Purposes and Overview of Course

Earth, Body, and Mind: Changes in Scientific Thought

Purpose and Overview of the Course

The purpose of this course is to provide you with an introduction to science, scientific/critical thinking, and the scientific method. It is a course neither in a particular science nor exclusively in the history or philosophy of science. Rather, the course is designed to introduce you to the ways scientists have come to understand the world around them, and the way they express and solve problems.

Scientists work with models to help them understand the puzzles of nature and to allow them to make predictions about natural phenomena. Scientific models serve not only to describe nature in terms understandable to scientists, but also to offer theoretical frameworks that permit scientists to anticipate how nature will respond when conditions are varied. Scientists do not work in a social and cultural vacuum. The models they construct are influenced by the thinking and attitudes of the non-scientific community. In turn, scientific thinking and models influence the social and political theories of their time, and are reflected in the arts and literature.

HWC 201 is designed to introduce you to the language, methods, and limitations of science. You must be prepared to give up many notions you now have about science and scientists. Be prepared to explore the relatively ordered world of "normal science" but also the many blind alleys, wrong turns, and false starts that characterize both "normal" and "revolutionary" science. At the same time, be willing to give careful attention to the important connections and interactions between the sciences and the humanities.

Philosophical Basis of Science

Science is based on the mechanistic or naturalistic viewpoint—that all events of the universe can be described or explained by natural laws. If scientists do not understand something, they do not resort to supernatural explanations—rather they continue to look for natural explanations that can be tested, for which evidence can be obtained. For scientists, the bottom line is evidence that can be observed and confirmed by other observers—this mode of discovering and validating knowledge can be duplicated and achieved by anyone who practices scientific/critical thinking.

This perspective is in contrast to the vitalistic viewpoint (the doctrine of the supernatural)—that the universe is controlled by supernatural powers called spirits, gods, or vital forces. Knowledge obtained through this approach is not supported by evidence, cannot be tested, and is therefore outside the realm of science. While such knowledge may be of great importance to individuals, it cannot be confirmed by other unbiased observers.

These different philosophical viewpoints have radically different practical consequences. For example, medical scientists have attempted to find natural causes for disease (e.g., bacteria, viruses), while those utilizing a vitalistic viewpoint have often attributed illness to such causes as curses, spells, divine retribution, sin, malignant influences, the will of a god, or possession by evil spirits. The success of modern medicine is a potent reminder of the practical power of the mechanistic approach and the methodology used by science.

Definitions of Science and the Scientific Method¹

Science (word derived from scientia, Latin for knowledge) is not merely a collection of facts, concepts, and useful ideas about nature, or even the systematic investigation of nature, although both are common definitions of science. Science is a method of investigating nature—a way of knowing about nature—that discovers reliable knowledge about it. Another definition of science is the careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence.² The method used to justify scientific knowledge, and thus make it reliable, is called the scientific method. It is the way scientists investigate the world. There are various ways of defining this method. For example—the scientific method can be defined as the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.³ Another short definition that shows some of the basic steps of the method is observe-hypothesize-test.⁴ While there is no one exact method by which all scientists approach their work and no single agreed upon definition, for our purposes we define the scientific method as the methodology or set of procedures used by scientists to obtain reliable knowledge about nature, using observation (the gathering of empirical evidence), hypothesizing (developing possible explanations), and testing (of the hypothesis or its predictions—i.e. experimentation) and which is based on logical reasoning and a skeptical, continually questioning attitude. A scientist does not decide how things should be or how he would like them to be, rather he observes how things actually are and bases his conclusions on evidence. This reliance on evidence is a critical distinction for the scientific method. Over the course of the semester you will be learning about this method and seeing examples of its application.

Science is a process for producing knowledge, a method of investigating nature that produces knowledge of a particular type. There are other methods of discovering and learning knowledge about nature, but science is the only method that results in the acquisition of reliable knowledge.

Reliable knowledge is knowledge that has a high probability of being true because its veracity has been justified by a reliable method. Reliable knowledge is sometimes called justified true belief, to distinguish it from belief that is false and unjustified or even true but unjustified. The important distinction that should be made is whether one's knowledge or beliefs are true and, if true, are justifiably true. Every person has knowledge or beliefs, but not all of each person's knowledge is reliably true and justified. In fact, most individuals believe in things that are untrue or unjustified or both: most people possess a lot of unreliable knowledge and, what's worse, they act on that knowledge! Other ways of knowing, and there are many in addition to science (e.g., intuition, believing what other tell you, listing to authority figures, divine revelation, pure logic), are not reliable because their discovered knowledge is not justified. Science is a method that allows a person to possess, with the highest degree of certainty possible, reliable knowledge about nature.

The Three Central Components of Scientific/Critical Thinking¹

The scientific method is practiced within a context of scientific/critical thinking, and scientific/critical thinking is based on three things:

1. Empiricism: The Use of Empirical Evidence
Empirical evidence is evidence that one can see, hear, touch, taste, or smell; it is evidence that is susceptible to one's senses (or to the extension of one’s senses—e.g., microscope or telescope). Empirical evidence is important because it is evidence that others besides yourself can experience, and it is repeatable, so empirical evidence can be checked by yourself and others after knowledge claims are made by an individual. Empirical evidence is the only type of evidence that possesses these attributes and is therefore the only type used by scientists and critical thinkers to make vital decisions and reach sound conclusions.

2. Rationalism: The Practice of Logical Reasoning
Scientists and critical thinkers always use logical reasoning. Rationalism is the belief that knowledge and truth are ascertained by rational thought and not by divine or supernatural revelation.

3. Skepticism: Possessing a Skeptical Attitude
The final key idea in science and critical thinking is skepticism, the constant questioning of your beliefs and conclusions. Critical thinkers need to develop a "baloney detector" to protect them from erroneous ideas, pseudoscience, etc.

¹Modified from Schafersman, S.D. 1997. An Introduction to Science, Scientific Thinking and the Scientific Method. http://pbisotopes.ess.sunysb.edu/esp/files/scientific-method.html or http://www.freeinquiry.com/intro-to-sci.html. Accessed Jan 2004.
²J. Randi. 1998. In J. Wudka. The Scientific Method. http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html. Accessed Jan 2004.
³F. Wolfs. 2004. Introduction to the Scientific Method. http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html#Heading9. Accessed Jan 2004.
⁴W.J. Miller. 1998. Scientific Method. http://www.ringneckdove.com/Wilmer's%20WebPage/SCIMETH.htm. Accessed Jan 2004.