Definition of Science - Essay Example

Running Head: SCIENCE (Name) (Course) (University) Date of presentation: Lecturer: Question: Critically evaluate the claim that science is a body of accumulated facts, discovered by individuals or groups of individuals over certain periods of time Discussion By definition, science is the study of behavior, nature and measurement of reactivity as well as the processes connected their transformations. Many people consider science as a deliberate and gradual process that is driven by accumulation of facts. This is a highly fallacious view because in all the diverse branches of science, observation and measurement of data is the core of scientific inquiry. This data is then subjected to rigorous analysis and testing from the general point of view of proven laws and general principles. In addition, scientific studies give provision for revision of discoveries and also for correction and modification of potential flaws in the treatment of data owing to lack of sufficient evidence (PISA, 2006). Crowe (1991) has argued that although facts are the building blocks of science, science is not purely made up of an accumulation of facts. When a scientific community has only knowledge about facts and formulas without any clear linkage between them, they are essentially useless. Having facts about a scientific theory is just but the beginning of a rigorous scientific process because several steps are required before a theory can be proved to be a legitimate scientific fact. For a phenomenon to be explained scientifically, researchers start off with several observations. After interpreting and explaining these observations, facts are obtained about the research problem or phenomenon. When a potential solution to a problem is envisioned, then a theory can be drawn. They are these potential solutions which extend the scientists’ thinking beyond accumulated facts and help them predict events which have not been envisioned (NSTA, 2000). According to Haldane (1995) science uses experimentation and observation to describe and explain phenomenon in the natural settings. Its purpose is to produce useful models of reality, which are applied to different areas of human life such as in medicine, psychology or engineering. It therefore suffices to note that science is an effort to understand how different aspects of the natural world work, through observable physical evidence as the basis of such an understanding (Lederman, 1998). In view of this consideration, science does not have to rely on accumulation of facts but rather on an actual observation and experimentation of a phenomenon to develop an understanding about a fact. According to CRISP (2008), science has many attributes which refute the claim that it is a mere accumulation of facts. One such attribute is the aspect of empiricism. In any scientific study, empiricism refers to the practice of relying on observation to develop an understanding of a phenomenon. Until a few centuries ago, it was thought that knowledge could be obtained through appeal to authority or pure thought. However, science disputes this view because it is systematic and structured so that results of a particular observation reveal something about the underlying nature of a phenomenon. This is achieved empirically by comparing theories with actual observations. The results of an observation can either support or reject theories or perceived facts. In empirical studies, scientists avoid theories that are not solvable or that cannot be tested. Hence science derives facts based on testable evidence (Kenneth & Sandman, 1988). Another important aspect of science which makes it less relying on accumulation of facts relates to falsifiability (Losh, 2011). In order for any theory to be useful scientifically, the predictions drawn from the theory must be specific. Such a theory should be able to predict what should and what should not happen if conditions in the phenomenon are altered. If they fail to happen, then the theory can be replaced or modified with an entirely new theory. Either way, a new theory closer to the truth is developed. In contrast, if a theory cannot rule out possible observations, then that theory cannot be changed and hence the current way of thinking is bound to remain with no possibility of changing (Crettaz, 2006). Gokhberg and Shuvalova (2004) have noted that an important aspect that makes clear when science is an issue is the distinction between facts and opinions. In the science context, a fact is a generally accepted reality. This reality is nevertheless open to scientific inquiry as opposed to absolute truth which cannot be a part of science. All theories and hypotheses are generally based on objective inferences, in contrast to opinions which are based on subjective inferences. In any scientific process, opinions are neither theories nor facts and hence cannot constitute an official domain of science. It is however important to note that scientists develop a wide range of opinions to guide their researches and inquiries (Jasanoff, 2005; Weinburgh, 2003). In most cases, acceptance of scientific ideas is based on a process of peer reviews and publication. In order for a hypothesis to become a legitimate scientific theory, it must be subjected to approval of peers and other researchers in addition to being published in an accredited journal. This process keeps imposters outside the field of science and hence helps to maintain science as a process rather than as a gradual accumulation of facts (Barabas, 2009). Any theory that has been proven scientifically will tend to persist until another theory is proposed and gains acceptance. This means that new theories that are proposed for tiny facts deduced from general evidence are discarded. This explanation together with the influence of human nature on science is among the key issues which make science less dependent on gradual accumulation of facts. Once a particular theory is publicized, scientists