What Is Science?
Some time ago I was visiting a college in Pakistan. I thought I was just there as an observer. My mistake. I was introduced to a physics class with final words that filled my soul with dread:
" ... from England who is going to give a talk on the topic What is science? ".
Now, when you are put on the spot like that, what do you do? Well - it's science, so you can't just make stuff up. You have to tell it like it is. Fortunately, my bottom line for what constitutes science is all a matter of questions and answers. Purely from memory, here is my little talk.
What is science?
Science is about asking questions - especially good questions. But what makes a good question? I could say: "I know a good question when it is asked.", but that doesn't help you, does it? Can we agree that a good question seeks to know what is as yet unknown?
Hang on. If I ask if UFOs exist or if there are little green men on the planet Zonk, are those good questions? I would say no. I would say no, because there is no realistic way of answering those questions. Questions about whether or not something exists have only two scientific answers: "Yes." and "I don't know.".
Does lightning exist? "Well of course it does." you say. Right! That is the first point of agreement in science: we only ask questions about things which we all agree to exist. If we can't agree, we leave it to philosophers.
We agree that lightning exists. Now, suppose I suggested that lightning is caused by Thor banging his hammer. Is there a way of asking questions to prove or disprove my theory? Can you suggest any experiments?
Well, we know today that lightning is an electric discharge, but how did we come to know it? The scientists who first learned about electrical discharges noticed that lightning looks like a big bright spark - so they asked a good question: "Is lightning a big bright spark?".
You see, you can ask all sorts of questions but there are good questions and bad questions.
"Is lightning caused by an angry god?"
Bad question: you will never get a clear majority of people to agree that such a god might exist, and if so, by what mean he causes lightning. Hammer? Venom? Nose-blowing?
"Is lightning caused by the same means as the sparks we see in the laboratory?"
Good question: we can conduct experiments to test our ideas.
Benjamin Franklin knew how to ask the right questions about science. Being impatient to wait for permission to put a lightning rod on a church steeple, Ben Franklin famously flew a kite into a thunderstorm - taking precautions not to invent the world's first electric grill.
Not all scientists are as brave as Ben Franklin. But every day you will find that someone, somewhere is pushing the boundaries of knowledge by asking the right sort of question - the sort of question that suggests an experiment along the path to a rational answer.
What is science without good questions from an inquiring mind?
----------------------
Further reading:
http://sln.fi.edu/franklin/scientst/electric.html
Comments
The boundaries may extend as more information comes to light that demonstrates that such a query is legitimate, however without such a situation, science is simply speculating and/or philosophizing about something that can't be proven or tested.
Gerhard Adam | 03/13/10 | 19:01 PM
You are correct, if you don't leave your yard you will never find what, if anything, exists outside. Sciences job is to push that boundary fence further out. With each new finding, new successful experiment the fence gets further away from the house, so to speak. Our 'Yard' of knowledge is forever growing bigger. Oh and some chicks look great in lab coats and glasses...lol
Anonymous (not verified) | 06/24/10 | 01:50 AM
If I ask if UFOs exist or if there are little green men on the planet Zonk, are those good questions? I would say no.
I would argue with your conclusions here. In the first place the first half of that question (UFO's exist) is completely true, since a UFO is an Unidentified Flying Object. What isn't true is when we translate UFO to mean alien spaceship. Similarly the second half of the question is also legitimate since it asks a specific question for which a specific answer can exist.
"Is lightning caused by an angry god?"
Bad question: you will never get a clear majority of people to agree
that such a god might exist, and if so, by what mean he causes
lightning. Hammer? Venom? Nose-blowing?
This statement extends the point I was making previously, since this is also a good legitimate question. However, it becomes important when it is paired with auxiliary questions that attempt to explain or make predictions based on the original premise. In other words, "If lightning is caused by an angry god, then ... " what predictions are we making that can be tested. It is a completely scientific hypothesis that can be tested and proven or disproven.
Once we have tested such a hypothesis we may conclude that all of our predicted results are consistent with natural phenomenon and every time we try to assign it to an angry god, we end up with even more auxiliary questions that we can't predict the results of.
One of the difficulties with such question is that they are infinitely malleable and invariably lead to the conclusion that assigning a cause to a god leads to the "trickster god" situation where any evidence to the contrary is being generated by a "trickster" to prevent you from seeing the god's involvement. Certainly an individual may choose to believe that conclusion, but it will have been shown to have little or no scientific merit at that point.
