Unit 2

Scientific Methods
and the Nature of Science

INTRODUCTION

What do the following terms have in common? “Tests show”,

“scientifically proven”, “clinically proven”? Many advertisements
claim that a particular characteristic of a product has been “scientifi-
cally shown” to be better than its rivals. By using these terms, it is
fairly easy to convince consumers that the claims made for a prod-
uct are well founded and beyond dispute. Science and things scien-
tific are generally held in high regard. Despite the fact that some
scientific discoveries have had negative outcomes such as pollution
or the production of nuclear weapons, many of us have great faith
in anything that is “scientific”. We believe that there is something
special about science and its methods. We need to understand what,
if anything, is so special about science. What is the “scientific
method” that supposedly leads to these very reliable results? Why
do we place this confidence in science and scientists?

We hope that this unit will give you an insight into the ways of
science and scientists and an appreciation of their contribution to
how we see our world. Understanding the various concepts and
issues may also help you to recognise that scientific knowledge is
not as secure as is commonly supposed and that scientific theories
are never conclusively proven. We hope that the differences between
science and other cognitive pursuits will also become clear as you
reflect on these various ideas.

FD12A 27
 OVERVIEW

In this unit we first consider some of the methods that are used in
the practice of science. The inductive, deductive, and hypothetico-deduc-
tive methods are dealt with in that order. We then consider the use of
deductive inferences in science and note some of the problems that
have been identified with the inductive method. The concept of a
scientific paradigm and the changing of such paradigms are then
discussed. The status of scientific fact is also analysed in this
context. Methods used in historical research are compared with
those used in science in order to highlight the ways in which the
scientific approach is unique. The roles of observation and experi-
mentation as well as theories and models in science conclude the
section.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After completing this unit you should be able to:

1. Explain the term induction, cite examples, and describe the

inductive perspective of scientific progress

2. Outline some of problems that have been identified with using

the inductive method in science

3. Explain the term deduction and, with the use of examples,

describe the use of deductive inferences in science

4. Describe the hypothetico-deductive perspective on scientific

investigation and progress

5. Discuss the concept of a scientific paradigm and the changing of

such paradigms and associated “facts”

6. Describe the characteristics of scientific observation and

experiments and discuss relationships between them

7. Describe the place of theories and models in science

8. Outline and discuss differences between science and other

cognitive activities

28 FD12A
 FOR THE STUDENT

You should be able to define clearly the terms that have been high-
lighted in italics above. It is advised that you write them and their
meanings down as you go along so that you can refer to the mean-
ings whenever they turn up after they are first mentioned.

The timeline included in the readings will help you to acquire a

perspective on the events discussed in this unit. You may add to it
as you go through this unit (and others) any events or persons that
appear to be significant. Perhaps you would prefer to create your
own timeline as you read about different people and occurrences in
the modules.

READINGS

Introduction to the Scientific Method

http://teacher.nrsl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

Beyond the Atom. FD 12A, Module 1 History, Section 1 pp 12 – 14.

Astronomy: Ptolemy, Copernicus and Galileo FD 12A, Module 1

History, pp 22 – 26 (include diagram from p 20).

Slowiczek, Fran and Peters, Pamela M. Discovery, Chance and the

Scientific Method. Access Excellence Classic Collection http://www.acces-
sexcellence.org/AE/AEC/CC/chance.html.

History of Science and Technology: Timeline. Extracts from A

Chronology of Significant Events in the History of Science and Technology
http://crimsonbird.com.

The Discovery of Penicillin: The Role of Chance. Source: BBC

Medicine through Time.

FD12A 29
30 FD12A
Session 2.1
Is Science Objective?

Induction and the inductive perspective

Scientific knowledge is proven knowledge. Scientific theories

are derived in some rigorous way from facts of experience
acquired by observation and experiment. Science is based on
what we can see and hear and touch, etc. Personal opinion or
preferences and speculative imaginings have no place in
science. Science is objective. Scientific knowledge is reliable
knowledge because it is objectively proven knowledge.
Chalmers (1982)

The passage quoted above describes what is perhaps the accepted

view of science. Read it carefully and see whether you agree with all
of it. As you go through the unit, return to it from time to time and
see whether your opinion changes in any way. This may be a long
and bumpy ride but hopefully an interesting one as we try to get
into the minds of scientists and understand how they do what they
do. It is also an important unit as so much of what we have and do
is tied to science in one way or another.

The “science” (?) of phrenology

At the end of the eighteenth century at the University of Vienna in

central Europe, two lecturers, F. C. Gall and J. C. Spurzheim, devel-
oped the “science” of phrenology. The theory was that the brain
determined human personality. Different character traits were
formed by different parts of the brain and the relative size of each
part would therefore indicate the strength of each characteristic of
an individual. Most importantly, Gall and Spurzheim believed that
by studying the external shape of the skull, they could reveal these
characteristics.

Over thirty characteristics were reported to have been located,

including acquisitiveness, aggressiveness, generosity, and holiness.
Gall and Spurzheim believed that merely by observing the bumps on

31
 a person’s head aggressive, generous, holy or other behaviour could
be predicted. This “science” seemed to have practical application and
became popular among some psychiatrists until it was replaced by
other psychiatric theories. Gall was eventually removed from his
position at the university because his theory appeared to conflict
with the accepted religious account of sin and virtue.

CRITICAL THINKING ACTIVITY

1. From the account given above do you think that phrenology

was

(a) unscientific,
(b) scientific, but bad science, or
(c) good science but prevented from developing by religious
prejudice?

2. How do you think the links were made between the skull
shape and the different patterns of behaviour? (Guesswork,
observations or knowledge of the brain?)

3. Suggest how you might attempt to establish whether or not

phrenology was scientific.

4. Do you think that the University of Vienna was acting

appropriately when it expelled Gall for supporting a theory
that undermined an accepted account of morality? If a scien-
tific statement is contrary to an accepted religious view is it
appropriate to reject the scientific view?

The reputation of science

We now take science for granted but it was only within the twentieth
century that the general population began to accept science as a
valuable way of thinking about and investigating the world around
us. Evidence of the high regard for science and its value is plentiful.

• It is now fully supported by our educational systems; the

sciences are taught in schools and universities around the world.

• The increase in human knowledge that has resulted from science

has led to many improvements in our lives.

32 FD12A
 • By applying scientific methods and the resulting knowledge,
human beings can now control their environment to a far
greater extent than was possible before.

• Improvements in medicine and developments in science and

technology based industries, have brought scientists respect and
considerable financial support from governments and the private
What is your sector.
personal opinion of
science? Do you • Some people see science as the “highest” form of human
share these views?
reasoning.

• The scientific approach is now applied to a wide range of

disciplines that were previously considered non-science.

Why is scientific knowledge considered “proven knowledge”?

This reputation rests on the belief that scientific knowledge is objec-

tive and reliable because of the methodology of science. Scientific
methods are seen as making use of observation and experiment, to
discover natural laws from which theories can be constructed and
predictions made. These methods are considered to be culturally
neutral and open to all. Given the right tools and the opportunity,
any individuals conducting a particular investigation properly
should reach the same conclusions.

Other cognitive practices are believed to possess considerable weak-

nesses when compared to science. Science is said to be rational,
based on reason, while other practices are judged to be ideological,
based on theoretical ideas and assumptions, not necessarily based on
facts. It is thought that the scientific method allows us to escape
from ideology. But does the practice of science actually live up to
these high ideals?

CRITICAL THINKING ACTIVITY

Which characteristics of science account for the faith with

which scientific findings are accepted? Make a list for future
reference as you go through the unit.

FD12A 33
 Everyday experience and science

You do not have to be a scientist to know that you should not

touch a piece of metal that is glowing red. You have learnt that this
means that the object is very hot, either from your own unpleasant
experiences or from other people’s reports. This is quite different
from understanding why an object glows red when it is very hot or
how the colour of the glow and the temperature of the object are related.
Science can be said to begin when we try to go beyond common
observations and experience using particular methods that are
considered appropriate to explore the world.

“What is the scientific method?” This is a controversial question

and few scholars would agree on an answer. The idea that science
rests on a secure foundation built through observation and experi-
ment has been challenged. So has the idea that there is some kind of
procedure that enables us to derive scientific theories in a reliable
way. An easier question for us to consider then is, “What methods
do scientists use?”

We will describe several methods associated with science but we are

not advocating adherence to any particular method, for imagination
and even luck (such as in the discovery of penicillin) have made
large contributions to the advance of science. Later we shall see that
scientific theories are never conclusively proven true, although this
does not mean that the theories have no value. We will now
consider the methodologies of science so that you will be able to
evaluate scientific claims more objectively.

Induction
The inductivist view of science

During the Scientific Revolution that took place mainly during the
seventeenth century, the philosopher Francis Bacon, and many of
his contemporaries, summarised the scientific attitude of the times
when they stated that if we want to understand nature then we
must consult nature, that is, observe nature.

According to the inductivist, science starts with observation. The

observer should have normal sense organs, should record with an

34 FD12A
 unprejudiced mind what he or she can see, hear, smell, and touch
with respect to the situation. Facts about the world can be deter-
mined and established as true by an observer’s use of his or her
senses. In the inductivist perspective, these facts constitute the base
from which the laws and theories that make up scientific knowledge
are derived.

