What is Science?
|
Updated: April 15, 2004
What exactly is "science"? The question is an important one to answer, if one wants to study any of the various disciplines -- and sub-disciplines of -- Biology, Chemistry, or Physics. Science is essentially a way of understanding how the "universe" works. For now, allow me to go through some descriptions of the basic terminology used in science. A fact can be something that has been observed numerous times and is assumed to be true; or, a fact can be experimental data (such as, the number of individuals in a population...for example, it is a fact that the human population is now estimated to be over 6 billion individuals). However, what is "fact" may depend on the tool that is used to make the observation (e.g. an electron microscope has a much higher resolving power than a light microscope, which has a much higher resolving power than the human eye). A hypothesis is an "educated guess" or a tentative answer to a question concerning some aspect of the universe that one is interested in studying. Sometimes, hypotheses, which have been found to hold true under rigorous testing, can develop into a theory. A theory is a collection of ideas, or hypotheses, which attempts to explain experimental evidence or observations that were made. It is possible that a hypothesis or a theory may be true under certain conditions, yet untrue under other conditions. A law is a fundamental process found in the universe (for example, there are three laws of thermodynamics). Although hypotheses can become theories, neither hypotheses nor theories ever become laws. A law is a statement or a definition of some physical process in the universe, whereas a theory is an attempt to explain that process. In other words, a "law" is "universally observable" (i.e. the law would hold true no matter where you are in the universe), while a "theory" is "universally testable" (i.e. you could test the theory anywhere in the universe, but that doesn't mean that it would hold true in all cases tested -- a "good" theory is one that is testable and is therefore, falsifiable). In one sense, a law is a fact (...however, not all facts are laws). The idealized view is that science is based on logic and on rigorous testing of hypotheses or theories through experimentation. To some extent, this is true, but science is much more than just experimentation. Some of the greatest scientific advances were done without experiments. For example, Darwin never did an experiment to come up with his theory of evolution by natural selection -- he observed the natural world around him. Watson and Crick used model building to elucidate the structure of DNA (model building isn't really an experiment, it's more of an observation, in this case, of structural possibilities) and used crystallography for confirmation. Thus, observation is just as important as experimentation. The difference is that when you do an observational study, you do not manipulate the conditions of the subject under study. Conversely, with an experimental study you control as many conditions as possible. The greatest tool we have in science (and this is especially true in Biology) is comparison. In the two previous examples, Darwin compared lifeforms from different islands, and Watson and Crick compared data from different structural analyses. "Comparison" is a tool that applies not just to science, but essentially to all other "ways of knowing" (e.g. philosophy, history, theology, etc). We develop an understanding by comparing one "thing" to another "thing" under some condition. This is especially important in experimental and observational studies (e.g. comparing the null hypothesis to an alternative hypothesis). "Evolution" is both a fact and a theory. It is a fact that species can change (e.g. genetically and morphologically) over time. The "theory of evolution" is the explanation of how species change. Before Darwin's time, most people thought that species were immutable, or unchangeable. The idea that species do not change over time is referred to as the "Typological Species Concept" (TSC). That is, every species is of a particular 'type', or form. Even though varieties may have arisen occasionally, the species as a whole never changes from this type. This was the predominant view before Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection became known world wide. In light of Darwin's theory, how do we know that evolution happens? Actually, there are numerous observational and experimental studies in the scientific literature that have recorded genetic and morphological changes in populations for many different species. Thus, it is a fact that species evolve over time. This is "evolution as a fact". The important question is, what is the mechanism of evolutionary change? More specifically, which evolutionary force is more important for a particular group of organisms at a particular point in time? And, can we predict the evolutionary outcome of a group of organisms? Furthermore, how can we put this understanding into a practical use, for both the short term and the long term? In addition to being a fact, evolution is a theory (or rather, it contains many theories) that we can use to understand how species change over