Scientific knowledge and planning
Fallacies and logic
Food for thought
According to science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke, there are four stages
in the acceptance of any new idea. The four stages are:-
"It's nonsense."
"It may be real but it's not important"
"I always said it was important"
"I thought of it first!"
For the past two hundred years, science has, for the most part, been stuck permanently
in stage one, venturing to stage two only when compelled to by undeniable evidence.
Scientific knowledge - TOK
This is traditionally what we “know” about the workings of the universe
around us.
In reality it is a historical database of previous experience derived from experiment
or observation in conjunction with philosophical thought.
It is essentially what we believe to be the case, although we must recognise that the so-called facts are really just temporary models that help to explain our observations and experiences of the universe. The scientific process involves several steps.
With a little consideration it may be appreciated that this system is not infallible. Human factors may, all too often, impinge on the supposed impartiality of the process. An investigator may “see” just what he hopes to see, ignoring the evidence that doesn’t fit. Even the most impartial observer is subject to many influences (religion, social factors, economic, upbringing etc) and could never be described as truly "objective".
Nowadays with increased communication this simple self-deception is usually revealed, but the scientific process still has its limitations. It would be wise to always bear this in mind. There are many examples in the literature of investigators being self deluded, biased or even falsifying because of personal belief or for personal gain.
References: Cyril Burt, Eric Laithwaite
Basically scientific discovery falls into two broad categories:
Serendipity is fortuitous accident; a discovery emerging from a completely unexpected source. An example is the discovery of polymers in the 20th century. Were it not for an accident and a ruptured pipe in an ethene conduit then the pipe would never have allowed oxygen to enter and catalyse the polymerisation reaction of the ethene – the discovery of plastics could have been delayed for many years with the consequential effects on society. Imagine a modern world without plastic! However, not being able to rely on serendipity by its very nature we are limited to the other course of action, directed investigation
Directed investigation follows the so-called scientific methodology. Assuming that the process, accepted almost universally as valid, allows extension of understanding and knowledge then we will proceed to analyse it.
Scientific investigation and planning
The first stage is to think up a research question.
Possible question terms:
Scientific investigation aims to extend knowledge by observation and it is therefore appropriate to take a step into the future and predict the sort of information needed to answer these who, what, where, why, when, how, questions.
How? Suggests information that cannot be measured quantitatively unless linked
with other terms to make phrases such as how much? how many? how fast? how far?
etc.
Why? Suggests information that is usually only measured quantitatively although
this would depend on the variables
When? Suggests information that has a time based answer or a situation based
answer and as such is likely to be qualitative
Who? Requires the identity of a person; great for Cluedo but not a lot of use
for an investigation
What? is similar to why in that it must be qualified by the variables
Where? Suggests location and is not particularly suitable for investigation
unless carefully worded.
The question we ask ourselves is therefore directly related to the nature
of the expected results (not the results themselves).
So let’s look at the possible types of results that emerge from experiments.
These may be qualitative or quantitative – observed and described or measured
and quantified
So for qualitative results the research question would probably start with
how, why or when.
For a quantitative "answer the question should direct us toward the the
numerical quantities required, i.e.
How much?
How fast?
Questions of this kind are more “user friendly” in that the quantitative
information sought can be more easily processed to produce further information
or patterns and principles.
The next question is therefore: which quantities can be directly measured in
the laboratory?
Direct measurements may easily be taken of:
By processing the data from these measurements, information may be derived (processed mathematically) to give values of for example:
A research question should direct the investigator towards easily measured
variables that in turn may lead to derived values for other quantities.
The best questions have the form:
How much….?
How fast….?
These are used in conjunction with directly or indirectly measured quantities.
How much current…?
How much energy….?
How does the rate depend on…?
The rest of the question introduces the variable that is going to be changed
Writing the research question
Bear in mind that so far we have been considering the thought processes that you should use. You should be asking yourself all the above questions but the actual research question must be worded to produce an aim stating and briefly explaining the work to be done. It should include the variable that you are going to investigate and the variable that you are going to change.
Self-question: How fast is the reaction between sulphuric acid and magnesium
when we change the temperature?
This self-question can now be re-worded to give the research question:
To investigate the effect of temperature on the rate of reaction between sulphuric acid and magnesium metal.
temperature: the controlled variable - allowed to change in a controlled manner
rate of reaction: the measured variable - we measure the values needed to calculate this variable (in this case the time taken and the amount of chemical which is produced or destroyed)
Inheritance of intelligence
Performed experiments with twins to demonstrate that intelligence is inherited.
He believed in it so much that it lead him to ignore evidence to the contrary
and even to falsify data to prove his hypothesis.
Caused heated discussion and subsequent rejection by the scientific community
with his “discovery” of levitation. Eric Laithwaite is the inventor
of the linear motor (Magalev – Japan) and was a well-respected member of
the scientific community. He is accused by his scientific peers of ignoring
evidence that his “levitation” experiments were flawed and it considered
a pariah by many investigators. He conceded that his inventions did not work
outside of Newton's Laws of motion but did cause mass transfer. On the strengtrh
of this he continued working on levitation until he died and patented a new
form of rocket drive in collaboration with interested scientists. His company
survives and has elicited interest from US and European space agencies.
Alternative science
Famous skeptics
Quotable quotes
"... after a few more flashes in the pan, we shall hear very little more
of Edison or his electric lamp. Every claim he makes has been tested and proved
impracticable."
[New York Times, January 16, 1880]
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
[Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895]
"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value."
[Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre]
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
[Thomas Watson, chairman IBM, 1943]
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
[Ken Olson, Chairman and founder Digital Equipment Corp., 1977]
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
[Bill Gates, 1981]
"Fooling around with alternating current is just a waste of time.
Nobody will use it, ever." [Thomas Edison, 1889]
"There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be
obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will."
[Albert Einstein, 1932]
"The energy produced by the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone
who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking
moonshine" [Ernst Rutherford, 1933]
"We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out."
[Decca Recording Co. turning down the Beatles, 1962]
"I would sooner believe that two Yankee professors lied,
than that stones fell from the sky"
[Thomas Jefferson, on hearing the report of a meteorite fall]
"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction."
[Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872]
| |
|
|