Inductive reasoning means that a general rule is framed on the basis of a

collection of individual observations (or “facts”).

Here are two examples of observations any of us could make:

• The dog bit the child.

n Indicators are
substances used by • The blue litmus paper turned red when immersed in the acid.
scientists to detect if
a certain chemical is
present or, if a We check the truth of the statements by observation with the use
substance has of our senses. These results apply to a particular place and time.
certain properties.
Indicators change Now consider some related statements about the same situations
appearance when in that might be part of the scientific knowledge:
contact with the
substance being
tested for. Litmus is • From psychology: Dogs have an inherent need for an aggressive
an indicator that
turns red in acids outlet.
and blue in alkaline
substances (such as • From chemistry: Acids turn blue litmus paper red.
baking soda.)
These latter statements are broader and say much more about our
universe. They are generalisations that refer to all events of a partic-
ular kind at all places and at all times; the first one describes dogs in
general. Similarly, when any blue litmus paper is put into any acid
the colour of the paper always changes from blue to red. The laws
and theories that make up scientific knowledge make general asser-
tions like this (Chalmers 1982).

The inductive method

How do we go from making observations to making statements of

scientific knowledge or laws? The inductivist says that we can
justify scientific laws on the basis of a finite number of observations
and that if certain conditions are met we can then generalise from
observations to a universal law. As an example, let us consider the
heating of bars of metals. When bars of metal are heated, it can be
shown that they expand, although only by small amounts. Thus we

FD12A 35
 go from observing heated metal bars to the general law, “Metals
expand when heated”.

For generalisations like this to be considered legitimate within the

inductive perspective the following conditions must be fulfilled:

i. The number of observations leading to the generalisation

must be large.

ii. The observations must be repeated under a wide variety of

conditions.

iii. No observation should conflict with the derived universal

law.

Condition (i) is necessary because it would not be legitimate to

conclude that all metals expand when heated after just one observa-
tion of the expansion of one metal bar. (Neither would it be legiti-
mate for us to conclude that all British men are drunkards just
because we have seen one very drunk British man.) A large number
of independent observations are necessary before any generalisation
is justified; we must not jump to conclusions on the basis of limited
evidence.

One way to increase the number of our observations would be to

heat a particular bar of metal many times. But would this allow us
to make a claim that all metals will behave this way when heated?
Clearly these new observations would still be an unsatisfactory
basis for making the generalisation above. We know about only one
bar. That is why condition (ii) is necessary. “All metals expand when
heated” will only be a reasonable generalisation if metals are
observed to expand under a wide variety of conditions.

Different kinds of metals should be heated, including, for instance,

long iron bars, short iron bars, gold bars, copper bars and so on. The
bars should be heated both at high pressures and low pressures or
heated by starting at high or low temperatures. If, on all occasions
and under all conditions, the heated metal bars all expand then it is
appropriate to write the general law. How many other different
conditions for testing metal expansion can you think of?

36 FD12A
 Finally, if one metal bar does not expand when it is heated, then the
universal generalisation stated above would not be justified, which
is why condition (iii) is essential.

The type of reasoning that takes us from a list of observations to a

universal statement or law is called inductive reasoning and the
process is called induction. An inductive statement or inference is a
statement about the properties or behaviour of a group of objects or
situations that is formulated on the basis of direct evidence from a
sample of the objects or situations.

Let us consider another example: I am not going to like this song by

Whitney Houston since I have never enjoyed any of her songs
before. Because I have listened to Whitney Houston sing many
songs and have never enjoyed any of them (many previous observa-
tions under various conditions) I do not expect to like the next track
that I am going to hear. Is this a reasonable conclusion?
Discuss the way in
which superstitious
beliefs may relate to Very often, inductive reasoning is used in even less reliable ways.
inappropriate
inductive reasoning.
Sometimes it depends on information received from other people,
Do you think racial that has no basis in fact. Sometimes it is based on too few observa-
profiling can be
justified as having
tions. Many prejudices that people possess can be seen as examples
fulfilled the three of unjustified inductive thinking. They are inappropriate generalisa-
conditions of
inductive reasoning?
tions formed from limited data that have become a general belief.

TRY THIS EXERCISE

Read the story carefully and then answer the questions below.
Try to follow the child’s line of reasoning as you go along. To do
this you have to accept that the child had no prior knowledge of
anything to do with materials that burn. The information being
used is just that which is present at the time of the story.
A child became lost and decided to make a fire. He collected a variety
of objects and discovered that some of them burned while others did
not. To avoid collecting useless objects the child classified his
information and after several trips his lists contained the information
below.
Will burn: tree limbs broomsticks pencils chair legs
Will not burn: mangoes tin cans marbles rocks

FD12A 37 37
 At first, organising the information in this way was helpful but as
these objects became scarce the child tried to find a rule to guide him
to new burnable materials. Looking at the two piles the child noticed
that the ones that burned had one property in common; they were all
cylindrical. So the child proposed this generalisation: “Cylindrical
objects burn.”

The next day the child went looking for more burnable materials but
forgot to take the list. He remembered his generalisation and so
returned with a tree limb, an old cane and three wooden baseball bats
(all successful predictions). He was also pleased that he had not
bothered to carry back a car radiator, a piece of metal chain and a
large door, as since these objects were not cylindrical, he had no
reason to expect them to burn.

The successful predictions made the child confident that his

generalisation was true. The next day he deliberately left the list and,
using his rule, collected two pieces of metal pipe, a soft drink bottle,
and an old car axle, while leaving behind a cardboard box full of
newspapers. To his dismay he found that none of the items that he
carried would burn and so during the cold night that followed he drew
these conclusions:
The cylindrical shape of an object that burns may not be associated
with its flammability after all.
Even though the ‘cylindrical’ rule is not useful tree limbs, broomsticks,
pencils, and other items in the list still burn. He must take the list
next time.

1. Identify the use of inductive reasoning in the preceding

passage.

2. Suggest an alternative “general rule” that the child may have

used, given the evidence the child had. (Hint! Consider the
materials from which the objects were made).

3. What limitations does this example suggest for using induc-

tive reasoning?

4. How would you explain to the child why his reasoning was
faulty? (Suggestion: Refer to the three conditions mentioned
earlier).

38 FD12A
 The inductivist view of scientific progress

According to inductivists, science continues to grow as the quantity

of data available to us increases. As the number of facts established
by observation increases, and the facts become more precise (due to
improved methods of observing and better equipment), more and
more laws and theories of greater scope may be constructed by
inductive reasoning. The perception that inductivist science is objec-
tive and reliable derives from the fact that both observation and
inductive reasoning are themselves believed to be objective. In
Session 2.5 we will consider whether observation is indeed objective.

CRITICAL THINKING ACTIVITY

1. How is research evidence gathered and analysed in the disci-

pline that you are now following?

2. Identify any examples of inductive reasoning in the disci-

pline.

3. Do you think the conclusions or “laws” derived from the

research evidence are firmly established?

Difficulties with induction

From an inductivist point of view scientific laws are generalisations

from observations. As we call these generalisations “laws” they
sound certain. (The word law seems to imply that nature must obey
them!) In fact, scientific laws cannot be firmly established,
confirmed or proven in this way. This is because they cannot cover
all the possible situations to which they are applied. Scientists
cannot make all the observations that would be necessary so there is
always the possibility that an exception will arise.

Exceptions may disprove a law. One amusing example is the story of

the inductivist turkey told by Bertrand Russell (a well known and,
sometimes controversial, English philosopher).

On his first morning at the turkey farm the turkey was fed at 9
a.m. However, he did not jump to conclusions but waited until
he had a large number of observations of being fed at 9 a.m. He
made these observations under a wide variety of circumstances,

FD12A 39
 on Wednesdays, Thursdays and all other days, on warm days
and cold days, on rainy days and dry days. Every day he added
another observation to his list until he was finally satisfied and
made the inductive inference, “I am always fed at 9 a.m.” Alas,
this conclusion was shown to be false when, at 9 a.m. on
Christmas Eve, instead of being fed, his head was chopped off.
An inductive inference, with many independent observations,
had led to a false conclusion.

As a further example, if we observe a large number of parrots under

a wide variety of circumstances and all of them are green we may
conclude, “All parrots are green”. This is a perfectly legitimate induc-
tive inference. There is, however, no guarantee that the next parrot
we observe will not be blue.

Induction cannot be justified on logical grounds. (Chalmers 1982)

Induction is therefore not a logically valid process. It appears that
scientific knowledge has so-called laws, which are not derived in a
logical way. This has been called the “Problem of Induction”.
Despite this problem, there is no contradiction in claiming that “all
observed parrots have proven to be green” and that “not all parrots
are green”.

The number of observations that is “enough” varies. We say that we need

a “large number” of observations to be made. How would we know
how many observations are large enough? For instance, how many
times would you put your hand into a fire before concluding that
fire burns? In situations like this, a large number of observations
would be completely inappropriate (if not idiotic!). On the other
hand, it would not be justifiable to conclude that smoking causes
lung cancer simply because one or two heavy smokers contract
cancer. It took hundreds of examples to draw that conclusion; there
are still smokers and some scientists that are not convinced. These
examples show that the “large number” clause must be modified;
sometimes it is vital and at others it may be irrelevant.

