those it can not is the difference between how and why. For example, why was the universe created? Why is gravity controlled by an inverse square law? In the strictest sense, these questions cannot be tested by scientific methods. Sometimes it appears we achieve an answer to why. For example, with gravity, we know that the inverse square law comes from an approximation to General Relativity. But, this doesnt really answer why; it answers how. And, it moves the question of why to, why General Relativity! Science really answers how things work. In a sense, questions of why require one to imagine that other scientific laws might somehow be possible; but this notion contradicts the assumption of uniformity that underlies scientific inquiry.
Most people accept the fact that science has a right answer and in other disciplines there is no single right answer. As with many simplifications, there is some truth to this, but the reality is more subtle and complex. For example, as science explores a new area, there are often significant differences that arise. They are eventually resolved, but because models are always approximations, alternate solutions can occur. The key is that every solution must achieve the same goal: quantitative prediction of the phenomena within a prescribed level of error. In many other disciplines, the situation can be complicated by the fact that people have different goals. In this case, people have apparently different conclusions, but in fact they are asking different questions! Additionally, even when the goal is the same, because the focus is much more on interpretation than prediction, there is not a pre-disposition for exact agreement. Part of the act of developing interpretations is the interaction between different interpretations!
Example of Two Answers: There is a very famous case in science where two answers to the same problem exist: quantum mechanics. As quantum mechanics was developed, two models rose to the top: (1) Schrodingers Wave Mechanics and (2) Heisenbergs Matrix mechanics. Both are sufficiently powerful and useful that students in physics learn both. It has proven that they are equivalent. But the mathematics used by each model is sufficiently different that they have definite strengths and weaknesses. This means that people use both, depending on the situation.
An interesting issue is the interaction between non-scientific and scientific disciplines. Aesthetic issues are one of the most obvious cases where interpretation is the key feature, and the scientific process appears to have limited use. And yet even in art, science can contribute useful information concerning

the nature of light, the optics of the eye, how we perceive colors and forms, and how those perceptions are affected by the organization of our brains. As our ability to study the brain improves, science may even be able to shed light on how people make decisions on beauty and appreciation of artwork. And yet, the fact will remain that there exists great variety in our interpretation of beauty, no matter how well we understand it. And this variation is part of what makes life so exciting and rewarding. Another place where science interacts with other disciplines is a vast array of social issues. For example, sewage treatment and disposal is not just a technical issue: it raises important ethical, economic, esthetic, social, and political concerns as well. In these cases, one must be careful of two things: 1) Do not expect the science to do too much. Science can rarely tell you the single correct social solution. Economics, ethics, and other issues must be accounted for. 2) Do not get the science wrong! Science will generally provide important limits on the solutions, and/or provide important information on the impact of different choices. This information should be the starting point for the decision process. If one starts with assumptions of ideology and try to fit the science into it, serious mistakes can be made. If for no other reason than not every conceived solution is possible, and sciences most important contribution is to tell you what is not possible! But, if one starts with the science, you can often find a reasonable solution that is still consistent with your ethical, economical, and even political goals.
Example: Our recurring example of the climate change debate is a great example of science interacting with a social issue. If one looks up the early public debates on the subject, you will see a strong element of ideology driving the debate instead of science. Even before the science gained significant reliability, there were a number of useful scientific questions that did not get as much discussion. One example is the fact that any form of energy generation has by-products. The idea of clean energy refers to a particular type of clean. Given this limitation on solutions, it could have provided an earlier forum for discussing issues such as, what type of by products are the least harmful? If we replace current technologies, what might be the new consequences? This would have prepared the public better for understanding the array of choices as the information regarding climate change became more reliable. So once there was a consensus that action was needed, there would also be the possibility of a greater understanding, and perhaps even agreement, on the solutions.
2-E.2. Science Versus Pseudoscience and Paranormal Claims