What makes this a relevant consideration is that the ideas of spontaneous generation and creation were accepted as reasonable explanations at one point. Natural Selection was not proposed as an anti-religious or atheist agenda, but rather it showed better results and made better predictions that those conclusions that "creationism" did. As a result the religious explanations were abandoned by science in favor of the better theory. Especially when coupled with the evidence from geology, physics, chemistry, etc. it is easy to see that the creationist explanation is forced to rely on the "trickster god" hypothesis to explain their creation in terms that make it consistent with the biblical accounts.
Gerhard Adam | 03/13/10 | 18:52 PM
Case study, Hopi DNA
Thunderchild, I am young (in my 50's but I see humans as young and I am a human) and learning, but seek to echo the one true light.
Background for my question: From a scientific stand point, when I was farther north (currently in southern Alaska) by not many hundreds of miles, during the summer, it was light for 24 hours a day in mid summer, dark for 24 hours in mid winter.
So from a scientific background limited to the experience, without knowing or describing if the earth is round or flat, but knowing that to the south of me I did not have this same experience of "24 hours" but "20 hours" where the sun was above the horizon maximum.
From the 24 hour point of view, one, was to stand, at the center of the earth?
According to a national Geographic show I watched having to do with the mapping of the human DNA http://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/, native Americans, came through this area on their journey south.
Presenting this DNA information to the Hopi, who gave their oral story that they came from, from total darkness, and followed the light. The story if I remember it correctly, said they came from the center of the earth.
Why do these stories and the DNA "have to" be seen as opposing and contradicting each other? If the story that was handed down was the same truth reveled by the DNA?
If this story, was handed down from the first people to set foot where the Hopi now live, when before that there was no evidence to be found, that any human being had ever been there before?
A story handed down for 10(s?) of thousands of years, of the origin of the Hopi.
I do not feel the DNA result nullify, that story as being accurate, but perhaps my understanding of that story, could gain another perspective, with more information (like if I were to stand, where it appears I am at the earths center, am I lying, or describing as best I can to the best of my information if I did not know more?).
Likewise the existence of god, Adam and Eve, may be better understood, with more knowledge and it is not saying what is not truth, only perhaps it may be lacking in my seeing it in a different light.
I need not believe there is a God, if God is real, then if I seek to know what is real with that objective and without biased, then I may uncover the truth of that if it is true, without that even being my choose destination, the truth will speak for itself, if I let it and not dismiss it due to lack of evidence or understanding.
I need not believe, nor disbelieve, to seek to learn what is true.
If in truth all that is real, is interrelated, perhaps God is the total, that is more than just the sum of the parts?
I study my car alternator, but is the car alternator the car?
I study the gasoline system, but is the gasoline system the car?
I study the steering wheel, but is the car?
In what 'part' can I find that which is, the car?
Perhaps then, even if yet unknown to me, God may exist, independent of my understanding of what that means - yet - and can be subjective to change, based on more information. where I can gain another point of view?
I know it may be easy to find fault, like with ideas of spontaneous generation and creation, but I seek to be open to where these "may" be just be true, only my interpretation of them may be lacking. Who was the first human? Among what nationality and tribe? How long were these stories oral before becoming written?
If so many stories from different locations, say they were the first people, perhaps they are all telling the truth? I do not have to agree with what is said, to listen, and respect what is said, because I may not yet understand correctly.
Until recently I thought I lived in a spiral galaxy, but learned more information leading to changing my perspectives, that I live in a barred galaxy.
I do not know this to be truth, by leaving the galaxy and looking back (first hand observation), so I listen, with an open mind that it could be the truth, to the best of our knowledge, and leave that open, to change based on more information.
I could not believe you, nor disbelieve you if you told me you spoke with someone from another planet who landed in your back yard in a space ship. All that I would know, is this is what you are telling me. And be open that you could be right, and you could be wrong, I was not there, so I do not "know". But I will do my best to give you the benefit of the doubt that you "could" be telling the truth.
But I can wonder about it, because to me, if there was intellegent life in the universe besides this planet, why have they not made contact?
What if it is just because they are intellegent?
If told God does exist, or told God does not exist, I reserve the right to question the answers. If God is truth, he/she/it would not mind, that I seek to know what is truth, rather than "believe", and risk believing in what is not truth, when there are so many different stories.
So I tend to be interested in all of them, and see often where they are the same, yet different, but very strong in where they come to the same conclusions, based on independent observations.
Are the aborigines of Australia descendants of the first humans on earth?