The number of variations required could be infinitely large. Next we have

the difficulty of establishing what is a sufficiently wide variety of
circumstances or how different the circumstances must be in order
to fulfil the criterion for “a wide variety of conditions”. When inves-
tigating the boiling point of water do we need to vary the air pres-
sure, the purity of the water, the method of heating, and the time of

40 FD12A
 day? The answer to the first two questions is, in fact, “Yes” and to
the second two questions is “No”. The list of variations could be
extended forever by adding (and having to test) variations such as
the colour of the container, the identity of the experimenter, the
geographical location, and so on. Unless we can eliminate irrelevant
variations, the number of observations required will be infinitely
large. Induction does not suggest how we can decide which factors
are important in a given situation and which are unnecessary.

Observations cannot be completely objective. How could we find out

which variations are unnecessary? Significant variations may be
distinguished from those that are irrelevant by considering what we
already know of the situation i.e. use theoretical knowledge.
However, this means that theory is playing a vital role prior to
observation and guiding our observation. Remember inductivists say
we should observe objectively, with no preconceptions. Using what
we know to decide what to test challenges the very basis of induc-
tivism. We will return to this important idea in a later section.

ACTIVITY

Write down one example of inductive reasoning that you used

recently to form an opinion about some person or circumstance.
Answer honestly!

1. Explain in your own words what inductive reasoning entails.

2. Did you have enough evidence to form your opinion?

Consider number of observations, variety of circumstances
and possible variations under which you made your observa-
tions.

3. Was your conclusion really justified?

FD12A 41
 QUICK REVIEW

The inductivist view: Science starts by making objective

observations. By making many observations, under a variety of
circumstances, we can form general rules or laws. There should
be no exceptions, if the law or rule is valid.

Science progresses by accumulating facts from making

observations.

Difficulties with induction: An exception may turn up despite

previously making a large number of observations. There is no
way to know how many observations or how many different
circumstances are enough, except by referring to a theory. Using
theory contradicts the supposedly objective nature of inductive
reasoning.

42 FD12A
Session 2.2
Deduction

Deductive reasoning

Let us now consider another type of reasoning that scientists use.

Deductive reasoning involves inferring particular instances from a
general law i.e. using what is general to predict what is true for a
specific case. A deduction is therefore a statement about the properties
or behaviour of a particular object (or situation) that is derived from what
is already known about the group to which the particular object (or situa-
tion) belongs. In this case, we move from the general to the specific
by applying simple rules of logic.

Is deductive reasoning foolproof?

Let us consider the following example of persons falling from the

top of a building that is about 20 metres high. We start with two
premises and one conclusion.

1. Everyone who falls from the top of this building suffers a severe
injury.

2. Jim has fallen from the top of the building.

3. Therefore Jim has suffered a severe injury.

Statements 1 and 2 are the premises and statement 3 is the conclu-

sion. It is logical to argue that if statements 1 and 2 are true, then
statement 3 is bound to be true. For 1 and 2 to be true and 3 to be
false would involve a contradiction. This is the key feature of a logi-
cally valid deduction. If the premises are true, then the conclusion
must be true. From this position we can explain Jim’s injury when
he does fall and also predict that “If Jim falls then he will suffer an
injury.” Underlying this is a law we can call “the law of falling from
high buildings”! (Can you state the law?) We can see from this
example that explanation and prediction are closely related to each
other.
43
 ACTIVITY

Suggest why small children do not listen to reason.

Possible answers:

i. They do not have enough experience (numbers of observa-

tions or variety of circumstances) to make reasonable infer-
ences. (Use inductive reasoning)

ii. They refuse to accept the “laws” presented by their parents

even though they do not have enough experience to arrive at
the laws themselves (not in a position to reason deductively).

The question arises: Is deductive reasoning always sound? Consider

the next example.

i. All passages about scientific methods are boring.

ii. This passage is about scientific methods.
iii. This passage is boring.

If the premises 1 and 2 are true, the conclusion (3) must be correct.
(However, we are now trying to avoid 3 and thus deny premise 1!).

Another interesting example: if I am told that each jersey in a

container in a shop costs $100 and the jersey that I want is in the
container, it should cost $100. In real life, is this always the case?

44 FD12A
 These examples highlight the important fact that the premises on
which the conclusion rests must be true. The problem lies in verify-
ing them; this is not always possible or easy. A deduction may be
based on large numbers of observations but unexpected exceptions
can overturn what has been accepted as a law.

Deductive reasoning and scientific theory

We can now understand one way that scientific laws and theories
may be used to either predict future events from present knowledge
or explain events that have occurred. The following two examples
illustrate this point.

i. All water from the tap boils at about 100 °C.

ii. My car radiator contains tap water.
iii. If the temperature reaches 100 °C, the water in my car radiator
will boil.

This is a valid logical argument. We deduce prediction 3 from the

scientific knowledge contained in premise 1 and the information
about the situation in 2.

i. Concrete expands when heated.

ii. Concrete cracks if too much pressure is put upon it.
iii. Concrete paths will crack if spaces are not left between the
sections of concrete to allow room for the expansion on hot
days.

This latter example shows very clearly how deductive reasoning

based on scientific knowledge can be of immense practical value in
making predictions that affect our everyday lives.

ACTIVITY

Consider each of the following groups of statements and before

answering the questions that follow, comment on the type of
reasoning, the premises, and the resulting conclusion.

a. Belize is west of Jamaica

b. Jamaica is west of Antigua
c. Therefore Belize is west of Antigua

FD12A 45 45
 a. Some patients with spots have measles
b. Eileen has spots
c. Therefore Eileen has measles

a. All pigs have wings

b. Animals with wings cannot fly
c. Pigs cannot fly

1. Which example is the only acceptable and valid argument?

Can you state clearly why it is valid? (If not, review the
discussion on deductive reasoning.)

2. In which case are both premises false? Nevertheless, can the

form of the argument be classified as an example of deduc-
tive reasoning?

3. In which example is the first premise insufficient for arriving

at a valid conclusion?

QUICK REVIEW

In deduction we start with a general law from which we can

make predictions about anything that law covers. Reasoning is
based on premises that must be true and if so the conclusions
must also be true. As with induction, unexpected exceptions
can overturn a law. Deduction on its own does not increase
scientific knowledge.

Induction vs. deduction

There are important differences between induction and deduction:

In induction we argue from the particular to the general. After making

observations about an object or situation we apply and extend the
resulting statement to new objects or situations. In deduction, on the
other hand, we go from the general to the particular; we apply the conse-
quences of a general statement to one particular object or situation
that belongs to the class to which the general statement refers.

Deductive arguments are logically valid but inductive arguments are not.
Deductive reasoning is therefore safer than induction provided the

46 FD12A
 initial general statement is true. An inductive statement, however,
always involves an element of doubt, as it is possible to arrive at a
wrong inference from correct information. General statements
(laws) do not necessarily follow from the particular observations
made and we cannot be sure that laws will always be obeyed.

Only inductive reasoning opens new horizons and sets new problems.
Deduction does not, give us anything new. Not only does induction
summarise the information we have gathered but it also expands
our knowledge. For example observations may suggest hypotheses
to be tested. Induction, although it has its problems, can play a
useful role in furthering scientific knowledge. Deduction only relates
the consequences of the initial statements to the case being consid-
ered. It does not suggest further investigation.

It would be useful at
Inductive methods stress the importance of unbiased “facts” from observa-
this point to read tion. However, many important scientific theories refer to concepts
section 2.4, about
“facts”.
that cannot be observed directly, only their effects are observed.
Atoms, electrons or gravitational fields are examples of such
concepts. In a sense these are creations of scientists that are better
seen as representing their ideas about these phenomena. These ideal-
isations describe as best they can, the patterns found by observation.
They then need to undergo further testing by making more observa-
tions and performing more experiments. Thus, it is important to
appreciate that the basic scientific laws that we have been
discussing are not ultimate truths that have been “discovered” in
nature.

ACTIVITY

1. Select from sessions 2.1 and 2.2 one example each of induc-
tive and deductive reasoning. Write these down and then
add two additional, original examples.

2. Construct a table to summarise the differences or character-

istics of inductive and deductive reasoning.

3. Write a short essay (one page will do) comparing the ways in
which inductive and deductive reasoning contribute to scien-
tific knowledge. Some information in session 3 may also be
helpful. Make sure to include the following:

FD12A 47 47
 • A definition of inductive reasoning and deductive
reasoning
• The limitations of induction and deduction
• The extent to which both types of reasoning have added
to scientific progress
• Your opinion on which one has been more useful

48 FD12A
Session 2.3
The Hypothetico-Deductive
Approach

What is the hypothetico-deductive approach?

When people, including most scientists, talk about the “scientific

method” they are usually referring to the hypothetico-deductive
approach. It is based on using observations to formulate hypotheses,
testing them under controlled conditions and arriving at conclu-
sions, based on the findings of the tests. These findings may not
support the original hypothesis.

This scientific method can be broken down into four steps:

1. Observation: Some event or situation is observed that presents a

problem. It may be the results of a previous investigation or
some occurrence in nature that a scientists wishes to know more
about.

