Science as a Way of Understanding the

Natural World

Chapter 2
The Nature of Science

Science can be defined as the systematic examination of the structure and functioning of
the natural world, including both its physical and biological attributes. Science is also a
rapidly expanding body of knowledge, whose ultimate goal is to discover the simplest
general principles that can explain the enormous complexity of nature. These principles
can be used to gain insights about the of the natural world and to make predictions about
future change.
Modern science evolved from a way of learning called natural philosophy, which was
developed by classical Greeks and was concerned with the rational investigation of
existence, knowledge, and phenomena. Compared with modern science, however, studies in
natural philosophy used unsophisticated technologies and methods and were not particularly
quantitative, sometimes involving only the application of logic.
Modern science began with the systematic investigations of famous 16th- and 17th-
century scientists, such as:

● Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543), a Polish astronomer who conceived the modern theory of
the solar system
● William Gilbert (1544-1603), an Englishman who worked on magnetism
● Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), an Italian who conducted research on the physics of objects in
motion, as well as astronomy
● William Harvey (1578-1657): an Englishman who described the circulation of the blood
● Isaac Newton (1642-1727): an Englishman who made important contributions to
understanding gravity and the nature of light, formulated laws of motion, and developed the
mathematics of calculus
Inductive and Deductive Logic

The English philosopher Francis Bacon (1561-1626) was also highly influential in the development of
modern science. Bacon was not an actual practitioner of science but was a strong proponent of its
emerging methodologies. He promoted the application of inductive logic, in which conclusions are
developed from the accumulating evidence of experience and the results of experiments. Inductive logic
can lead to unifying explanations based on large bodies of data and observations of phenomena. Consider
the following illustration of inductive logic, applied to an environmental topic:

● Observation 1: Marine mammals off the Atlantic coast of Canada have large residues of DDT and other
chlorinated hydrocarbons in their fat and other body tissues.
● Observation 2: So do marine mammals off British Columbia.
● Observation 3: As do those in the Arctic Ocean, although in lower concentrations.
 Inductive conclusion: There is a widespread contamination of marine mammals with
chlorinated hydrocarbons. Further research may demonstrate that the contamination is a
global phenomenon. This suggests a potentially important environmental problem.

In contrast, deductive logic involves making one or more initial assumptions and then drawing logical conclusions from
those premises. Consequently, the truth of a deductive conclusion depends on the veracity of the original assumptions. If
those suppositions are based on false information or on incorrect supernatural belief, then any deduced conclusions are
likely to be wrong. Consider the following illustration of deductive logic:

● Assumption 1: TCDD, an extremely toxic chemical in the dioxin family, is poisonous when present in even the
smallest concentrations in food and water—even a single molecule can cause toxicity.
● Assumption 2: Exposure to anything that is poisonous in even the smallest concentrations is unsafe.
● Assumption 3: No exposure that is unsafe should be allowed.
Deductive conclusion 1: No exposure to TCDD is safe.
Deductive conclusion 2: No emissions of TCDD should be allowed.

The two conclusions are consistent with the original assumptions. However, there is disagreement among highly qualified
scientists about those assumptions. Many toxicologists believe that exposures to TCDD (and any other potentially toxic
chemicals) must exceed a threshold of biological tolerance before poisoning will result (see Chapter 15). In contrast,
other scientists believe that even the smallest exposure to TCDD carries some degree of toxic risk. Thus, the strength of
deductive logic depends on the acceptance and truth of the original assumptions from which its conclusions flow.

In general, inductive logic plays a much stronger role in modern science than does deductive logic. In both cases,
however, the usefulness of any conclusions depends greatly on the accuracy of any observations and other data on which
they were based. Poor data may lead to an inaccurate conclusion through the application of inductive logic, as will
inappropriate assumptions in deductive logic.
Facts, Hypotheses, and Experiments

A fact is an event or thing that is definitely known to have happened, to exist, and to be true. Facts are
based on experience and scientific evidence.

In contrast, a hypothesis is a proposed explanation for the occurrence of a phenomenon. Scientists

formulate hypotheses as statements and then test them through experiments and other forms of research.
Hypotheses are developed using logic, inference, and mathematical arguments in order to explain
observed phenomena. However, it must always be possible to refute a scientific hypothesis. Thus, the
hypothesis that “cats are so intelligent that they prevent humans from discovering it” cannot be logically
refuted, and so it is not a scientific hypothesis.