design similar experiments, perform rigorous calculations and make observations to test if the theory holds substantial truth. If observations confirm the theory, then the theory is supported by the entire scientific community although the door is always left open for further inquiries (Bauer & Petkova, 2000). In order for a scientific community to accept findings, other researchers must be able to duplicate the original investigator’s findings (NRC, 1996). Therefore a scientific process cannot make up data; other inquiries must be able to follow the same processes that have been used to (whether mathematical, experimentation or formulation of concepts) and come up with the same results. Because scientific processes are based on certain rules and guidelines, a mere accumulation of facts from individuals or groups of individuals cannot be an adequate description of science. In the scientific method, all hypotheses are formulated from actual observations and theories developed from these hypotheses (Abd & Lederman, 2000; Trench, 2008). In scientific studies, the presence of correlations between phenomenon and natural processes does not necessarily imply causation. Moreover, the limitations of correlation evidence are not always easy to recognize (Kramer, 1987). To non-scientists, the causal link may seem so obvious because of a strong pre-existing bias or when interpretation becomes dominated by theoretical influences. In this case, it can be tempting to treat correlations as evidence for causation. When correlations become more apparent, it is a common mistake for non-scientific minds to confuse cause for effect. As an example, people have throughout ages cited lists of social ills mistaking them to be root causes when in reality they are merely an effect of the underlying cause (Crettaz, 2006). In non-scientific inquiries, testimonials are regarded as subjective basis for truth. However, scientists consider testimonials to be worthless as evidence for truth. One explanation for this scenario is the placebo effects which have been well documented in research studies (McComas, Clough & Almazroa, 1998). A second explanation is the vividness of problems. When faced with a decision-making or problem-solving situation, most people retrieve from memory any information that seems relevant to the situation at hand. Thus, people are likely to use facts that are easily accessible to solve a particular problem or make a decision. This in essence is not a scientific process since the problem to be solved may not always disappear. That is why specific scientific methods are sought to solve problems (Bauer & Petkova, 2000). In conclusion, it can be emphasized that science is not necessarily an accumulation of facts that have been obtained over the years but a method of organizing, handling and considering the usefulness of those facts. From any perspective, science is a larger fact that consists of smaller facts that are joined together or linked through a particular process in an organized pattern using systematic methods. It is all about how prior facts are organized to explain phenomenon and make predictions about future or likely phenomenon. References Abd, F. and Lederman, N.G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 655-701. Barabas J, (2009). Estimating the causal effects of media coverage on policy-specific knowledge. American Journal of Political Science 53(1):73–89. Bauer, M. W, Petkova, K., (2000). Public knowledge of and attitudes to science: Alternative measures that may end the “science war.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 25(1):30–51. Bauer, M. W., (2009). The evolution of public understanding of science discourse and comparative evidence. Science, Technology and Society 14:2(2009):221–240. China Research Institute for Science Popularization(CRISP). 2008. Chinese public understanding of science and attitudes towards science and technology. Beijing,China. Crettaz, R. F., (2006). Do we need a public understanding of statistics? Public Understanding of Science 15:243–249. Crowe, M. J., (1991) The History of Science: A Guide for Undergraduates, Notre Dame University. Gokhberg, L. and Shuvalova, O., (2004). Russian Public Opinion of the Knowledge Economy: Science, Innovation,Information Technology and Education as Drivers of Economic Growth and Quality of Life. Moscow, Russia: The British Council-Russia. Haldane, J., (1995) Daedalus, or Science and the Future. London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Jasanoff, S., (2005). Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kenneth, N. and Sandman, P., (1988) “How use of mass media affects views on solutions to environmental problems,” Journalism Quarterly 51, no. 3: 448–453; Kramer, S. P., (1987) How to Think Like a Scientist, Thomas Crowell, New York. Lederman, N.G., (1998). The State of Science Education: Subject Matter Without Context. Electronic Journal of Science Education (3)2. Losh S. C., (2011). Age, generational, and educational effects on American public understanding of science: 1979–2006. In: MW Bauer, R Shukla, and N Allum, editors., The Culture of Science: How the Public Relates to Science Across the Globe. New York: Routledge. McComas, W., M. Clough, and H. Almazroa., (1998). The role and charac­ter of the nature of science in science education. In The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies. Bos­ton: Kluwer Academic Publishers. National Research Council, NRC, (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: Na­tional Academy Press. National Science Teachers Association, NSTA, (2000). Position Statement: The Nature of Science. Accessed November 07, 2012 from www.nsta.org/positionstatement&psid=22 PISA, (2006) Science Competencies for Tomorrow's World. Paris, OECD. Trench, B., (2008) Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, London, Routledge, p111-130. Weinburgh, M., (2003). A leg (or three) to stand on. Science and Children 40(6): 28–30. Read More