2. Hypothesis formation: An explanation for the event is put

forward. This hypothesis suggests a cause for the observation.

3. Prediction: The hypothesis is used to make one or more

predictions as to what would happen, if it were true.

4. Experimentation: Finally the hypothesis is tested to see if the

predictions were accurate. These tests are carried out under
carefully controlled conditions to ensure that the results are
reliable.

From the results of these tests deductions are made which lead to
conclusions that either support or reject the hypothesis. If the
hypothesis is rejected then a new hypothesis can be formulated,
sometimes based on the results of the previous tests, and the
process repeated. If many experimenters repeat the same tests and
get the same results, the hypothesis may be regarded as a theory or

49
 law or it may be used to modify an existing theory. We will now
look at some of these steps in more detail and also at how different
scientists have used this approach over the years.

What is a hypothesis?

When you are confronted with an event for which you do not have
The best explanation an explanation you may put forward a suggestion. The suggested
should: explanation is your best guess, given all the information you have.
• fit neatly with all
other accepted This information or data may be from current observations about
theories the particular event or information you remember about similar
• be consistent in events and their circumstances. What you have done is to propose a
itself, i.e. without self-
contradiction hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis is basically the same as your
• be simpler than suggested explanation except that certain conditions apply. While it
other accounts and is a reasoned guess based on current evidence it often includes a
• make novel
predictions which can
prediction from what is already known. We can define a hypothesis
be tested by as a reasoned guess formulated as a statement of expectation about the
observation and
things being studied. It is put forward tentatively, usually on the basis
experiment and lend
further support to of incomplete evidence. In general, the scientific hypothesis has to
theory. fit in with accepted scientific laws and theories although it may
suggest replacing part of a previous theory.

The role of hypotheses

In the hypothetico-deductive approach the hypothesis is carefully

tested. How does a scientist know what to test? Since the hypothe-
sis suggests a cause scientists can predict that if certain conditions
are met then particular results will follow. A very simple example
will make the point. If a hypothesis states that “seeds of species X
need light to germinate” then it can be predicted that they will not
germinate if kept in the dark. Scientists can then collect many of
the seeds, divide them into two batches expose both sets to condi-
tions ideal for germination except that one set will be kept in the
dark and the other in the light.

The main value of hypotheses is that they encourage and initiate

experimental activity. If this activity supports the hypothesis we
may maintain the hypothesis for further testing. If the initial results
of testing lead to rejection of the hypothesis it points the researcher
in another direction. In any case, further work continues.

50 FD12A
 It is interesting to note that scientists never speak of proving a
hypothesis, the most positive thing they can say is that the results
of an investigation support the hypothesis. This cautious approach is
necessary as more tests at a later date may provide evidence that
overturns the hypothesis or shows that the prediction it made is
incorrect. Hypotheses and theories cannot be conclusively proven.

Hypothesis and testing: Dependent and independent variables

Common sense tells us that because two things happen at the same
time it does not mean that one causes the other. There may be other
factors (variables) involved in this coincidence that are less obvious.
(Ignoring this possibility is a very common error in explaining the
causes of everyday events.)

Experimentation takes observation further and usually involves

making observations under carefully controlled conditions. A central
feature of many experiments is that all but one of the variables that
are under the experimenter’s control, are kept constant. By control-
ling conditions important relations are not obscured by accidental,
unimportant or interfering circumstances.

You can try it yourself

For example, a simple pendulum (a small weight suspended at the
by tying a piece of end of a thin string) swings to and fro at a regular rate that can be
thread to a small
object like a metal
timed. To find what affects the time for one swing (the time period)
nut and finding out we can change the length of the pendulum, the weight at the end of
the effect of as many
different variables as
the string, how far from the vertical we pull the weight before
you can think of. letting it go and so on. These variables that we can change are called
independent variables, the time period (what we are investigating) is
the dependent variable (we want to find out what it depends on).

An experimenter tests the effect of changing one independent

variable on the dependent variable and holds all the other
independent variables constant. As the others are not changing,
the experimenter can be sure that any effect is caused by the
single changing variable.

FD12A 51
 ACTIVITY

State a hypothesis (a suggested explanation) for the following

observation:

“Although there are approximately equal numbers of male and

female students at primary level who say they enjoy science,
there are fewer male than female students doing university level
biology”.

Here is one example of a hypothesis: Girls are better at doing

biology than boys. I can check my hypothesis by asking the
following questions.

1. Does it offer a reasonable explanation for the observation?

(Yes, I think so!)

2. Can it be used to make a prediction? (Yes, girls will do better

on a Biology test than boys.)

3. Can the prediction be tested? (Yes, by giving both groups a

well-designed and fair test and comparing their results.)

4. Can I control other factors (variables) when administering

the required tests? (Yes, to a reasonable extent. We can make
sure both boys and girls doing the test have covered the
same course, are of the same ages, have had the same teach-
ers and so on.)

Now try your example. If it is reasonable you should answer

“yes” to each of the questions also.

Experiments and testing theories

Galileo and the importance of observed “facts”

Galileo was one of the first scientists to break with the tradition of
his day. He felt that established facts or observations should be accepted
as such even when the observations did not fit into a currently
accepted theory. This may seem obvious to us but in Galileo’s day
scientific observations were frowned on if they did not support
accepted versions of the world. For Galileo, the important thing was
to accept the facts and build or modify the theory to fit them.

52 FD12A
 Popper and falsifying theories

More recently the philosopher Karl Popper emphasised the use of

experiments that can show theories to be false. He holds that it is
precisely the fact that scientific theories can be falsified by experi-
ment that distinguishes scientific knowledge from other ideologically-
based disciplines, where whenever contrary evidence is presented it
is always explained away.

In Popper’s view, science proceeds by the formation of hypotheses

and by attempts to disprove the hypotheses by testing them.
Progress is made when a hypothesis is tested and a new observation
or experimental result shows that something is “wrong” with a
theory. The theory must then be modified or corrected to accommo-
date the new findings thus improving its accuracy; the result is a
better theory. This is very different from the popular view of
science, which focuses on gathering evidence to prove a theory.

As an everyday example, consider the boiling point of water.

Repeated measurements of the boiling point of water in Bridge-
town, Kingston, Roseau, Port of Spain, St. John’s and so on, support
the law, “The boiling point of water is 100 degrees Celsius (100o C)”.
When the boiling point of water is measured at Knox College in
Jamaica, however, it is always a couple of degrees less than 100 oC.
Can you think of two effects this might have?

1. It disproves the original law (it falsifies the law).

2. It leads to a search for a suitable way to modify the law to
include the new information.

The lower boiling point is explained by the fact that Knox College is
about 1,000 metres (over 3,000 feet) above sea level. At this altitude
the pressure is lower than at sea level and the boiling point is lower
at lower pressures. Thus the addition of the phrase “at one atmos-
phere pressure” improves the law, making it more precise. What
should the law now state?

Similarly, if instead of pure water we use seawater (which contains

many dissolved substances) in the test, at sea level, the boiling point
is higher than usual. Thus a phrase referring to the purity of the
water also needs to be added to the law, again improving its

FD12A 53
 precision. Can you now adjust the law to include this new
information?

The law would now read, The boiling point of pure water at one atmos-
phere pressure is 100 degrees Celsius (100 oC).

ACTIVITY

Are such laws of any use to us?

Question: Can you use the information in the

passage above to suggest why food cooks more
quickly in a pressure cooker. (Hint: The pressure
inside a pressure cooker is higher than outside pressure.)

Figure 2.1 A schematic of the Scientific or Hypothetico-deductive

method

54 FD12A
 The inductive method versus the hypothetico-deductive
approach

Inductivists see experiments and observation as enlarging our store

of accepted facts. In the hypothetico-deductive model experiments
are designed to test, and potentially deny, our theories and hypothe-
ses. As a way of comparing the two read the following passage and
then answer the questions that follow. You may wish to review the
sections on Inductive and Deductive reasoning before attempting
this activity.

ACTIVITY

Consider the following act of clinical diagnosis as performed by

two different doctors. You are comparing the hypothetico-
deductive approach (adopting a hypothesis and then testing it)
with the inductive approach (observing without holding any
prior ideas or expectations. Read the cases carefully and then
answer the questions that follow.
A male patient comes to his doctor feeling ill. The doctor sets out to
discover what is wrong. He empties his mind of all prejudices and
preconceptions and observes the patient intently.
He records the patient’s pulse rate, tests his reflexes, and inspects his
tongue (an organ that seldom stands up to public scrutiny!).
He then proceeds to other, more sophisticated actions: the patient’s
urine is tested, blood counts and blood cultures are made, biopsies of
liver and marrow are sent to the pathology department, tubing is
inserted into all apertures and electrodes applied to all surfaces.

The factual evidence is then assembled, classified and “processed”.

Finally, a diagnosis is arrived at by reasoning; it is something you
ate!
The second doctor observes the patient with a purpose, an idea in
mind. From the moment the patient enters she sets herself questions,
prompted by foreknowledge of the patient, or by a sensory clue. These
questions direct her thought and her examination of the patient. In
each case, what she finds guides her towards making new
observations which will tell her whether the provisional views she is
constantly forming are acceptable or unsound.