A theory is a broader conception that refers to a set of explanations, rules, and laws. These are supported
by a large body of observational and experimental evidence, all leading to robust conclusions.
Figure 2.1.
Diagrammatic
Representation of the
Scientific Method.
The scientific method is only to investigate questions that can be critically examined through observation and experiment.
Consequently, science cannot resolve value-laden questions, such as the meaning of life, good versus evil, or the
existence and qualities of God or any other supernatural being or force.

An experiment is a test or investigation that is designed to provide evidence in support of, or preferably against, a
hypothesis. A natural experiment is conducted by observing actual variations of phenomena in nature, and then
developing explanations by analysis of possible causal mechanisms. A manipulative experiment involves the deliberate
alteration of factors that are hypothesized to influence phenomena. The manipulations are carefully planned and
controlled in order to determine whether predicted responses will occur, thereby uncovering causal relationships.
By far the most useful working hypotheses in scientific research are designed to disprove rather than support. A null
hypothesis is a specific testable investigation that denies something implied by the main hypothesis being studied. Unless
null hypotheses are eliminated on the basis of contrary evidence, we cannot be confident of the main hypothesis.

A variable is a factor that is believed to influence a natural phenomenon. For example, a scientist might hypothesize that
the productivity of a wheat crop is potentially limited by such variables as the availability of water, or of nutrients such as
nitrogen and phosphorus
Uncertainty

The accuracy of observations and predictions is influenced by various factors:

● Predictability
● Variability
● Accuracy and Precision
● A Need for Scepticism
Predictability
The inaccuracies of biology and ecology occur because key functions are controlled by complexes of
poorly understood, and sometimes unidentified, environmental influences. Consequently, predictions
about future values of biological and ecological variables or the causes of changes are seldom accurate.
For example, even though ecologists in eastern Canada have been monitoring the population size of
spruce budworm (an important pest of conifer forests) for some years, they cannot accurately predict its
future abundance in particular stands of forest or in larger regions. This is because the abundance of this
moth is influenced by a complex of environmental factors, including tree-species composition, age of the
forest, abundance of its predators and parasites, quantities of its preferred foods, weather at critical times
of year, and insecticide use to reduce its populations. Biologists and ecologists do not fully understand
this complexity, and perhaps they never will.
Variability

Many natural phenomena are highly variable in space and time. This is true of physical and
chemical variables as well as of biological and ecological ones. Within a forest, for example, the
amount of sunlight reaching the ground varies greatly with time, depending on the hour of the day
and the season of the year. It also varies spatially, depending on the density of foliage over any
place where sunlight is being measured. Similarly, the density of a particular species of fish within
a river typically varies in response to changes in habitat conditions and other influences. Most fish
populations also vary over time, especially migratory species such as salmon. In environmental
science, replicated (or independently repeated) measurements and statistical analyses are used to
measure and account for these kinds of temporal and spatial variations.
Accuracy and Precision

Accuracy refers to the degree to which a measurement or observation reflects the actual, or true, value of the subject. For
example, the insecticide DDT and the metal mercury are potentially toxic chemicals that occur in trace concentrations in all
organisms, but their small residues are difficult to analyze chemically. Some of the analytical methods used to determine
the concentrations of DDT and mercury are more accurate than others and therefore provide relatively useful and reliable
data compared with less accurate methods. In fact, analytical data are usually approximations of the real values – rigorous
accuracy is rarely attainable.

Precision is related to the degree of repeatability of a measurement or observation. For example, suppose that the actual
number of caribou in a migrating herd is 10,246 animals. A wildlife ecologist might estimate that there were about 10,000
animals in that herd, which for practical purposes is a reasonably accurate reckoning of the actual number of caribou. If
other ecologists also independently estimate the size of the herd at about 10,000 caribou, there is a good degree of
precision among the values. If, however, some systematic bias existed in the methodology used to count the herd, giving
consistent estimates of 15,000 animals (remember, the actual population is 10 246 caribou), these estimates would be
considered precise, but not particularly accurate.
A Need for Scepticism

Scientific information and understanding will always be subject to some degree of uncertainty. Therefore, predictions will
always be inaccurate to some extent, and this uncertainty must be considered when trying to understand and deal with the
causes and consequences of environmental changes. As such, all information and predictions in environmental science
must be critically interpreted with uncertainty in mind. This should be done whenever one is learning about an
environmental issue, whether it involves listening to a speaker in a classroom, at a conference, or on video, or when
reading an article in a newspaper, textbook, website, or scientific journal. Because of the uncertainty of many predictions
in science, and particularly in the environmental realm, a certain amount of scepticism and critical analysis is always
useful.