time. Let us go back to the question: What is "science"? To answer the question, it may be useful to compare how we view science to how we view some other "way of knowing". For example, we can compare "science" to "religion". There are differences between science and religion, but there are also some similarities. Science and religion are often distinguished in the following way. Science is viewed as progressive, and knowledge is gained gradually. Science builds on past knowledge, replacing or improving old theories through the development of new technologies and through the accumulation of new evidence. Thus, "science" is fundamentally a dynamic system of gaining knowledge about the universe. Religion, on the other hand, has been viewed as fundamentally static or "non-progressive" in its principles, However, religion can also be dynamic, since arguments can and do change with the times. Yet, the fundamental belief in the existence of an almighty spiritual being remains, essentially, unchanged. Also, there is the contention that the existence of "God" is not testable, and therefore is outside the realm of science. It is often said that religion is a belief system based on "faith". The Oxford English Dictionary defines "faith" as a "reliance, or trust, in" or as a "belief founded on authority". For religion, there is a reliance in the authority of a supernatural, omnipotent being (e.g. a God, or many gods), of some holy book (e.g. the Bible), and of priests or other religious figures. For idealistic science, there is the reliance on the authority of experimental rigour and on theories (i.e. there is the belief that a generally accepted theory is true under certain conditions; or that some laws of the universe, such as the laws of thermodynamics, are true). Furthermore, there is also the reliance on the authority of scientific "experts" in the various fields (i.e. the general public may accept what the science experts say, since non-scientists amy not have the tools or ability to go out and test the theories themselves). There is a "faith" that the methods and tools of science work -- that science reveals the "true" workings of the universe. To put things simply, the popular notions are that science deals with the testable and the observable, while religion deals with the untestable or intangible. Despite their differences, science and religion can and do co-exist (i.e. they are not necessarily mutually exclusive). On the other hand, a belief in extreme Creationism (e.g. a belief in the literal interpretation of the Bible where God created everything and everything has remained unchanged ever since) is, of course, incompatible with a belief in evolutionary theory. There is, however, a wide diversity in personal beliefs. Some people believe in evolution and in religion at varying levels, while some people are simply one-sided. Many scientists do have religious beliefs, although from the results of a survey by Larson and Witham (1998), it seems that that number is dwindling. Biologists apparently have the lowest numbers for a belief in God (5.5%), with physicists and astronomers at slightly higher (7.5%). Overall, it was found that a "personal belief" in God has dropped from 27.7% in 1914 to 7% in 1998, among "leading" scientists (Larson and Witham, 1998). This seems to be an appropriate place to insert my own opinion on the matter...and so I will. There appears to be a kind of "division of labor" between science and religion, therefore they co-exist. We can say that science and religion each use different "niches", or have different roles in human societies. Science focuses on the physical processes of our universe (i.e. the 'mechanical workings'), while religion tends towards the spiritual or "non-physical" aspects. For a well-rounded view of the universe and human nature, it seems reasonable that a belief in both science and in religion is ideal. However, as an agnostic, I do not believe we can know things that exist outside of our physical universe (e.g. the spiritual) and therefore we cannot really say much about the existence of a God or gods and about his/her/their intentions. My personal opinion is that religion may very well have been useful in the past for humans to explain their own existence and the existence of the universe around them. In the here and now, religion is no longer able to maintain that role, and has been replaced by science towards gaining such knowledge. Overall, most religions fail to account for many of the specific details revealed by scientific research. The most notable is that species are not fixed entities and they do change over time. It is true that science has yet to explain many details about human beings and about the universe (e.g. how did consciousness arise in Homo sapiens? and, what caused the Big Bang?). The fact that we don't know everything about the universe highlights the need for scientific research. I will admit that there are many things about evolution that we do not know -- but that is exactly what research is for. This is not a flaw for science: the ultimate goal of science is to understand the universe in its entirety. I fail to see how religion, by itself, can obtain this same goal.
References:
|
Get your own Free Home Page