Is the patient ill at all? He tends to be a bit of a hypochondriac! Was

FD12A 55 55
 it indeed something he ate? His diet seems to be OK. Has he at last
done his liver irreparable damage? An upper respiratory virus is
going around and perhaps this is relevant to the case ? Let me test his
breathing.

Here there is interplay between an imaginative and a critical

process, between conjecture, critical evaluation, and some
investigations.

A reasonable basis for treatment or for further examination will

be obtained, though the doctor will keep an open mind and
perhaps suggest other tests. The internal dialogue begins against
a background of information and observation.

1. Given the information that you have just reviewed, classify

the different approaches that the two doctors adopted.

2. On what evidence is your classification based? (Review these

last two seesions and go through the diagram of the hypo-
thetico-deductive model again.)

3. Explain which of the two approaches appears to you to be

the most appropriate way to make a diagnosis and why.

4. Which of the two approaches do you consider best suited for

research in your discipline? Discuss the advantages and the
limitations of both methods with respect to your area of
study.

56 FD12A
Session 2.4
How Science Progresses

What is a scientific paradigm?

The word paradigm was first used in science by the science histo-
rian, Thomas Kuhn, who used it to refer to the set of fundamental
beliefs (or premises) to which scientists subscribe and which they use as a
framework for conducting research. A scientist that belongs to a certain
branch of science is accepting a given set of paradigms. Sometimes
when a particular set of beliefs, or ways of looking at some aspect of
nature, is accepted for the first time a new paradigm is created and a
new discipline or specialisation comes into being.

Initially new concepts have to be repeatedly defined and defended as

the discipline develops its own identity. As more work is done in the
area definitions become more detailed and precise. It may reach a
point when only scientists working in that area are able to read and
understand fully, academic reports of the work. In this way, scien-
tific, and other forms of knowledge, have become sub-divided into
more and more specialisations and less available to the general
public. Once a paradigm is generally accepted, scientists can take its
premises for granted. Work is done to expand knowledge only in the
doubtful areas of the paradigm.

The field of medicine provides a good example of this. Not so long

ago if your side hurt you went to a doctor and if something such as
your appendix needed to be removed the same doctor removed it.
This is now unthinkable. You may be sent to a specialist in internal
medicine who makes a diagnosis or sends you to another doctor
who specialises in problems of the intestinal tract, a gastro-enterolo-
gist, who may pass you on to another doctor who handles specific
parts of the tract. Each specialist knows more about a smaller area
of the discipline.

57
 Scientific revolutions

One inductivist argument claims that science increases knowledge

cumulatively. A look at the history of scientific knowledge shows
that this is a false description of how science progresses. A new
theory often does not add to an old theory but shows instead that it
had been false. For example, Copernicus’ (1543) heliocentric theory
of the universe (where the Sun is taken as stationary and the Earth
orbits around it) did not add to Ptolemy’s (384 BC) theory (where
the Sun was believed to orbit the Earth). It showed that Ptolemy
was mistaken.

Why do you think

Sometimes in science we have what Kuhn terms a “scientific revolu-
Kuhn chose the word tion”. Such revolutions may depend on a new idea being accepted
“revolution” to
describe this
by some workers, or stimulated by a technological innovation. We
change? often speak separately of scientific revolutions and technological
revolutions but one is often dependent on the other.

Kuhn divided scientific activity into two parts: normal science and
extraordinary science. Normal science is research that is based on
the currently accepted paradigm. Extraordinary science, on the other
hand, takes place outside the paradigm. In the latter case, experi-
ments and observations begin to produce results that contradict
parts of the accepted paradigm. As the number of these difficulties
grows “extraordinary science” begins. When a body of data starts to
accumulate that poses major problems for a theory Kuhn’s process
of radical change may occur. A new paradigm takes over, a new
consensus begins to prevail and the revolution is underway. The
new ideas enable a range of previously puzzling phenomena to be
explained and so activities are undertaken to examine these
phenomena. We look at examples of this next.

An interesting and important point is that when results apparently

disprove the original theory many scientists resist the idea of chang-
ing the paradigm to fit the new data. Instead they try to give
reasons why the new data are unsound or use some other technique
to defend and maintain their paradigm.

58 FD12A
 CRITICAL THINKING ACTIVITY

1. Explain the meaning of the term “paradigm” in science.

2. Try to identify within a discipline with which you are

familiar a paradigm that used to be accepted and has now
been discredited.

Moving continents: rejecting and accepting theories

Scientific revolutions or “paradigm shifts” are usually not instanta-

neous; years of argument between scientists may precede the final
acceptance of the new paradigm. The acceptance of plate tectonics by
the earth sciences community is a very good recent example.

Continents were thought to be unmoving, permanent blocks,

surrounded by the oceans, without a history of change. In the eigh-
teenth century, however, it was noticed that the coasts of the conti-
nents to the West of the Atlantic (North and South America) and
the continents to the East (Africa and Europe) if brought closer,
would fit together, somewhat like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Two
scientists, the German von Humboldt and the American Snider-
Pellegrini, suggested that in the past the continents on either side of
the Atlantic had been joined together and later separated by floods.

A German scientist, Alfred Wegener, then presented a more startling

hypothesis; there was once a single original continent that had sepa-
rated and drifted apart. He offered a wide variety of evidence to
support his claim but he was unable to explain how this took place.

In the northern hemisphere most scientists scorned Wegener’s idea

and did not consider much of the evidence seriously, until the late
1950s. Geophysicists also ridiculed the idea of lateral movements on
this large scale on the grounds that the earth’s crust was too rigid.
Those who rejected other evidence presented by Wegener, such as
the similarity of fossils found on distant continents, had difficulty
providing alternative explanations. (By contrast, many geologists in
the southern hemisphere had accepted the new paradigm even
before the Second World War, as in the South evidence of former
links between continents is strong).

FD12A 59
 Figure 2.2 According to the continental drift theory, the super contnent
Pangaea began to break up about 225-200 million years ago, eventually
fragmenting into the continents as we know them today.

Source: http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/historical.html

The geologists needed a causal explanation. Much later in the 1960s

and 1970s, it was again the geophysicists who provided this
evidence in favour of continental drift. They developed models of
the sea floor spreading and plate tectonics that explained the great
lateral movements (see p 78 for a discussion of the use of models in
science).

60 FD12A
 It is now believed that the outer crust of the Earth or mantle is
divided into enormous sections called tectonic plates. The conti-
nents rest on different sections of these plates. It was argued that
the continents drifted apart as the sea floor spread, enlarging the
ocean basins. This movement is the result of heat rising from the
Earth’s core to the surface by convection in the mantle. This puts
pressure on the edges and other sections of the tectonic plates, grad-
ually forcing them over or under each other at their edges.

Once the idea was accepted it offered explanations for a number of

previously unexplained phenomena. The mechanism explained:

I. Continental drift
II. The coastline fit of the continents
III. The alignment of mountain ranges, especially on either side of
the Atlantic
IV. The presence of the remains of the same prehistoric reptiles in
both Brazil and South Africa
V. The distribution of fossil plants

It has also been discovered that volcanic activity is prevalent along

the plate margins. Continental drift also explains some earthquakes.
Earthquakes occur when tension built up between adjacent plates as
they move against each other, is suddenly released.

The theory of plate tectonics and continental drift fits in with a

wide range of evidence, climatic, biological as well as geological and
gives a simpler and more unifying and coherent explanation of these
developments than any previous theory. However, in terms of how
sciences develop, the important issue here is that for many years
scientists supporting the older model explained away new evidence;
many became very emotional in defending the older paradigm
within which they had carried out all their research for many years.

Species and their histories: A controversial theory

In 1859 Charles Darwin, an English scientist, published The Origin of

Species. The publication of this work started a major controversy
that continues to this day because the theories that it put forward

FD12A 61
 challenged the notion that all species on earth were created exactly
as they are now. The clergy and the general public considered
Darwin’s ideas heretical. The theory of evolution is still hotly
debated. At present there are cases before the courts in the US
asking that special creation be included on the school curriculum.

In The Origin of Species Darwin argued that present species are the
result of gradual changes over millions of years. In other words

(a) animals and plants living today are the evolved descendents or
relatives of animals and plants that lived long ago, and

(b) these animals and plants evolved or changed gradually by a

process called natural selection.

Darwin made many detailed observations of fossils (the remains of

plants and animals that lived millions of years ago) and he
compared the characteristics, of animals living in different parts of
the world. Two important observations seemed to support Darwin’s
hypotheses.

1. In the fossil records he observed changes in the characteristics of

particular groups or species and that new species emerged at
certain times that were not present before.

2. The distribution of animals living in different parts of the world

showed certain similarities.

Having made these and other observations, he proposed a mecha-

nism by which this could be explained. This he called the theory of
natural selection. The argument on which this theory rests was
presented as follows:

I. Within a particular population (members of a species living in

the same place) there are always variations or differences in
some characteristics.

II. Because of these differences, some members of the population

will be better able to survive and reproduce than others; that is
some are more successful and some less successful.

III. If the characteristics that contributed to survival and

62 FD12A
 reproduction were passed on by inheritance from parents to
offspring, more of the offspring with these characteristics will
survive and pass them on to their offspring.

