1. What is Science?
Consensus opinion
| Science is a rational, never-ending and unique process of producing tested, evidence-based explanations for the full range of natural phenomena that we observe to occur around us. |
- Science is creative
Science requires attention and curiosity to notice things, imagination and creativity to invent hypotheses to explain them, and then skill, patience, ingenuity and honesty to design and carry out the observational/experimental tests of those hypotheses. This is often a long and collaborative process.
- Science builds consensus
Scientific hypotheses and their supporting observational and/or experimental evidence are recorded and shared via the publication of peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals, at scientific conferences and via the internet. Other scientists then attempt to reproduce the same conclusions in order to make them more reliable. Eventually, this leads to the acceptance or rejection of the hypothesis by the scientific community (ie the majority of mainstream scientists). If accepted, the explanation is then referred to as a scientific theory or model.
- Science provides better explanations
Science comprises a very large set of observational statements that summarise what we could call 'scientifically discovered facts' about the Universe (e.g. "antibiotics kill bacteria", "the Sun appears in the same place in the sky every 365.25 days", …)
Science creates a set of tested and accepted explanatory models (scientific theories) that each explain a wide range of these statements.These theories have predictive powers (sometimes predicting that some of the observational statements will only be true for a limited time) and are thoroughly and rigorously tested by comparing their predictions to the outcomes of further observations (often via experiments). In this way they are shown to be 'not false at this point in time', but may well be honed (or even subsumed by more encompassing theories) in the light of future observations.
As such, scientifically obtained knowledge should be considered far more valid than any 'mere guess' or opinion (or any untestable pseudo-scientific ideas), but should never be regarded as anything like "ultimate truth". A scientific "fact" is an observation or conclusion confirmed to such an extent that it is reasonable to regard it as being "highly unlikely to be wrong".
- Science transforms society
Scientifically obtained knowledge has value: Practically, the models enable us to make predictions and hence create new technologies, materials, products and methods, thereby allowing us to exercise some control over our surroundings. Philosophically, the models help us to consider our existence in the wider context of the Universe, often surprising us by describing things as being actually quite different from how they appear to be.
Contribute your opinion
Please click the link below to add your own opinion on What Science Is.
It will be very helpful to those reading your comment if you have altered your Forum signature to include your Science specialism, your number of years of teaching experience and any post of responsibility that you hold. Click here and then select My Profile to do this now.
I think somewhere we need to include that scientific theories can and do change as new evidence is discovered, and existing evidence is revised or discredited. I have always regarded science as essentially faithless; merely the best guess we have at the moment. It is also important, certainly for any students considering science at higher level, to point out where the weaknesses are in existing theories. That way we do not, as a body, look like a bunch of religious nutters or wizards&witches when theories come tumbling down. Recent discoveries in genetics showing that the Saxon and Norman invasions of Britain contributed less than 10% each to our current population has stood 300 years of "knowledge" on its head. Given the recent brohaha over the evidence for global warming also, we need to remember that the word theory does not necessarily mean 'wholly accepted', nor does it mean that it covers all the evidence. I trust this isn't too polemic for a first post.
Rick Hodge has 11 years in Independent secondary education, latterly as a Head of Science & Physics, and now teaches abroad.
Polemic? Let's hope not; I agree with every word! :)
Stuart Billington is a Head of Science in an 11-18 new Academy in the North West of England. He has 11 years of teaching experience.
The process
This process is never-ending because at its heart is the fundamental requirement that every "scientific" candidate explanation ("hypothesis") for an observed phenomenon be remorselessly tested again and again and again, down through the ages, in as many different ways as people will ever think of, over and over without end. In this way, scientific ideas are honed and improved, or sometimes even absorbed by newer, wider-ranging ideas.
The explanations
Any candidate explanation (hypothesis) for a phenomenon that has successfully withstood such a barrage has earned the title of "scientific theory". As such, a scientific theory can never be described as "just a theory", in the way you might describe a hunch you have about why your next door neighbour isn't talking to her husband. A scientific theory has undergone thousands of intricate tests by thousands of very intelligent people whose single-minded goal is very simple: prove it wrong. This is so fundamental that the only theories that could ever be described as "scientific" are ones that, in principle at least, could be conceived of being proven wrong. This criterion is known as falsifiability. Scientific theories must be falsifiable in principle, even if we never find an experiment that falsifies them in practice. So: Do as many experiments as you can, make as many observations as you can, think for as many hours as you can to catch it out with internal inconsistencies. Compare it to other people's ideas. Chase down every consequence to check that it's predictions agree with what really happens when you look. Have you found the theory to be wrong yet?