Are the Hopi? Are the Christians? The Muslims?
Does the DNA results conflict, or support, they are each telling what is the truth?
Mine is not an argument for or against God, or if the ancient stories of the Hopi and others are truth or not, just, reserving the right not to close the book, in event it is I, who is just not seeing more to the story by simply not asking the right questions.
I choose not to choose. But to keep an open mind.
Objective of learning the truth, without bias.
Is this not also, the art, of science?
Tree Thunderchild | 03/14/10 | 03:23 AM
'Questions about whether or not something exists have only two scientific answers: "Yes." and "I don't know.";
Really? That would be news to skeptics who love to use the word "no" as an answer to many questions, all the time. Quick, someone tell Michael Shermer that he's not scientific!
OK, I'll do it...
Marshall Barnes | 03/14/10 | 07:47 AM
They may not know, but there are still likely probabilities that can be assigned based on evidence.
e.g.For a given UFO the probabilities that was 1) alien spaceship, 2) terrestrial aircraft, 3) weather balloon, 4) the weather 5) psychological, 6) something else; will vary depending on the evidence in the case in question. #1 is always pretty unlikely simply given our knowledge of our own star system, and the distances to any other. It's not inherently impossible however, and if we lived in a star system with multiple inhabited planets, it might even be likely.
e.g.For a given UFO the probabilities that was 1) alien spaceship, 2) terrestrial aircraft, 3) weather balloon, 4) the weather 5) psychological, 6) something else; will vary depending on the evidence in the case in question. #1 is always pretty unlikely simply given our knowledge of our own star system, and the distances to any other. It's not inherently impossible however, and if we lived in a star system with multiple inhabited planets, it might even be likely.
Anonymous (not verified) | 03/14/10 | 13:28 PM
scientific answers: "Yes." and "I don't know."
I prefer not to even say "yes", (spiral galaxy example), only, that I am trying to learn, and be willing to share, what is to the best of my knowledge (subject, to change).
Tree Thunderchild | 03/14/10 | 09:56 AM
I think that those of us who are writers, and philosophers, need to ask the right questions.
And to not be afraid to ask some daft ones too.
Rycharde Manne | 03/14/10 | 10:33 AM
I seem to remember something like "for example, the answer may be 4, but the question could be what is 2 and 2, or what is 7 minus 3, or 20 divided by 5. They are all right, but only one is right in the situation I need to know about" [paraphrased from memory]
I can't find the passage, but as a taster, see
http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/callanish/39/anna.htm
It has since transpired that this may have been a work of fiction, but it still has soon great 'different ways of looking' as a theme throughout the book, and remains my preferred methodology
I think there is much more to human awareness than is addressed by conventional questions, which seem to 'need to be not silly' or 'don't fit current models/theories' and are thus rejected incessantly, possibly to our detriment
Hopefully the 'boundaries of science' are moving at last, to look at human experiences that are seemingly common, but not acceptable
It is surely time for some open-mindedness into areas previously discarded, like myths and superstitions of the past have been
Aitch
Henry Cox | 03/14/10 | 13:37 PM
discarded, like myths and superstitions of the past have been"
I am personally open to explore all areas, yet I am also leery of trespassing certain limitations of the site, that could put moderators into overtime.
I'd like to not encourage their work here to become difficult as a result by inviting to much of what some would call 'out there' explorations.
Only my opinion on this, but if it could be done (examine things like myths and superstitions), But, in a way that is honestly scientifically objective, so as to not stray from the original intention of the site.
Like when I tried once to bring up time travel that I felt may have been subjected to the "out there" classification. So without creating a blog about it, but reference to it in a post where it might have something to do with the topic at hand, and use a point of reference that I hope to be acceptable and comprehensible.
Such as: Not wanting to be arrested for breaking the laws of natural law if I say I can travel through time and space. But if I stop traveling in time and space, I cant then finish typing this post.
To not just postulate something "out there" on a limb of the science tree, but, if perceived by others as such, to try to bring it back to the common understanding to help bring it from the realm of mystical, into the practical, logical and comprehensible.
Failing to do so, would be to let it stand on its own as science fiction, not fact. When the true objective would be to take what some may call science fiction, and seek to provide tangible supportive evidence of it being fact, that the reader can then see/validate for themselves. To aid in the increase of knowledge, rather than confusion and leave it as that.
Like looking into a multifaceted crystal, and to try my best to show how the one facet is reflecting the same light, but added together they make a more clear picture of the whole.