IV. Gradually over many generations the entire population would

have these characteristics as the less successful members of each
generation would die out.

Evolution occurred as a result of favourable characteristics becoming

the common features of the group. As these characteristics were not
selected by anyone, Darwin called this “natural selection”.

The evidence for evolution and natural selection is largely circum-

stantial yet it remains the most compelling explanation for the vari-
ety of species found on earth today and in the past. Clearly there is
no way to test this hypothesis. The question therefore arises, can
observations and deductions alone support a hypothesis?

Natural selection was one possible mechanism of evolution, but not

the only one. To show that it was possible does not prove that it did
take place or that it was the predominant mechanism of evolution.
To support his theory of evolution, like any good scientist, Darwin
had to show that:

• Evolution offered the best explanation for a large number of

characteristics of plants and animals.
• Evolution was usually a result of natural selection and not of
other factors.

In this case, to make the necessary links with the ancestral plants
and animals, Darwin had to work back from present observations,
e.g. geographical distribution of present species or the distribution of
fossils in the rock strata. By arguing from present evidence to the
past that was unobservable, he tried to show that natural selection
provided the best explanation for his observations. (Keep this point
in mind for our next session.) He and many others have done so.

The theory of evolution by natural selection has stood the test of

time because it offers explanations that are simpler and more coher-
ent than any others so far constructed. These explanations make
sense of data from very different fields of study: biogeography,

FD12A 63
 comparative anatomy, the study of fossils, similarities in the
embryos of different species and the remains of “useless” or vestigial
organs in animals. A vast network of interconnecting explanations,
both geological and biological, can be fitted together through apply-
ing Darwin’s theory. Predictions can be made: in rock strata no
mammalian fossils should be discovered at levels below the lowest
fossils of fish with backbones, no human fossils should be found at
the same levels as dinosaur fossils, no fossil birds at levels lower
than the lowest amphibian fossils, and so on.

With the development of genetics and molecular biology, Darwinian

theory has become increasingly complex, but the basic claims to
evolution and the mechanism of natural selection remain strong.
Nevertheless, it is well to remember that like all scientific theories
and hypotheses the theory of evolution and natural selection will
remain open to challenge.

Scientific facts and changing paradigms

Scientific facts are statements made after observation. In science this often
requires the experienced use of apparatus and understanding certain
concepts. We tend to behave as if scientific facts are unchanging
truths on which all scientific knowledge is based. It is as if we
believe that these facts can be found somewhere out in nature but
this is not the case. For example, take the fact that pure water boils
at 100°C at one atmosphere pressure. How can we find that fact in
nature? Before we could make this statement, we would have to
know and understand concepts of “boiling”, “temperature”, and
“pressure” and possess and know how to use a thermometer and
have a supply of pure water.

Facts are theory-laden. Statements of fact contain the assumptions of

a particular paradigm. As shown above, when we say water boils at
a certain temperature we are accepting the truth of the related
concepts. We know about thermometers, temperature, and pressure
before we start to work. Since facts are theory-laden, they may be
changed when the associated theories and their assumptions change.
This was the case before and after Galileo revolutionised the study
of astronomy.

64 FD12A
 Facts (the ways in which we interpret what we observe) change with time.
When we observe the sun “moving” across the sky we might say
“the sun is orbiting the earth”. This statement of “fact” is consistent
with the observation and this is what was believed to be a fact in
Galileo’s day. Now we know differently and can make a different
statement of fact: “the earth is spinning on its own axis relative to a
stationary sun.”

Facts do not simply accumulate as science proceeds, instead they change

or evolve, or may disappear to be replaced by others. Perhaps when
the results of exploring space and data from telescopes such as the
Hubble telescope are collated, the paradigm within which we now
operate will change and so will the relationship between the move-
ments of the earth and sun.

The fact is that facts change. As we have seen in this session, scien-
tific knowledge progresses sometimes by small discoveries and
sometimes by radical shifts. In all cases, making careful observations
is the key. We have seen that large numbers of detailed observations
can provide enough information to form viable hypotheses that are
supported by additional observations. New theories can be proposed
by a process of deduction. When these theories allow prediction of a
wide range of phenomena they carry as much weight and are as
influential as theories arrived at by experimental investigation.
Perhaps science is not so different from other disciplines as we
think!

ACTIVITY

Use either the theory of evolution or the theory of plate

tectonics and continental drift to describe how:

(a) Present day observations can be used to construct an expla-

nation of past events.

(b) The case for a new theory can be deduced logically from
observational data without the need for experimentation.

(c) To be accepted, new theories must offer explanations for a

range of phenomena.

(d) Facts change depending on current beliefs.

FD12A 65
 CRITICAL THINKING ACTIVITY

Before the next session, think about and write down the
answers to the questions below.

1. What do you think historians do as research?

2. In what ways are their research activities different from

what scientists do?

3. Do you have greater confidence in the theories of historians

or scientists? Give a reason for your answer.

66 FD12A
Session 2.5
Scientific Methods

Are historical methods different from those of science?

To further clarify what we have considered in the preceding section

we now look at the activities of historians. The historian sets out to
construct narratives, not laws. These narratives are constructed to
explain how and why past events occurred. Let us consider
Columbus’ travels around Trinidad. One challenge for the historian
is that the events of the past are no longer open to observation now;
the modern historian cannot observe Columbus in his travels. The
problem for each historian is how to construct an account and
demonstrate that this new account is more accurate than previous
ones. As the past is not observable, the historian uses objects in the
present that can be observed; he/she depends on available “evidence”.

To construct an account of Columbus’ Trinidadian experience,

evidence may come from the logbook of his ship, letters to or from
Columbus, and other records.

n First the historian has to describe the specific piece of evidence,

the observable object, so that it can be accepted as providing
authentic evidence of the event that he/she is seeking to establish.
In this case the historian may need to show that this object is a
letter that was actually written in the past, by Columbus himself
and that it was written as a result of his experiences and encounters
while traveling in Trinidad.

n To relate Columbus’ experiences to his writing, the historian

predicts that we can find conditions off the coast of Trinidad that
Columbus mentions in his account. (We can – the low salinity of
the Gulf of Paria.)

n To confirm that the document is indeed a letter from Columbus

the historian predicts that the signature on the letter (and the ink

67
 used, as well as other factors) will have appropriate similarities to
other signatures of Columbus. (This can be done in the Spanish
archives.)

There will be, of course, additional procedures and any account may
suffer from gaps. The aim is to establish the most completely
consistent and coherent narrative (at least more so than previous
ones). For example, a previous narrative may have claimed that
Columbus never traveled round Trinidad and that the letter is a
forgery. So the historian may need to look at the new narrative to
ensure that:

n The narrative does not contradict other narratives of events in

Spain, in Santo Domingo (where Columbus wrote the letter) and in
Trinidad. These narratives form a complete network of inter-related
events.

n Ideally, the narrative will enable the historian to predict and

discover new evidence, e.g. documents in the Spanish archives or
new, that is, previously unnoticed, geographical features around
Trinidad.

In relation to our interest in the methods of the sciences, the follow-

ing features of historical methodology should be noted:

• The events that took place are unobservable but can be inferred
from objects that can be observed in the present.

• Currently observable objects, e.g. the letter, must be described

appropriately so that they can be accepted as part of the
historical record.

• The object is linked to the events of the past by a causal

account; the events accepted as accurate are those which offer
the best explanation for the evidence in hand.

• The account has to be consistent with other accounts; the new

information must make sense in light of what is already known.

• An account that makes it possible to predict the discovery of

new evidence is preferred; perhaps another document is referred
to and this can now be found.

68 FD12A
 • Objects presented as evidence can be re-described to fit the
account of past events (the letter can be re-described as a forgery
if it does not fit in with known facts); having “evidence” is not
enough, it must be accepted as authentic.

• To achieve the most complete account, that is, the most

satisfactory history, we can either change the account of past
events (Columbus never went to Trinidad) or we can change the
description of the evidence (it is a forgery not a letter) or both.

• Certainty is impossible as the discovery of new objects

(evidence) can always require changes in the account.

This sounds quite similar to the way in which the theory of evolu-
tion was constructed. So what is the fundamental difference
between historical and scientific methods? We will explore this in
the next section. (See also Module 2, Unit 5.)

ESSAY

Compare the methodologies used by scientists and historians.

Include in your answer, the objectives of research, the nature of
the evidence that is used, the methods used to gather and
examine evidence, and how the findings of both disciplines may
be used to reappraise previous theories. One approach is
outlined below.

Possible answer:

Objectives: Scientists set out to construct laws and add to theories

while historians set out to construct narratives of events that took place
in the past.

Nature of the evidence: Scientific evidence is based on facts observed in

nature or the results of observations made during experimentation.
Historical evidence consists of objects found in the present that can be
linked with the past.

Methods used to gather data: Scientists put forward hypotheses that

include predictions and test these hypotheses under controlled
conditions. The results of the tests may support the hypotheses or not in
which case new hypotheses are proposed and tested. Historians first

FD12A 69 69
 describe the objects being used as evidence very carefully so they can be
accepted as valid. From a careful study of the objects they may predict
the discovery of more evidence that supports the evidence already in
hand.

