Science: a system of knowledge relating general truths and laws of operation to the physical world. Those truths and laws have been tested and validated as true and verifiable. Hypothesis is a proposed construct made objectively while Theory is the construct of what exists in the process of verifying whether the proposal is true.
Somewhere circa 3000 BC, people began to make observations about the physical world in which they lived and formed beliefs as to the truths and natural laws by which the things around them happened. But — always that but — observation and speculation were not always true. There was so much that was not reliably observable such as what was above in the sky, those lights or the darkness, or things closer like water and fire, what was inside the body, how things worked. Science has always relied on observation as the foundation of truth and therefore has been limited to both the thoroughness of the observation and the foundation of interpretation. It is easy to think that something observed is correctly interpreted but science is the methodology to validate the accuracy of the interpretation.
In ancient times, interpretation of observation was filtered by understanding of the supernatural which, depending upon the civilization, was either divine revelation, mythology or folklore.1 Either of these viewpoints causes the observer to perceive with a bias, to interpret without verifiable validation of the conclusion of the observation. How would you observe dew if you knew nothing about the relationship between evaporation, relative humidity, saturation (dew point) and condensation? How would you understand tears if you could not observe tear ducts? And thunder does not apparently occur simultaneously to lightning so where does that loud sound come from? How does rain get up in the sky and why must there be clouds above before rain falls? Are the clouds hiding something dropping the water which goes away when the clouds are no longer hiding the “above”? How do you explain a single grain of wheat in the ground sprouting into something that has a hundred grains of wheat in it? When you see mold or fungus come forth from a surface where nothing was observed, is that spontaneous generation – something out of nothing?
Aristotle used formal logic to establish that the Earth was the center of the Universe based on his presuppositions. In 1543, Copernicus theorized that the Earth was not the center of the Universe but it took Galileo’s 1610 studies of Venus’s phases to validate the case for a sun-centered solar system. Even that was not “proven” until instruments and physics provided validation of the theories. It would be in the third century BC when Archimedes developed theories relative to such basics as center of gravity, equilibrium, levers and hydrostatic balances. Galileo’s studies establishing laws of gravity were 1800 years later.
The scientific method is a process of collecting information, theorizing, experimenting and validating before “truth” is stated. While mathematics – weights, measures, areas, capacities – date back before the second millennium BC, it would be somewhere c. 3000-2500 BC before the first records of anatomy were written in Egypt. These writings, known from the Edwin Smith Papyrus after its owner in 1862, identify and locate the heart, liver, spleen, kidneys, uterus and bladder and the blood system from the heart but did not correctly identify the functions of everything – tears, urine, semen also were from the heart. It would be much later in the Second Century AD that Galen did scientific studies in anatomy. In the Fifth Century, discoveries by science in India identified the elliptical orbits of the known planets and calculated orbital cycles and eclipse cycles.
Isaac Newton discovered the light spectrum in 1672. Leeuwenhoek first observed microorganisms after creating a better microscope in 1675. Matthias Schleiden verifies that all plants are composed of cells. Mendel’s studies and experiments with peas identified principles of heredity and made the way for genetics. Albert Einstein in 1905 proposed the Theory of Special Relativity. Something as obvious in retrospect as continental drift was not recognized until Alfred Wegener ‘discovered’ it in 1912. In 1924, Edwin Hubble ‘discovered’ that the Milky Way galaxy which includes Earth’s solar system is just one of many galaxies.
The examples from medicine in the 1600-1800s demonstrate the problems of interpretation of the observable. Illness was often perceived as the result of “bad” fluids in the body and bloodletting was the common treatment. When George Washington developed a throat infection, he was subjected to four bloodlettings with 32 ounces removed in the final treatment hours before he died. He had also had a blister created on his neck to draw out the infection and was given two emetics. Several different concoctions were created for him to gargle as treatments, some of which almost suffocated him.
The expression “blowing smoke up your rear end” came from the European fascination with the benefits of tobacco in the 1600s and the “blowing smoke” was thought to be a productive cure for drowning. There was a time when the head was thought of as the body’s radiator, when the heart was the center of passion, when trepanning and lobotomy was the correct way to cure distress or mental illness.