I can understand why it would be objectionable, to introduce something that does not belong, so, it would then be the scientific responsibility of the person introducing the subject, to also provide the means for understanding not just the science behind it, but how and in what way it does, fit into the acceptable paradigm of the scientific commons (to bring what is seen as "out there" more down to earth). In that way, to aid in expanding on what the acceptable paradigm means, rather than distract from it.
When I make references to my own personal life or experiences, my desired intent is not to tell my life story here (not desiring to distract), but to trying to aid in the readers understanding either by providing a first hand experienced example or to help define where the poster is coming from objectively. Such as when the same conclusions are reached, yet from entirely different and independent observers, to clarify in "what way" my perspective may be different and independent compared to the scientific commons.
Like if Thor and Ben Franklyn shared what they learned about lightning, and what was common ground could aid the other in better understanding by seeing the same subject but from different points of view, to aid in the scientific discovery, as apposed to arguing over which perspective is the accurate one, to share with each other their information as well as how they came by it, to aid in understanding any conclusions they gained by it.
Tree Thunderchild | 03/15/10 | 01:59 AM
Thanks to all, sincerely, for your contributions.
I am personally open to explore all areas, yet I am also leery of trespassing certain limitations of the site, that could put moderators into overtime.
I'd like to not encourage their work here to become difficult as a result by inviting to much of what some would call 'out there' explorations.
Nicely put, Tree, thanks.
I'd like to encourage a debate in my own science blogs as wide as is pragmatic. By that, I mean that comments should have a target, a focus, a purpose: ideally, some utility. My purpose is to explain science where known and to explore it where unknown. I can't do that alone - nobody can: it's a group effort.
By definition the unknown lies beyond the boundaries of known science. But the good ship science works by tried and tested methods. If a proposed new area of exploration requires new charts, new instruments, a new rudder and redesigned sails, then my particular ship just ain't going there.
But when we all sit down in the mess to spin a yarn, we can swap random thoughts, humor and scuttlebutt. We can by all means even look at ancient myths and legends. In the ship's mess, no member of my jolly crew need ask: "Permission to speak, sir?"
Once more on deck, we must think or swim, so I keep a rope's end handy. Someone has to keep ye lubberly swabs in line.
:-)
Patrick Lockerby | 03/15/10 | 07:14 AM
Even just the basics of reality seem to be subjective to requiring a thousand scientists working over time, just to nail down to the extent anyone can conclude that the results arrived at are "tangible".
This is not helped much, when we the observers, cannot be nailed down as "tangible", if in consideration of, what cell or part of the brain, contains the observer (the individuals, self-awareness)?
How can we define the universe as tangible, when the observer is not? So even in its most basic fundamental objective, science it would seem to me, has its hands very full indeed. So I'm not one wanting to throw a rope out there, unless its one I feel is needed to help bring the ship to a safe place to explore from. Then perhaps to slowly and tentatively explore but not in the midst of a storm.
If my area of science is not within the paradigm of the scientific common community, then I would want to assist in broadening that paradigm, and confusion is not going to help me to do that, nor would adding confusion to the known sciences be much assistance in helping the average human, from the dark ages into the light, if what I offer them is unstable ground and frightening.
Even an eagle tries its wings out on a branch near the nest, before diving out into the open sky.
I think humor is helpful too, even as an adult eagle knows one of the secretes of flight is to....
"lighten up", or crash.
Tree Thunderchild | 03/15/10 | 12:06 PM
SCIENCE is a Systematic and Comprehensive Investigation and Exploration of Nature's Causes and Effects
Anonymous (not verified) | 08/23/10 | 02:59 AM
SCIENCE is a Systematic and Comprehensive Investigation and Exploration
of Nature's Causes and Effects
I like that, anonymous. :-)
Patrick Lockerby | 08/23/10 | 11:30 AM
My question is about boundaries?
Why does science put a boundary around itself, when it purports to be examining the whole universe and all life in it?
Isn't it an impossible task if science puts a boundary around its own house?
I mean if I don't go beyond my boundary fence, I can never explore the neighbourhood
If Science leaves certain things to philosophers, then why does it spend so much timme philosophying about what lies beyond the known and making up theories?
Isn't the boundary really like it's made of rubber, and can be stretched to accomodate the new and unknown, even things which may have been there all along, but couldn't get looked at because of some fear, or political or financial influence, and not a really solid boundary that stops anything from changing?
Please, Sir, Are they good questions? ;-)
Aitch