How findings are used: Scientific findings that support the original
hypothesis that was tested often require that the underlying theory be
modified to accommodate the new findings. Science progresses as
existing theories are modified and made more accurate or precise.
Historical narratives cannot be tested in the same way. They are
accepted when they provide a better and more complete account than
previous accounts of the same event and are consistent with other
accepted historical data.

In both cases findings may lead to changes to existing knowledge or

modifications to incorporate both the new and the older knowledge.
Sometimes the new knowledge or the old is rejected. In science this may
lead to further testing of new hypotheses.

When experimentation is not possible, scientists may use methods that

are similar to historians. They use observations of what is available in
the present to construct explanations for past events that they think are
responsible for what they observe in the present. From these
explanations they make predictions that, if accurate, support their
explanations. New theories constructed in this way are accepted when
they offer the best explanations for a wide range of previously
unexplained observations.

Observation, instrumentation, and new knowledge

New instruments: accepting new knowledge

It is clear that observations play a key role in scientific knowledge.

As noted earlier, the “triumph” of observation occurred in the seven-
teenth century when both the telescope and the microscope were
developed. We can only imagine the excitement of the first scientists
to see what had never been seen before: large numbers of stars
above and large numbers of protozoa and bacteria below (“animal-
cules” as first reported by Anton van Leewunhoek). As the new
instruments became accepted, new knowledge became possible.
Observation became the dominant source of knowledge and was

70 FD12A
 used increasingly to refute older theories. In science it came to have
priority over all other sources of knowledge.

However, the new instruments were not immediately accepted.

What happens when How could an astronomer convince others that what the instru-
you see or hear ment showed was, in fact, a previously unobserved planet or star
something you have
never seen nor heard and not a blur or smudge on the lens? Galileo sighted sunspots, the
before? Do you try to mountains of the Moon and the moons of Jupiter but these amaz-
make sense of it,
given what you know ing discoveries were not favourably received. The problem was that
or dismiss it as not what was seen ran contrary to accepted ideas, some of which were
true? You probably
try to do a bit of both
religious in origin.
like most of us!
Was Galileo’s impatience with those who did not immediately
accept his findings fully justified? Faced with a conflict between
what you think you know and what you observe, it is not always
easy to accept the new observation. You can:

(a) Accept the theory (what you know) and reject the new
observation.
(b) Accept the observation and reject the theory (your previous
knowledge).
(c) Change the way you look at both to make observation and
theory consistent.

We tend to take the option that makes the most sense, given what
we already know.

Making scientific observations is not a natural ability. When under-

graduate biologists or medical students first look at slides under a
microscope they often report that they do not see what they
“should see”. They need experience, training, and advice to interpret
the image seen. Have you ever tried to make sense of an
X-ray photograph? In order to make valid observations we need
trained observers; untrained observers are unable to see anything.

Making scientific observations – can we trust our senses?

As we discussed earlier, observations of one sort or another play a

key role in scientific and other forms of research. Are our observa-
tions always reliable? Do we all see things the same? You have prob-
ably come across various optical illusions where a drawing can be

FD12A 71
 seen either as one image or as another quite different one, but not
both at the same time.

Even when we all receive the same data

from our senses, we do not necessarily
perceive those data in the same way. We
do not simply see like a camera; our
brains help to construct the images
we perceive, using sense data as well
as previous knowledge and experience.
The part played by previous know-
ledge and experience leads to expecta-
tion; that is, we see what we expect
Figure 2.3 Example of an
to see.
optical illusion

Like facts, observation can be seen as

“theory-laden”, that is, guided by prior knowledge and concepts held by the
individual, because of the important parts played by expectation and
assumption. For example, if someone calls out the names of cards
that are being shown to you in quick succession, a red five of
spades, for example, may be confidently called the five of hearts,
without your realising that anything is wrong. Each card is
described according to an expected category, and not as it really is.
You do not expect spades to be red so you “see” hearts instead.

Beliefs without the support of Look quickly at the triangle and

observational data do not form read what is written inside it.
part of science. In religious
practice, for example, it is
acceptable to believe what
we can neither see nor prove A
but in science this is not so. BIRD
Scientific beliefs must be
supported by reasons. IN THE
Since observation plays such
THE BUSH
a crucial role in formulating
hypotheses and interpreting
Did you see the “the” twice?
experimental results we need
to be aware of what is Figure 2.4

72 FD12A
 implied when a scientist reports “findings” based on “observations”
and then formulates new hypotheses and theories that direct
further research. Scientists are only human and sometimes because
of what they already know they see what they expect to see, not
what is really there.

The German philosopher Kant (working at the end of the eigh-

teenth century) pointed out that knowledge could not be founded
on sense experience alone, as we needed to have certain concepts to
make sense of our observations. To see a tree, humans need to have
a prior concept of a tree – sense experiences without prior concepts
are blind. In Kant’s view reason has to guide all investigation and
observations can only produce knowledge through experiments
designed to answer questions formulated by reasoning.

Different approaches to experimentation

Experimentation using natural conditions – the work of Harvey

Experimentation first received special emphasis in the seventeenth

century, with the English theorist Francis Bacon highlighting the use
of experiments for acquiring natural knowledge. This involved inter-
vening and actively manipulating some aspect of the physical world.
He thought this knowledge would give humans control of nature
and to do this we needed to understand the causes of behaviour and
change in the natural world. This information could be used to
formulate statements or laws about how nature works.

Bacon’s ideas were well illustrated by William Harvey’s study of the

circulation of blood in animals. Harvey established for the first time
that blood circulated around the body, pumped by the heart through
the arteries and returning to it along the veins. He reached this
conclusion after carrying out a series of experiments on animals and
humans that he illustrated and discussed in his book, Anatomical
Exercises on the Movement of the Heart and Blood in Animals, in 1628.

By placing pressure and releasing it at certain points along veins in

the arm the flow of blood in them could be stopped and restarted.
Harvey observed that it caused bulges where valves in the veins
obstructed the flow in one direction but not the other. The proce-
dure for carrying out one of Harvey’s experiments is included in

FD12A 73
 your readings. You might like to try it on someone with prominent
veins. It works very well. The experiment confirms that the move-
ment of blood in the veins is only towards and not away from the
heart.

Harvey interfered with the course of nature (blocking the flow of

blood to a vein) to establish the existence of a process (the circula-
tion of the blood) by looking at a cause and effect relationship. He
arrived at his conclusions although he did not observe any connec-
tion from the arteries to the veins. However, his conclusions
allowed the existence of capillaries to be predicted. They were only
observed by another scientist, five years after Harvey’s death.

Experimentation in artificial environments – Galileo’s work

Galileo Galilei, the Italian astronomer and physicist, who worked at

the same time as Harvey, adopted a different approach to experi-
ments. Galileo’s interest was in kinematics, the description and meas-
urement of the movement of objects. In contrast to Harvey,
Galileo’s experiments did not interfere in the natural flow of events.
His experiments were carried out in artificial environments to avoid
any interference from the events in the everyday world. His aim
was to develop a set of simple laws of motion, expressed in a mathe-
matical way.

Galileo realised that making observations in natural surroundings

could not provide explanations that would give simple laws. For
example, apart from any “law of fall”, the fall of fruit from a tree
could be a result of several different conditions, such as the move-
ment of the wind, the shaking of the branch, the shape of the fruit
and so on. In a natural setting how would a scientist be able to say
which variable was most influential and in what way?

In carrying out his experiments, Galileo concentrated on certain

variables (e.g. time and space) and ignored or minimised others (e.g.
friction) as best he could. In studying the motion of the pendulum he
deliberately ignored the friction of the string on the nail to which it
was attached. When he rolled a ball down a slope he had the ball
very carefully polished and the slope covered with a suitable mate-
rial so that he could eliminate friction from his calculations.

74 FD12A
 Working in this way Galileo was able to develop hypotheses that
showed certain mathematical relationships. His intention was that
these hypotheses would become laws when his observations
supported them. However, many of his hypotheses expressed rela-
tionships that could not be directly observed. His law of inertia
claimed that an object moving horizontally would retain its velocity perpet-
ually (keep moving at the same rate forever!) unless other forces interfered
with it. Obviously nothing of this sort could be observed. A moving
object would have all sorts of forces interfering with it and no
object could be observed perpetually. However, by assuming that
the law was correct, he could make certain predictions and if these
predictions were correct, that is, if they were observed, then the law
would be supported.

Like Harvey, Galileo depended on experiment to reach his conclu-

sions. He did not depend only on observations in the natural world.
He used experiments to test and support predictions. Successful
predictions vindicated his original hypotheses and thus supported
the laws. From these laws additional predictions could be made. Both
experiment and observation are essential for producing scientific knowledge
and this, above all, distinguishes science from other cognitive practices.

ACTIVITY

1. Write down what you understand by the terms given below

as used by a scientist. Go through Session 2.5 again and
check how many you got right. Construct for your own use,
a simple scientific glossary using these and any other words
you need to remember from this unit.
Experiment Variables Theories
Findings Dependent variable Laws
Hypothesis Independent variable Kinematics
Inference Prediction Theory-laden
Observation Scientific knowledge Sense data

2. Use the terms in the first column to fill in the boxes below
to show the sequence of activities carried out by a scientist
during an investigation.

