SCIENCE EDUCATION

Science, a branch of human knowledge, is not an obscure occupation safely ignored by the intellectually lazy or those who lack interest in its study. It is impossible to escape its realities and consequences.

Science is the objective branch of knowledge. Yet objectivity is not an absolute, and it is not guaranteed simply by supplying measurements. Objectivity lies in scientific models and their predictive powers. Objectivity is not a discrete entity, either present or absent, but is a continuously valued parameter.

As predictions are the ultimate end of scientific models, validation (or the lack thereof) of a model’s prediction(s) is the ultimate end of scientific experiments and will serve as the focus of this final post in our consideration of the seven elements of science.

A scientific model is an extraction of a direction or pattern from observed and measured phenomena: a real-world cause and effect relationship expressed in natural language, logic, or mathematics. The objective of scientific modeling is to create generalizing and unifying descriptions that define and incorporate all relevant data and predict results for future experiments.

Science deals with observations of the real world, obtained via the use of our senses, which we can define, record, measure, and quantify or order. Measurements compare observations with standards, creating what science calls facts. The act of measuring, the grading of observations according to standards, and the use of precision in language are processes necessary to achieving objectivity: the separation of observations from perception processes.

The first logical step in the scientific method is the setting of precise terms for the discourse. Definitions permit the expression of observations, relationships, and processes with the least ambiguity. Precision in definitions allows observations and measurements to proceed with repeatability.

The scientific method must be considered not as a procedure followed sequentially through numbered steps but as a set of criteria for the end product of science. It is neither a recipe nor a road map but a checklist of criteria that can be met by any route — inspiration or perspiration, methodically or haphazardly — reserving for the scientist-to-be lessons in procedural efficiency.

All the seeds of the scientific method lie within the derivation of science (which is the method’s application). The scientific method consists of a set of attributes that can be neatly organized into four major categories: foundations, discovery, creativity, and validation.

This series tackles the problem of constructing a formal definition of modern science, developing a definition that meets the needs of practitioners. This definition and its implications are useful, maybe essential, to any individual seeking to understand reality in terms of cause and effect.

In the final installment in his series on pathological science, Gary Taubes claims institutionalized skepticism is a necessary trait in any legitimate scientific field. He brings this claim to bear on modern research on nutrition and chronic disease and notes a tendency to act on poorly formed or ineffectively tested hypotheses. Scientists who call for the implementation of such hypotheses ask for trust without having performed the rigorous research necessary to earn it, Taubes claims, and when this practice becomes the norm, an entire field of research can become pathological. “A healthy scientific enterprise allows for no shortcuts,” he writes.