Not the search for "truth"
At the end of such a process, any explanation left standing can truly be described as a "scientific theory", but it cannot and never will be described as "true". Science does not do "true". Science does "I and my mates have tried for four years/decades/centuries to work out why this explanation is wrong, but we can't, so what do you think? Is it useful for anything? Shall we tell other people about it?". Think about it: how can we ever be 100% positively sure about anything? Even our senses and our memory may deceive us. And, ultimately, do we really have any promise that tomorrow will always behave like today? A true scientist is, if nothing else, honest about this inability to ever attain "truth".
The worth of Science
If scientific theories may not be "true", what's the point of them? Well, scientific theories have earned their name because they have been proved to match the world around us to an astounding degree. They predict what will happen. This is their worth. They are why we have planes, sky-scrapers, mobile phones and a million other things. They allow us to successfully and predicatably manipulate nature to our own ends. (It's just a shame that the human race have a propensity for selfish short-sighted short-term often-destructive gains.)
The paradigm
A good scientist is familiar with a large number of the currently standing scientific theories. They understand that these theories have impressively survived an extreme sequence of attacks to prove them wrong and will be aware of the details of these failed attempts and therefore the strengths of the theory. They understand how to test a theory themselves, if they wanted to. They understand how all these separate theories fit together and support each other. All of this is "science".
Scientific literacy
Most citizens of most countries will never be paid to exercise such skills as a day-job practicing scientist. However, just knowing what the adjective "scientific" means will mean that the pseudo-sciences (from astrology to alternative medicine) will find it harder to describe themselves as "scientific". Just to know that all scientific theories have been tried to be proved wrong rather than right, indeed that it is even possible to conceive of them being wrong at all, even in principle, would make the world a more transparent place. To know a little about good practice in making such tests would make the charlatan's tricks more transparent also.
Scientific discovery
Today, Science proceeds as follows.
Note: There are contemporary 'issues'. Scientists must bid for funding for their work. Successful bids are often based on how many journal articles a scientist has had published. This has lead to an ethos of "publish or perish", in which a huge (unreadable) volume of second rate articles is published every year, without allowing time for ideas to properly blossom. Bid are often more successful if they are to investigate 'safe' phenomena — ie ones that are already well-understood. This lack of ambitious is stifling. Finally, the peer-review system is undermined by the funding system, as your reviewer is invariably also your competitor for the next funding bid, meaning that opinions of articles provided to editors cannot claim to be unbiased.
Other world-views
Science is often pitted against other world-views, most often religion (of whatever variety). There are two key points to remember in such debates, however.
The two approaches are not incompatible, but require a line to be drawn between "natural" and "supernatural" phenomena — to define the borders of the realm of scientific validity. The only trouble with this is Occam's razor — if the supernatural isn't observable, reproducible or distinguishable from psychological effects, do we need to include it in our world-view at all? Is it any more than fanciful wishful thinking? Each of us must chose our own path here.
Stuart Billington is a Head of Science in an 11-18 new Academy in the North West of England. He has 11 years of teaching experience.
Do we agree with these short definitions?
No — I don't like the wikipedia one. It gives an improper suggestion of simplicity and superficiality. I also don't like the mention of "social" as I'm not entirely sure I think that "social science" is a science. "…analyze this information to construct…" sounds more inductive than deductive. "…tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions…" is not always the case. "…so other scientists can do similar experiments to double-check…" is not the only reason to publish. "…predict future events of the same kind as those that have been tested…" is not always true.
Stuart Billington is a Head of Science in an 11-18 new Academy in the North West of England. He has 11 years of teaching experience.