The pseudo sciences are many and have range of characteristics. Some, like astrology and alchemy, are of quite ancient origin and served as the origin for modern science. These are considered pseudo science now because of their failure to adopt modern scientific practices. Some others have the potential to be scientific. For example, telepathy and telekinesis can be approached either as a scientific study of brain function (which has lead to amazing advances in brain imaging and using the brain to interface directly with robotics) or in a way that has the trappings of science without any real substance. Others tend to be purely the trappings of science without the substance, such as phrenology, numerology, and palm reading. The main distinction between science and pseudo sciences is that the pseudo sciences do not rely on the complete scientific process to obtain their results. Typically, the central difference is the lack of testable, quantitative models in the pseudo sciences. The practice of pseudo sciences is subjective and emotional, rather than objective, and the evidence supporting them tends to be anecdotal (based on testimony regarding an event) rather than being based on a comprehensive and rigorous analysis. Such

support is usually based on faith in some authoritative figurehead, or it is the result of a popularity contest. There is both a dark side and a fun side to pseudo science. On the one hand, for many people, they provide relatively harmless entertainment ranging from horoscopes in the paper to television programs on a wide-range of topics. On the other hand, pseudo sciences (and paranormal claims) have been used as scams to separate people from their money through outright fraud.
The more subtle danger of pseudo-science is that it encourages sloppy thinking by providing easy answers. Though difficult to define, a good way to understand pseudo science is to consider the two historical examples mentioned previously that transformed from early science to pseudo science: alchemy and astrology. (This will review material from Chapter 1, but it is useful to see this again.) Alchemy, for example, was a view of nature that held that gold was the only pure metal, and all other metals were debased forms of gold. In addition, alchemy held that different materials, like people, had different personalities, and that chemical reactions could therefore be interpreted as having sexual and emotional components. Given the tools of the time, it was a reasonable model to pursue. For example, Newton spent much more of his intellectual life on alchemy than he did on physics; although much of his alchemical studies were experimental, his notes (and they run to millions of words!) reveal that his efforts were aimed at verifying, rather than testing, the methods of alchemy. Only as measurement techniques improved to the point that we had better models for chemistry and nuclear physics did we come to understand that the transmutation of elements requires nuclear reactions. Now, using modern nuclear reactors, we can turn other materials into gold with mercury being a reasonable starting point! So, what makes alchemy a pseudo-science today are the aspects that rely on the models of nature that are no longer consistent with experiments. Also, important feature of alchemy was that its knowledge was a secret, to be concealed from all but the initiated. And this type of process goes against the process of modern science. Astrology is another example of an activity that was once reasonable science. Again, the key issue is the current level of knowledge regarding the interaction between planets and people! Interestingly, Kepler, whose studies of the planets first revealed the simple mathematics underlying their orbits, made his living as an astrologer. He may have had a belief that the planets and stars have some influence on peoples lives, but already by the time he was working, the scientific aspects of astrology were unraveling. For example, he never felt confident that he understood what that influence was. He wrote, A mind accustomed to mathematical deduction, when confronted with the faulty foundations of astrology, resists a long, long time, like an obstinate mule, until compelled by beating and curses to put its foot into that dirty puddle. In terms of our previous discussion of the nature of science, we can see that Kepler is complaining that astrology lacks reliable, testable paradigms. Still, he practiced astrology in order to help put food on the table. It turns out that as you develop you skills as a science spectator, you can turn some pseudo-sciences to your advantage. For example, the use of numbers and probability often are the basis of pseudo-science. Do you have one or more lucky numbers? Should you use a lucky number to pick a lottery ticket? It

