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