FD12A 75 75
 ð ð ð ð

3. All scientific knowledge starts with making observations.

List some of the reasons why we cannot always trust what
we think we observe.

4. Would you agree that we should treat all scientific knowl-

edge with some scepticism? Give reasons for your answer.

76 FD12A
Session 2.6
Scientific Theories and Models

A good example – Newton’s theory of gravitation

What goes up must come down! The question is, why? What laws
govern the falling of objects towards the earth? Sir Isaac Newton, a
professor of mathematics at the University of Cambridge in
England, followed Galileo’s mathematical approach in his
Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy of 1686. This work laid
out Newton’s theory of gravitation. The theory can be summed up
in a single statement: Attractive forces between two bodies, depend on
their masses and on the distance between them. This theory of gravita-
Mass: The quantity
of matter a body tional forces was remarkable for its simplicity, its coherence and the
contains. The weight surprising range of predictions that it made possible. It made possi-
of an object is
determined by its ble predictions about the tides and the shape of the earth and it
mass, not its size. could be applied to the smallest of objects on earth as well as the
relationships between heavenly objects in outer space. On earth,
what goes up comes down because it is attracted to the earth.

ACTIVITY

Can you put Newton’s theory into your own words? One way
to look at it is as follows: When two objects are separated from
each other the attraction between them depends on how far
apart they are and the difference between their masses.

The theory of gravitation was a peak of scientific achievement in

the seventeenth century. It provided a benchmark for what the
merits of a scientific theory should be: a set of very few general state-
ments that correctly describe and explain all experimental observations
about the behaviour and properties of a large variety of objects or systems.
Despite this, Newton offered no certainty. Like the good scientist
that he was, he acknowledged that his theory was open to correction.

77
 The role of models

Many theories are easier to understand by using models. However, it

is important to remember that a theory is much more than a model
although it may incorporate a model. The term model is used academ-
ically to refer to an imagined mechanism or process that represents the real
mechanism or process. It is an artificial construction invented to show
or to simulate the properties, the behaviour or the relationship
between individual parts of the object being studied. The
Rutherford model of the structure of an atom was based on the
solar system and the planets.

electrons orbitting
nucleus

nucleus

Figure 2.5 The structure of an atom

Adapted from:

Figure 2.6 The solar system

78 FD12A
 All grains of ordinary table salt (sodium chloride) have the same
shape, a cube, even if their sizes are different. There is regularity in
the internal structure of the grains, which cannot be seen directly,
but can be deduced from chemical and physical experiments. To
visualize this structure, it is useful to build a three-dimensional
model using small cubes and balls of two different sizes to represent
the arrangement of chlorine and sodium atoms as we think they are
in the grain.

Figure 2.7 Diagram of a salt crystal as we visualize it (sodium chloride)

Models may be similar in some ways to the objects that they repre-
sent but they are not replicas of the real thing. Nevertheless, models
are very useful because they

• aid our understanding of what is not visible by relating the

unknown to something with which we are already familiar,

• allow us to imagine the mechanism or the process. We can

manipulate a model mentally (e.g. move one of the atoms in the
crystal) to explain the behaviour of the real mechanism or
process under different conditions, and

• can be used to account for observations or make predictions.

ACTIVITY

Think about the use of models in your discipline. Select one

model and compare it and its uses to what has been described
above. Does the model you describe serve the same purposes?

FD12A 79
 Science and the imagination

Much of what we have discussed would lead you to believe that all
theories are logically derived from facts and laws. This is not always
the case. In fact, many theories are the results of imaginative
insights that are subsequently developed by careful, conscious
thought. One of the best examples of a theory that was not derived
from any experimental data at all is Einstein’s theory of relativity.
He proposed this theory when no supporting experimental data
were known; in fact, most of the experimental evidence appeared to
refute it for many years. As time passed efforts were made to test
the predictions of the theory. The results supported Einstein’s
theory and disproved competing theories.

Explanations and justification

A science is expected to do more than just describe some aspect of

the natural world. A science usually offers explanations. These
explanations can have practical uses. From an explanation of why
something took place it may be possible to (i) predict that a similar
event will occur in similar circumstances, or (ii) to produce such an
event, or (iii) to anticipate its occurrence and so take precautions to
avoid undesired consequences. For instance, with appropriate meteo-
rological data, the paths of hurricanes can be predicted (roughly!)
and so we can take the precautions needed. Our knowledge of the
properties of gases when they are heated leads us to warn
consumers not to burn “empty” spray cans.

A scientific theory provides an explanation of particular facts, laws

and observable phenomena. It should also enable new phenomena
to be predicted and give a sense of understanding of the facts and
laws it explains. In practice no theory can accommodate all observa-
tions within its domain and at any time there are usually some
observations that cannot be satisfactorily explained. The history of
science shows that theories grow to accommodate new evidence
more fully as it becomes available. Both the claims and the methods
of science continue to be challenged and debated and it is important
that you are part of that debate.

80 FD12A
 THE METHODOLOGY OF SCIENCE – A SUMMARY

So far in this unit, we have tried to give you some insights into the
ways of science and scientists. The main focus has been on the
methodology of science. However, this has been presented against a
historical and philosophical background so that you can appreciate
how and why the methodology developed as it did.

You should now be able to identify two common aspects of any human
endeavour that claims to be scientific: its aim and its methods.

1. Its aim is the discovery, description and understanding of facts

about the natural world, both living and non-living, whether on
a large or small scale.

2. Its methods are based on combinations of observation,

experiment, and reasoning.

In science, observations, experiments, and reasoning are inextricably

intertwined with laws and theories and lead to predictions and
explanations. The results of observations and experiments provide a
starting point for formulating new hypotheses, models, and theories.
New observations and experiments again test these hypotheses,
theories, and models. From this process we come to realise that
science does not offer certainty. The generalisations are theories that
are retained only as long as they are consistent with the known
facts of nature or as long as they are useful in making sense of the
world. We can assume that some day a number of the present scien-
tific theories, in which we place such great faith, will seem as
absurd as “cylindrical objects burn” in our earlier story.

Thus an idealised scheme of scientific method could be described by

the following:

1. Scientists use systematic observations and quantitative

measurements to supplement everyday experience. In most cases
instruments are necessary to detect signals that human senses
cannot detect or analyse adequately.

FD12A 81
 2. Predictions based on the theories are tested by experiments
designed specifically to check whether a predicted effect exists
or not.

3. Scientific investigations are characterised by the careful control

of variables while making systematic observations and
measurements.

4. Evidence obtained in this way is recorded and analysed. The

aims are to discover regularities and patterns and, if possible, to
suggest a theory that explains the observations.

5. Sometimes the results of such tests and experiments require

rejection of a theory and consequently a paradigm change. More
often they provide additional data for refining or modifying the
theory.

In this section of the course it has also been argued that observation
is a complex process involving the active participation of the brain.
What we perceive is influenced by our previous experience and by
what we expect to see.

Furthermore, facts are theory-laden statements made after observa-

tions, and even the act of observing assumes some theory. Progress
in science is popularly considered to consist of adding more and
more facts to existing theories. Our discussion has indicated the
falseness of this belief by showing that “facts” and the resulting
theories may change and evolve.

We have considered a variety of approaches to science and have seen

that scientific progress involves changes in the:

(a) findings (the facts) of science;

(b) concepts, laws, and theories;
(c) methods of reasoning.

There is no universally accepted scientific method. This does not

mean that scientists have no rigorous methods. It means that the
nature of the methods chosen depends on the particular circum-
stances, on what is being considered, on the theoretical knowledge
that is available, and on the techniques and equipment available.

82 FD12A
 The success of science at predicting events suggests that there are
patterns in reality that we can discern. These patterns may, or may
not be, unchanging, but our representations of them, such as facts,
laws and theories, will always be tentative because they depend on
assumptions that we may change.

We first infer scientific theories as educated guesses that work to

“explain” observed patterns in the world. Then we test such models
for their ability to predict new observations. If such a theory, model
or explanation accurately predicts the observations made in a wide
variety of tests, it is held to be “verified”.

Clearly the capability of a scientific theory to predict observations

cannot be a test of its ultimate truth. Science can only argue to the
best current explanation. Scientific methods may help us to test our
observations and theories but the findings, theories and explana-
tions are always provisional – open to clarification and correction.
If a scientific model is consistent and easily integrated into the
existing body of accepted theories, there is mutual reinforcement.
However, occasionally a new model or theory may provide a supe-
rior explanation of existing observations and accurately predicts
fresh ones but is inconsistent with accepted theories. In that case
the new theory becomes a challenger to the accepted body of theory
and a scientific crisis and/or revolution may follow.

It is important to reiterate that scientific explanations, at best, give

provisional knowledge. They themselves are based on “faith” in
science and consequently there is always room for reasonable doubt
and debate.

FD12A 83
 REFERENCES

Avison, John H. Physics for CXC. Surrey: Thomas Nelson and Sons,
1988.

Jackson, Barry, and Whiteley, Peter. CXC Physics. Wesley: Addison;

Harlon: Longman, 1996.

Lambert, Norman, and Mohammed, Marvin. Chemistry for CXC.

Oxford: Heinemann, 1993.

84 FD12A