turns out that lots of people have the same lucky numbers, and they show up on their tickets. Any combination of numbers is equally likely to win, so you should avoid the so-called lucky numbers. Then, if you win, you may not have to split the prize money. Still better, given the odds in most lotteries do not even play at all! Note that pseudoscience can be different from paranormal (or supernatural) beliefs. The very name, paranormal or supernatural, claims to be different (and even greater) than nature and physical reality. Often, paranormal beliefs dont make real claims to be scientific. The key is that belief is usually required. However, depending on the way the claims are presented, you might classify them as supernatural/paranormal and pseudoscience. For example, areas like luck, witchcraft, ghosts, prophetic dreams, vampires, and demonic possessions can be presented as articles of faith that defy scientific explanation or as strange manifestation of scientific ideas. Typically, the second examples are classic cases of pseudo science because despite the use of scientific terms, they fail to execute key elements of the scientific process. Finally, adding to the confusion, there are a number of topics that are a bit of pseudoscience and paranormal beliefs and potential science, depending on the approach. These might include herbal remedies and behavior associated with the brain. Herbs certainly will interact with the human body, and many of them can have positive effects. The brain certainly interacts with electromagnetic fields, and our current imaging techniques are quite impressive. So, depending on how the study is carried out really determines the scientific level of confidence. Here is where having the skills of a true science spectator can really help sort through the wide range of claims.
2-G. Summary
We have seen that there are many facets of science, so that a simple definition of science is impossible. It is a human activity that examines the breadth of the natural universe from within a carefully constructed philosophical framework. It is a powerful tool based on quantitative operations using the scientific method that relies on a community of practitioners and their institutions for relentless critical review. Part of its power comes from the fact that its applicability is narrowly restricted. Science does lead to information that allows humans to make reliable predictions of future behavior. Although science is constrained by culture and by Nature itself, it also has a sound philosophical foundation. Why has the scientific approach to studying the universe been so successful? There are three main factors. They make up the process of modern science: 1. Part of the reason is the narrow scope of scientific investigations. Scientific study is limited to quantifiable concepts (based on operational definitions) tied to natural phenomena. These are things that can be measured. Because these concepts are defined by operations tied to our senses we obtain a high degree of objectivity, precision, and clarity in our investigations. 2. Science investigates the relationships between as many natural phenomena as is possible, clarifying their connections through rigorous application of the scientific method. This process is very thorough as well as being precise, and it requires accountability with nature. This rigor, thoroughness, precision, and accountability have produced considerable confidence in the enterprise of science. 3. The scientific communitys behavioral norms, especially organized skepticism when dealing with natural phenomena, have also contributed to the success of science.
69

The institutionalization of these three characteristics of science has enhanced the reliability and efficiency of scientific enterprise as tools, terminology, and ideas are constantly refined. In addition, it encourages belief in continued scientific progress. Note that there is no claim being made that science progresses perfectly. If science is such a success, why does the world have so many problems? The biggest problems in the world have to do with how people treat each other and how they treat the Earths environment. These issues involve value judgments that are properly within the domain of the liberal arts. Science tells us what technology is possible. Value systems tell us if and how technologies should be developed. Science, engineering, and technology have created resources (time and wealth) that can be applied to solving problems in the humanities and social sciences, but it cannot choose the solutions themselves. This will work only if all people can come to understand the technical complexities life presents to us, and if they can then agree on what values are most important so that the appropriate technology can be employed. A substantial part of the problem in this regard is due to the widespread ignorance of science within the general population. Ignorance can lead to fear, creating a mood of hysteria surrounding many technical topics, and this spills over into the political arena. To this end, it is important that scientists study liberal arts, and develop an appreciation of their importance. Likewise, non-scientists must become scientifically literate, and they must develop an appreciation of both the power and the limitations of science. It is necessary to understand how to separate technical issues from non-technical issues, and to avoid mixing them so that a technical problem ends up being attacked with an artistic approach (or vice versa). It is also important to avoid creating problems or rejecting good technical solutions because of bad science, pseudoscience, or just plain ignorance. In this context, your journey to become a top science spectator is critical. We will continue that journey by exploring the other two pillars: scientific language and content. Then, we will return to these societal issues in the final chapter, when we examine the topic of Science and Society.
70
Vocabulary
Anti-science: An attitude that is fundamentally opposed to the practice of physical science (frequently on philosophical or religious grounds) or to the acceptance of science as being an especially reliable domain of knowledge. Behavioral norms: community. Accepted and approved ways of performing tasks and behaving within a given
Deductive reasoning: Analytical logic that proceeds by steps from accepted general principles to specific conclusions. When done correctly, the results are reliable and inevitable. Inductive reasoning: Synthetic logic that integrates specific results and reaches a general principle. It involves a creative leap that is not necessarily reliable or inevitable. Invariant: Something is invariant if it is constant (i.e., unvarying as a function of time). Model: An abstract concept explaining, often by analogy, a physical system (or some other system). In science, the goal is for a model to be as simple as possible and have a mathematical representation. Ideally, a model will have quantitative predictive power. Operation: A physical (or intellectual) process. Exampleoperations can be performed when we are measuring physical quantities or when we manipulate equations or numbers. One very important use of the operational point of view: a physical quantity is defined by the operation(s) used to measure that quantity. Paradigm: An idea, viewpoint, or standard that is shared and accepted by people in a given community. The paradigms of science are shared and accepted by scientists to a degree that is unusually uniform. Physical: Something is physical if it can be sensed and/or measured. If it can be measured, units are associated with it. Process of Modern Science: The process by which human beings compare the results of experimental and natural observations with theories that are meant to describe nature. This process requires that all work is subjected to intense skeptical review, and it include an emphasis on quantitative work for both theory and measurement. Pseudo science: False science that is unreliable and/or unethical. But it is usually associated with the trappings of science such as the use of numbers, spatial relationships, etc. Frequently pseudoscience requires belief from its advocates and/or its investigators.
71
EXERCISES: (Chapter 2) The Nature of Science

