WHAT IS SCIENCE?

If you look up the word science in the dictionary you will find that it means knowledge, knowledge of anything. In this sense theology is sometimes spoken of as the queen of sciences. But when we normally use the word science, and for the purposes of this discussion, we mean natural science. This is the investigation, by a process of trial and error, of the natural world - that is to say, the world we can observe and measure. Natural science in this sense grows both out of curiosity and out of necessity. It has probably a history as long as humankind itself, though only in the last 250 years or so has it come into its present very effective form. Science is only possible when humans are allowed by their fellows to call in question what is generally accepted as true, and are themselves able to give up old beliefs when they no longer prove to be in agreement with facts that have newly come to light. That is to say a scientist must be open-minded, though this is by no means the same thing as being empty-headed! Science as a Method Science starts from observation, observation that is made both as accurately and as abundantly as may be possible. Only in this way can the situation being studied be clearly discerned and its uncertainties recognised. After making suitable observations the next stage is to develop some explanation of what has been seen to happen. A possible explanation is called an hypothesis, and normally there are several alternative hypotheses that would seem able to fit the facts. These must all be brought to light by a process of the mind known as induction, which is in a sense no more than a process of guessing, an exercise of the imagination. In everyday life, too often people are satisfied with their guesses just because they are their own guesses! In science it is necessary to guess as many alternative explanations as may seem able to explain the facts, and then to sort them out for their usefulness by means of their success in foretelling situations not yet investigated. To do this another process of the mind, using the department of logic known as deduction, is brought into operation. Each hypothesis is examined in turn to see what must be implied by it if it is true, what should follow if it is correct. This is, if you like, making the hypothesis prophesy. Next comes the crucial stage in scientific method: verification, or the testing of the various prophecies by appeal to more observation. This involves a manual process, an operation of the hands, and use of the senses. Whenever possible the testing observations are made in the form of what is called an experiment. In this case observations necessary to test the reliability of the hypothesis in prediction are made in conditions that are under the control of the research worker. If the hypothesis on test fails to predict what actually happens in the experiment it is regarded as useless and is discarded. If it does predict correctly it is not held to be true beyond doubt, but merely to be true as far as it goes. Where a hypothesis cannot be tested under the stricter conditions of an experiment it may have to await the making of observations as and when these become possible in the course of nature. In astronomy it is not possible to compel the heavenly bodies to move into any particular conjunction necessary for the testing of an hypothesis, but, as and when that does happen, it is possible to test theories and hypotheses that have been advanced previously. In the course of the continued making of further observations, whether in experiments or otherwise, facts come to light that at last show the weakness of the hypothesis previously accepted as true. Then the making of a better hypothesis becomes necessary and our method goes round its course again, as it were in a circle - but not truly in a circle, rather in a spiral, because this new cycle of development is at a higher level of understanding. This introduces us to the idea that the scientist's "truth" is relative; it is an approximation; and old "truths", in this sense, will be given up when newer and better ones can be invented in their place. This explains what is for some people one of the greatest stumbling blocks about science: that it is not final in its conclusions! Scientists are always prepared, indeed delighted, to change to new explanations if these lie closer to the known facts. Scientific truth, then, is not final. It represents the stages reached at any one time in the quest for understanding. The level of success in this quest is always to be measured by the degree of agreement between statement and fact. Scientific truth represents the best that can be done at any moment. It has no authority to prejudice further enquiry in the field to which it applies. Acceptance of any scientific hypothesis as being true does not result from any quality of elegance nor from the sincerity or the enthusiasm with which it is advanced; neither does it rest on any other personal grounds, such as, that it is your own hypothesis, or the hypothesis of someone you greatly respect. The only grounds for accepting any hypothesis as being true for the purpose for which it is invented are that it works - that it does in fact serve the purpose of holding together a large number of existing facts, and predicting facts as yet unknown. This is very unlike the idea of truth as understood in other walks of life, and it is one of the distinguishing features of the scientific attitude.