When interpretation is not accurate, the results tend to bring misapplication. No matter the intent or appearance of being true, misinterpretations acted upon do not produce desirable results in the long term.
Scientific method is the approach that requires successive steps before acceptance as truth. Observation, experimentation and analysis of data produced must precede conclusions.
This method does not seek to prove the hypothesis but rather to see if the theory as stated is consistently verifiable.
Often in recent years, people have come forward with the answer to alchemy (turning base metals into gold) or perpetual motion machines which would create more energy than consumed or cold fusion to create unlimited energy. While the published results often appeared wondrous, even amazing, are embraced by eager advocates, when science tried to replicate the results it was always found that the theory and process was not repeatable. The Scientific Method is not meant to be politically correct or popular or even acceptable but rather to discover what is true. This is not always possible as many branches of science have demonstrated by being unable to take hypothesis to theory and then be able to verify. It was not that many years ago that atoms were the smallest proven materials but now science has been able to not only prove the various particles that can make up an atom but with the electron microscope, has been able to “see” the smallest particle, the electron which is a point particle considered to have no measurable size. We also know the subatomic particles that compose protons and neutrons such as quarks and neutrinos which each have less mass than the electron and are also point particles. In the course of history, these are all recent with the electron theorized in 1874 and discovered in 1897, the neutrino theorized in 1930 and discovered in 1956 and quarks hypothesized in 1961-1964 and theories proposed for several ‘levels’ in the quark model but it was 1974 that charm quarks were observed, 1977 that bottom quark was observed and 1995 when the top quark was observed. Too often the expectation is unreal that science can prove theory simply by funding and effort. History is full of verifications being a slow, unfolding process that takes resources, patience and time plus the “right” discoverer using the “right” method. Science is often contrarian to existing paradigms and conceptions of truth and has in many eras been relegated to the status of heresy when challenging the norms of the day. What has been popular and acceptable and traditional may well be lacking in truth. Popularity and acceptance does not equate truth but may have underlying false interpretations of what has been believed through incomplete observation.
Contemporary science faces the challenges of resource limitations as research has become a profession often demanding extensive resources to fulfill studies. There is also issues arising from ill-conceived, poorly designed studies, the under-replication of results, lack of peer review and open access to all data gathered through the scientific method. Occasionally, poor communication or a rush to publish (either to be first or satisfy investors) brings disinformation or misunderstanding of the limits of the study. Add to this the current propensity to use Ai (artificial intelligence) in place of personal application of all elements to the judgment of data can cause misapplication. Ai is only as good as the programming, the training database and the data submitted for review; Ai is not all-inclusive and using all truth applicable to any scenario. There is also the subversion of truth or interpretation of truth to match that which is acceptable in the culture.
The Scientific Method was never intended to make value judgments but rather to verify truths in the natural world. “Best”, “highest”, “most valuable” are all beyond science’s domain. Science is defined to be objective and limited to working with what is verifiable truth while judgments of value are part of the subjective realms of life. The objective nature of Science limits it to:
Verifying knowledge base through observation, experimentation and validation
Refining hypothesis through specific theories and then researching validity
Developing possible solutions to defined and proven problems
Verifying truth for use in informed decision making
Providing a method for examination to objective natural truth
Science does not create Reality but rather investigates if Theory is True and Real
Science does not validate data as Truth because of mass acceptance, popularity or financial profit
There are those proposing a different way of determining truth in the natural world who suggest that the scientific method is too cumbersome, too slow, too unresponsive to the needs for rapid answers. Several proposals have been forthcoming but as of yet, none have gained wide acceptance in the scientific community. Society sometimes wants answers or truths that are not congruent with reality but which would soothe the psyche of contemporary-ism where viable solutions need not be anything more than pragmatic and now and widely acceptable.
FOOTNOTES:
1 Compiler’s Note: before philosophy added other belief systems, this supposition is that belief about the natural world would rest upon revelation by a Creator or the traditions created by the society.
For additional reading relative to this subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_scientific_discoveries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Smith_Papyrus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_anatomy
https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/the-death-of-george-washington
https://www.aamc.org/news/grave-errors-spooky-cures-and-creepy-medical-missteps-past
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subatomic_particle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark
