Approximate Reading Time: 6 minutes“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.” (Feynman, Richard, “Cargo Cult Science”, Adapted from a Caltech Commencement address given in 1974 )
This entire monologue is prefaced with the caveat that the following discussion attempts to address and define ‘good’ science. The world abounds with ‘bad’ science and many, if not most people can’t tell the difference.
What is ‘good’ science? Consider the following description. I have a colleague who dismisses as ‘bad’ science any conclusions that do not directly support his own opinions. Presumably, for him, ‘good’ science is that which agrees with him. He has earned a PhD in a scientific discipline, and this credential implies a certain credibility. This man is seen as a scientist both by his own community, and by society at large. I would argue that he is not a scientist at all, merely a person working in a scientific discipline.
Good science takes uncompromising honesty. Good science takes patience, and humility. Good science requires us to be willing to accept the possibility that we may not find the answers we seek – or perhaps worse, that the answer turns out to be ‘No’. Scientists have an obligation to reveal all of the available information on an issue – including counter-evidence – in order to provide others with the tools to make an informed judgment of their contribution. (Feynman, R., 1974) The alternative is simply advertising, or worse: propaganda.
Science Is
Science provides us with a basis for making assumptions about the world and the things in it. It implies that there are universal, knowable, unchanging ‘laws’. Science has shown us the existence of atoms, and that we are not the centre of the universe. It also tells us that we can’t observe something without changing it (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle), which complicates matters.
It has taught us to wash our hands often. It reminds us not to take a shower during a thunderstorm. It has permitted us to not only survive, but indeed to thrive in some of the most inhospitable environments on earth. Science has enabled us to enjoy fresh tomatoes in Calgary, in January. Science has played a role in enabling Calgarians to have edible Japanese oranges. Consider what must happen for this to be possible. The oranges must travel about 10,000 miles and I’ll bet they don’t fly by themselves. Did you know that they are dyed and injected with sweeteners before shipping? You didn’t think they waited until they ripened and then hoped they would arrive at their destination before going all squishy, did you?
Many of today’s medicines originally came from plants: their medicinal properties were often discovered through science.
Science typically seeks to answer a question, which involves a plan for how to go about addressing this question, moves to testing or observation in a manner that can be measured, often with some control group to use as a baseline, and closes with some conclusions that are drawn from the evidence (current and past). If we recite the standard outline of a typical scientific experiment, we end up with the essentials of ‘the scientific method’. We will look at each element in turn.
Hypothesis
It all begins with a question or hypothesis. In most cases we will already have an answer we wish to verify or theory we wish to prove. This is perhaps where one of the chief difficulties lies. Right from the start, scientists intertwine their own egos with the science they are conducting. A passion for one’s work is a laudable attribute, however it raises the stakes should we discover we are wrong. People sometimes get so attached to their theories that they leave the realm of science and enter into religion – how often have you heard the word ‘believe’ in connection with an individual’s position regarding a theory?
Posing some question or suggesting a hypothesis does not distinguish science from other ways of knowing. Philosophy and religion, to name just two also pose questions and suggest hypothesis. What distinguishes science from most other epistemologies is in part the requirement that in order to be science, our question or hypothesis must be testable in a measurable, observable, and verifiable manner. This pretty much restricts science to asking questions about natural and physical phenomena. This does not imply that science must be restricted to the acquisition of facts.
Science abounds with theories – hypothesis that we have no direct means of testing or verifying. Take for example, the age of the Earth. Until we perfect time travel, we will remain unable to verify any hypotheses that relates to the age of the earth, or how it came to be in the first place. Unlike religion, science can not and indeed must not rely on faith. In this instance, science attempts to collect supportive evidence, but regardless of how many individuals accept the theory as plausible, it must remain a theory. As scientists, we acknowledge that new evidence may alter our theory (i.e. it is a theory rather than a truth).
Perhaps one of the essential features of science, and one that is apparently most easily forgotten, is that based upon and builds on a known body of knowledge. The Cargo Cult of pre-WWII Melanesia was scientific, at least initially, and certainly from the perspective of the Melanesians.
Experimental Design & Implementation
Once the question has been asked, the next step is usually to design a means of testing or verifying this question. The design, once properly conceived must be implemented, by attempting to account for other variables. Ideally we want to control for all variables except the one we are studying. Next to an utter commitment to integrity, this one aspect is perhaps the key feature of true science. It is also the one aspect that is most often ignored or at least flawed. It is through sometimes painstaking experimentation that scientists are able to determine exactly what conditions are necessary to control influences other than the ones they are trying to observe or discover. Experimental design involves not only the design of the experiment to test the stated hypothesis, but often demands the design, execution, and analysis of a multitude of other experiments whose purpose is to verify the validity, defensibility, and ‘purity’ of the proposed design.
Measurement
In order to be science, a hypothesis, theory, or answer to some question must be supported by observed or measured evidence. The instruments used to measure this evidence must be verifiably accurate. The measurements themselves must be repeatable. In fact, the entire process must be replicable. This in no way implies that valuable knowledge can only come from science. Even though the impact of science on our lives is immense, science forms but one of a collection of ways we can come to understand the world and our place in it. It does however insist that in order to be science, it must include these essential elements.
The ultimate goal of the entire process is to enable scientists to draw some conclusions based on the evidence. This is where cause and effect play a role. Beware of connecting cause and effect. I could for example, prove that there is a statistically significant correlation between numbers of students on campus and the mean daily temperature. In fact I could verify that higher student numbers correlate with lower mean daily temperatures. This ‘experiment’ has at least some of the properties of ‘good’ science: it is repeatable; the measurements are verifiable; it is honest. I suspect it would be premature to conclude from this evidence that students are the cause of Ice Ages.
To be valid, conclusions must be replicable. It’s not science of no-one can repeat what’s been done. In most circumstances, the conclusions must also apply to more than one individual. They must also account for other influences – or at least be able to justify their exclusion.
The Problem of Negative Results
Negative results seem to be the skeleton in the closet of science. Negative results are an essential ingredient in the scientific process, yet one will rarely see negative results published in any scientific journal. This fact reveals one of universal struggles all scientists of integrity face. We often learn best through our mistakes, yet for a scientist, access to reports of failed experiments and inconclusive results are difficult at best.
Finally
Science may be largely responsible for our continued survival on this planet. But in the same way that air is essential to our survival, we could not make it if that was all we had. There is more to the world and our understanding of it than science. Based on the preceding definition of science, it can’t even be said that all of Science is science. There are aspects of biology, computer ‘science’ (a label for a discipline that is still debated to this day), even physics that are not, strictly speaking, science. This should not diminish their value, but it should affect how we approach them.
Perhaps we require new terminology to distinguish the disciplines in science from the practice of science. A study, experiment, or quest can be valuable and enrich our knowledge and understanding of the world, yet it is not science. On the other hand, perhaps it explains why even scientists earn Doctor of Philosophy degrees. The social world does not, as a rule, conform to the principles of science – with the possible exception of the Heisenberg Principle.
Be the first to like.