What is a Scientific Experiment ? An experiment is a situation so arranged that the material that is being observed provides by its very behaviour its own answer to the question that is being posed. If it does this, then it declares an answer Yes to the question; if it does that, it declares an answer No - and so the solution of the problem is made impersonal and independent of the whim or the fancy of the person who is conducting the experiment. An account of the design, course and result of the experiment is in time published, so that anyone else may repeat it for the purpose of checking the experimenter's conclusions. In any experiment it is necessary for only one of the conditions of the experiment to vary at a time. Otherwise what is seen to happen cannot be linked up definitely with one changing factor that may then be thought of as responsible for it. If you were servicing a car engine that refused to go, you wouldn't in one operation replace the plugs, clean the carburettor, reset the points, etc. You would recondition one of these things at a time, until at last you came to whatever it was you had to do to restore the engine so that it would restart. You could then say that the engine failed to work because of whatever it was that you had discovered to be at fault. In experiments where, because of insufficient knowledge, it is not certain that only one factor is being altered at a time, it is necessary to set up a parallel experiment, called the control. For example, if you have to put a plant in a glass vessel to discover what happens in its leaves when the surrounding gases are changed, you must also set up another plant in a glass vessel without altering the gases around it. This will show whether or not anything that happens in the other part of the experiment is merely the result of the plant having, of necessity, been shut up inside a glass vessel. Science and Man So much for the way in which scientific knowledge is advanced. Now a little about what science can do for man, and what it cannot do. It extends the range of the senses enormously, it also increases foresight (the ability to foretell what can be expected to happen in advance of it actually happening). This is of great assistance to humans both in enabling them to by-pass difficulties that they might otherwise have to endure, and in giving them the power to secure results that they have planned for in advance. In this way science enormously increases the means at humankind's command for the achievement of its aims, whether these be constructive or destructive. It is the source of power in action. Science cannot, however, deal with the unobservable. It can deal with electrons, not themselves directly observable, became these are observable through the measureable tracks that they leave behind. But though science can deal with electrons it cannot deal with propositions about angels, even should it in fact be the case that guardian angels govern our individual behaviour. Angels, by definition, not being part of the natural world, the impossibility of treating such propositions by scientific method is apparent. Equally, science does not replace wisdom. It cannot judge between the alternative ends that we act upon as our individual or collective ambitions, though it may give us the means by which the more readily to achieve those ends. At least for the present scientific method is unable to tell us what it is best to see, or what it is best to like. Some people think that it never will be able to do this, though scientific knowledge sometimes warns us in advance of the consequences of our choices. Science is not the mere accumulation of encyclopaedic knowledge. It is not exactly common sense - at least as far as some of its conclusions are concerned. It is, however, thoroughly "common sensical" in its reliance upon trial and error. It is not a body of doctrine resting upon the authority of persons. It is not the mere pursuit of gadgets, though gadgets in their variety have resulted from the advancement of scientific knowledge. Science is a way of enquiring. It is a method of advancing knowledge about those happenings that can be seen and measured. It is an advance into the unknown in the pursuit of understanding; understanding that is to be reached by the use of trial and error, operated wherever possible under the controlled conditions of an experiment. SCIENTISTS In a sense we are wrong in talking of science as if it existed by itself. Science is only the name for a human activity. Science is only the work and findings of scientists. It is not a sausage machine grinding out relentless results. The success of the method must depend on the integrity and the competence of those who use the method; i.e. on the qualities of individual scientists. Scientists are humans like others, but they happen to be humans with special interests and abilities, just as other humans in other walks of life have their special interests and abilities. Like all other humans they too are fallible and prey to their emotions, ambitions and greed. Scientists sometimes do err - unconsciously and on purpose. Scientists are not merely intellectual workers. They have to be skilled with their hands in setting up experiments, and in devising tools or instruments with which to advance the accuracy of their observations. They are, therefore, of two worlds, having both manual and intellectual skills.

BACK