Foundations of the Scientific Method

An organized approach utilized to systematically study and solve problems of the natural world.

The laws of nature are the same at all times and at all places in the world and in the Universe as a whole. The details of specific events will be different, but the underlying principles will always be the same. (p. 26)

Once a hypothesis about the reasons for an event is proven, then it becomes a theory which can be used to predict future similar events ANYWHERE.

Determinism is the view that all events arise unambiguously from well-defined causes. (p. 38)

Cause and effect. There must be a cause (or series of causes that interact) that can be uncovered for every event.

When several conflicting explanations are proposed for the same set of observations, the best explanation is the one with the fewest independent assumptions. (Also known as KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) (p. 34)

Air blows from high to low pressure because nature abhors vacuums. Correct

Air blows from high to low pressure because omipotent aliens dislike vacuums, so they arranged things that way. And if you don't like this, prove that I am wrong. Incorrect.

Note: Science does not attempt to dissuade individuals of "beliefs". A "belief" is an assumption made about how things work based upon "faith" not provable on the basis of research fashioned on the basis of the scientific method.

This is not meant to be perjorative. Many scientists have "beliefs" independent of what science can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. However, since, by definition, all "theories" are hypotheses explained with no independent (unprovable) assumptions, they are regarded by science as "facts", rather than "beliefs."

True scientists accept such science facts (theories) as proven by the rules of the method, but still may choose to believe that more complex, unprovable things are at play.

Science "facts" that have been suppressed by temporary biases (political, religious, social or otherwise), often become accepted by society as a whole after one or two generations of controversy. An example of this was the active suppression by religious authories of the "theory of gravity"(Galileo) and the notion that the universe was not centered on the earth (Copernicus). At the time, these views were thought heretical, and contrary to the center of religious, political and social beliefs at the time and suppression was brual and self-righteous. Yet after one or two centuries, there was no controversy at all about these theories.

Your instructor separates out the notion of how facts are proven in science (once proven, they are facts, by definition), and the fact that individuals can choose to ignore such proven facts based upon personal belief systems. That is a right in this country and others in which free exercise of thought and belief is found.

However, this is a course in science, and what is "fact" is defined on the basis of the experimentation steps of the scientific method. And the students in this class are required to learn what the method is.

Modern science does not even pretend to uncover absolute truths. Instead, it generates hypotehtical explanations, then sifts through them so that only the simplest survive. By"simplest" we don't necessarily mean the easiest to comprehend. Rather, we mean simple in the sense of relying on the fewest independent assumptions. (p. 35)

The notion of "hypothesis" is grounded on finding evidence to support a conjecture that explains the organization implicit in a set of observations. The conjecture is based upon what has already been proven. What is "proven" is based upon thoughtful consideration of all the supporting evidence. Thus, in science, one can only prove the affirmative.

To put that in other words, in science one is required to "put your money where your mouth is." The common misconception that allows people to say "prove that I am wrong" is not allowed in science, because the person making such a statement is allowing himself/herself to make an allegation without any supporting evidence. It is the duty of the person making the allegation to prove himself or herself correct, not the duty of someone else to prove that an unsupported allegation is false.

An example: prove that the reason my car runs is that there are billions of submicroscopic nannites running on unobservable treadmills. Prove it isn't so!

I am not allowed to say that in science. It is my job to prove that it is so!

Our scientific understanding can progress only through the cultural legacies of other humans, long deceased, and through the interdisciplinary collaboration of thousands of living scientists who individually have had time to learn just a little bit new in their short tenure on this turbulent planet. (p. 21)

Progress in solving problems of the natural world comes only if scientists know the research and work that has gone before them, and understands both. Then, and only then, can he or she make a contribution that adds to the "pile of knowledge". To do otherwise, encourages trips down paths already travelled, or into blind allies.