Current schemes of work / science curricula have modules on electricity / forces / cells etc. and try to incorporate "How Science Works" into each of them. I think this topic needs its own module so that it is taught properly. I think it's a module that should be taught early on in KS4. Of course, elements of HSW should be evident in the other modules, but I think it is only by explicitly teaching about the nature of science can we hope to deal with some of the issues which arise as a result of ignorance about HSW (sorry Stu, I know you hate this phrase)
Alom Shaha is a science teacher, writer, and film-maker
I agree! Let's write one. :)
Stuart Billington is a Head of Science in an 11-18 new Academy in the North West of England. He has 11 years of teaching experience.
This is slightly premature, but I'd like to note, for when we do get to it, that the current KS4 glossary of terms is hopelessly narrow. We need to include words like:
Hypothesis
Scientific theory
Falsifiable
Truth (ie a non-thing)
ie not limit ourselves to words about experiments.
Stuart Billington is a Head of Science in an 11-18 new Academy in the North West of England. He has 11 years of teaching experience.
We're going to head into the whole "philosophy of science" area if we try to define "truth". I think this is a key element that is missing from the curriculum, it should appear under "how science works", but doesn't.
Alom Shaha is a science teacher, writer, and film-maker
I believe that we should teach essentially the same curriculum to ALL students up to 16. By 16 (GCSE) they should:
Be able to describe what is meant by falsifiable and reproducable and be able to provide examples and counter-examples of scientific hypotheses using these principles. (Example: "This match is non-flamable" is a scientific hypothesis, even if it's wrong. Counter-example: "God created the heavens and Earth.")
Be able to distinguish a hypothesis from a theory.
Be able to describe in words some key theories and principles from biology, chemistry and physics. (Newtonion mechanics and basic electromagnetism for physics - I'll leave the other two to biologists and chemists to decide).
Able to devise an experiment to tell two competing hypotheses apart. (Mendellian and Lamarckian inheritance, for example)
Have some idea about confidence and error margins. (The concept of "Over [i]n[/i] measurements, and the error is $\sqrt(n)$ is not difficult to understand and allows students to be able to self-evaluate their own experiments more accurately).
Arkady English
MPhys. student at University of Sheffield
Do you teach in an ordinary secondary school? I don't think a lot of the pupils I teach could do those things by yr11.
Mike Bell, science teacher and trainer in evidence-based practice
My ideal science curriculum would include elements that explored the philosophy of science - what things can science tell us and what can it not tell us? What do we mean by a scientific "truth"? This ideal course of mine would also result in students who were aware of the contributions made by individual scientists and the contexts in which they made their discoveries / did their work.
Alom Shaha is a science teacher, writer, and film-maker
Should there be an examined module on the "history and philosophy of science" for our scientists of the future?
Stuart Billington is a Head of Science in an 11-18 new Academy in the North West of England. He has 11 years of teaching experience.
"How Science Works" should teach children about the way in which scientific knowledge is acquired and then assimilated into the wider body of "science" by the process of peer review etc. Peer review has its problems and there are steps afoot to encourage "open access" science on the web - these are things that the modern science student needs to be aware of.
Alom Shaha is a science teacher, writer, and film-maker
A lot of people are sucked in by pseudoscience - especially in the world's of "alternative" medicine and "new age" movements of various sorts. The misappropriation of scientific terminology to sell products and / or belief systems is something that concerns me. A good science curriculum ought to ensure that students are able to distinguish between science and pseudoscience.
Alom Shaha is a science teacher, writer, and film-maker
Anti-scientists and creationists often use the argument that, for example, evolution by natural selection is "just a theory". In everyday usage, "theory" can be used in much the same way as "guess", for example "my theory is that Joe is skiving off work again to go shopping" whereas in science "theory" usually implies an accepted way of explaining the world or, as the OED puts it "a theory is a statement of what are held to be general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed". "Theory" in science carries the weight of evidence and is a term which is usually applied to "guesses" that have been proved to be right - for example the theory of gravity or atomic theory. Of course, scientific theories can turn out to be wrong, or more usually, imprecise, but they are still fundamentally different to the everyday "theories" of most people. We would be depriving the anti-science brigade of one of their main weapons if we were to educate everyone in the proper usage of the word "theory" in science.
Alom Shaha is a science teacher, writer, and film-maker