1. 2. What is an operational definition; why is it important? (a) Write an operational definition of a day. (b) Write an operational definition of a month and a moon-th. (c) Write an operational definition of a stone (weight). (d) Write an operational definition of a foot. Use words to describe a model of an automobile. Then use a picture alone to represent a model of an auto. Then use both words and a picture to represent an auto model. Discuss the hierarchy of models/principles and the degree to which they have become accepted. What purpose is served by the use of idealized models in physics and other sciences? Compare the relative reliability of theories in the physical sciences with those in political science. The word proof has different meanings in: science, math, engineering, and art. Compare these meanings. (a) Outline and explain the scientific method (each of the 4 steps). (b) Describe the types of errors to which each step is susceptible. (c) In a mature field of science, which of the four steps is least likely to be in error and why? 17. The process of modern science includes the scientific method plus the imperatives that the work be precisely quantitative and that the work be institutionally criticized. Describe why these last two ideas are important.
3.
4. 5. 6. 7.
8.
9.
10. Describe inductive and deductive reasoning. 11. In medical (and many other research areas) experiments, the double blind method is used to remove bias. Who is blinded in such tests and how is it done? 12. What is a paradigm? List several paradigms of physics. 13. What is the main activity of normal science? Elaborate. 14. In what ways is the science community unusually unique with respect to degree of conformity? 15. Revolutions in science can be painful. Why? 16. The paradigms and models of science are constantly being refined. Expand on this idea, and pay particular attention to the importance of the operational nature of science. 17. What is the most important behavioral norm in the science community? Why is it so important, and what actions are taken to implement it? 18. Describe how the following philosophical concepts from Chapter 1 provide support for the norm of organized skepticism: (a) Repeatability of experiments.

Chapter2 Ver4

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Chapter2 Ver4

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

CHAPTER 2 THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

2-A. The Nature of Science

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

2-B. Science is Quantitative: Operational Definitions

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

2-C The Scientific Method

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

2-C.1: Testing predictions or what is scientific proof?

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

Figure: Detective in search of proof!

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

2-C.2: Using Scientific Models: Paradigms and Normal Science

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

2-D. The Scientific Community

2-D.1. Behavioral Norms

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

2-D.2. Scientific Institutions

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

Aerial view of the Stanford Linear Accelerator facility

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

NASA space shuttle.

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

2-D.3. The International Nature of Science

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

2-E. Science and Other Disciplines

2-E.1. Scientific Methods and Non-Scientific Methods Compared

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

2-E.2. Science Versus Pseudoscience and Paranormal Claims

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

Chapter 2: The Nature of Science

EXERCISES: (Chapter 2) The Nature of Science

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi