SCIF Study Notes - David Ellyard

What is science? A body of knowledge, a process, an

enterprise, an attitude.
Science is a body of knowledge/understanding, a process
(continual proposal, testing and reviewal), an enterprise (something
we collectively strive for), and an attitude (believing that this is
attainable, and in the fallibility of experts). It is not an unchanging
compendium (collection of concise detail) of truthful statements, nor
an unwavering, step-by-step to the truth, cannot solve all human
problems (as scientism would be believe), completely objective, free
of ideology or belief, nor the work of a few. There are three Ps process, paradigm and precision.
Characteristics of science
human in both nature (could be mistakes) and purpose
(for our own personal desires)
curiosity-driven
contemplative
cumulative (and therefore exponential)
tentative/never settled/no final truth
evidence-based
open to challenge/self-correcting
sceptical (hard to convince)
subjective (not objective, but strives for this)
systematic/methodical (but not an wavering, step-bystep jouney)
What benefits does science deliver?
satisfaction of human curiosity, possibly from evolution:
o Patternism - tendency to seek patterns/regularities
in random, unconnected events
o Agentism - tendency to think some cause or agent
is at work, causing a pattern
development
of
technology
(improves
life
quality/quantity)
provides work for scientists
improves chances of survival with an understanding of
the world
Definitions of the Process of Science
Data - information about some phenomenon by experiment and
observation (generally quantitative by readings of measurements
that amplify/quantify sense impressions); data are the only facts in
science (hypothesis/conclusions/other conjectures are all derived
from data), although are still fallible
Page 1

Oliver Bogdanovski

Hypothesis - from Greek hypotithenai (underlying argument or

idea), it is a tentative explanation for existing data (from
observation), and can be used to generate predictions for testing
Theory - from Greek theria (contemplation), it is a hypothesis that
has survived some testing, and the more tests it passes, the more it
can be relied upon and the more useful it becomes; however, they
are never definitively proven, just not wrong
Observation - (incorporates experiment) pure observation accepts
data that nature provides (sometimes with filtering)
Experiment - (active observation, some aspect of nature is
simulated and its response noted) involves abstraction (some
influencing factors are controlled)
Induction - generating a hypothesis (model) from a specific set of
data by methodically observing regularities (particular general);
cant ever be sure if your interpretation is correct, hence not very
reliable, e.g. all swans are white because all swans Ive seen are
white
Deduction - generating predictions from a hypothesis for testing by
further experiment (general particular); more reliable as it is
constantly tested, e.g. mathematical induction OR all men are
mortals, Socrates is a man, Socrates is a mortal
The Weakness of Induction and Poppers Falsification
Hume (and others) argue induction cannot ever be completely
correct as no amount of empirical evidence can conclusively prove a
hypothesis, but one conflicting observation can falsify it. They are
not proofs, but only one possible explanation for data, but can be
more probable with evidence of increased volume AND strength.
Most hypotheses come from hunches, speculation and imagination
rather than methodical induction.
Karl Popper (1902-1994) published The Logic of Scientific
Discovery (1934), stating, Our knowledge can only be finite, while
our ignorance must necessarily be infinite. which means the more
we know, the more we realise we dont know. He also said, Science
may be regarded as the art of systematic over-simplification. He
believed hypotheses were conjectures to explain observed data, the
bolder the better (those that ran counter to accepted views or prima
facie (first impressions) of senses (like Copernicus opposing
heliocentric view; these people are considered part of Poppers
heroic science). They are then subjected to refutation to be
proven wrong, the more severe the better. The most that can be
said about a hypothesis is that is has survived testing better than
alternatives.

Page 2

Oliver Bogdanovski

He also believes for a statement to be scientific, it must be

falsifiable (at least in principle - you must be able to conceive
some form of evidence that would render the statement incorrect),
and hence Marxism (which was originally believed to be scientific
and his since been disproven as capitalism has not lead to misery
and complete revolution, nor did this revolution occur in advanced
societies), Freudianism, astrology nor creationism can be considered
scientific as they do not admit to the possibility of being wrong. It is
also hard to falsify complex hypotheses as they could be wrong for
many reasons, and finding which it is becomes tricky.
Popper also believes that reality has many layers (as opposed
to positivism/phenomenalism - only sense impressions exist and
objects are permanent associations of these, realism - there are real
objects independent of an observer), aligning himself with
instrumentalism (doesnt deal with objective reality, but rather that
theories are used to understand the world with an emphasis on
prediction and problem solving; attraction is that it works) and
hence the concept of black boxes (reality has many layers, sense
impressions being the outermost, but underlying causes/agents
working to make these; e.g. the gene causes the whole human
body, but it itself is made of molecules, and so on).
Characteristics of a good:
Experiment

Focused on testing clear hypothesis

Provides numerical results to check against predictions

from hypothesis

Factors not investigated are controlled or excluded

Minimises systematic error

Minimises impact of observer

Maximises objectivity (eliminates confirmation bias giving explanations to support your own hypothesis when results
say otherwise and not considering other hypotheses)

Well-documented, hence repeatable

Hypothesis

Plausible explanation for existing data, as well as or

better than rivals, including data not otherwise explained

Generally fits with current understanding/paradigms,

though it may advance new concepts/entities

Introduces as few new entities as possible (attraction of

simplicity/Occams Razor)

Mathematically elegant/appealing (it works)

Able to be tested (more ways the better - increases

fruitfulness)

Page 3

Oliver Bogdanovski

Simplicity in Science - Occams Razor

William of Ockham (1287-1347) states Plurality should
never be posited without necessity, basically stating to choose the
simpler hypothesis, which forms the basis of Occam/Ockhams
Razor. However, this idea was suggested several times before him,
notably by Ptolemy (we consider it a good principle to explain the
phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible) and Aristotle.
Einstein later said, Everything should be made as simple as
possible, but no simpler. However, the simplest may prove wrong
(carrier of genetic information was DNA, not the simpler hypothesis
of it being proteins).
Quality Control in Science

Hypotheses are based on repeatable experiment

Results/hypothesis are (often) openly and freely

published, including details of method
o
Allows publication to be subject to peer review but this is still subject to error
o
Could possibly stifle dissent/disagreement evident in past paradigms
Bacons Dictum
Nature to be commanded must be obeyed
To use/command nature (i.e. advance technology) we must
understand how it work first or obey its laws in our imaginations as
well. E.g. to get to the moon we cant use a balloon as Cyrano de
Bergerac wrote (no atmosphere), nor by firing a large cannon with a
space capsule as Jules Verne wrote (g forces, lots of energy at once).
Hence to control nature, we must know how it works. For
knowledge itself is power.
Francis Bacons (1561-1626) Four Idols
Impediments of growth and spread of knowledge (idols=false
images):
Idols of the Tribe - tendency to see what we expect to see
and evidence to support conclusions already reached
(confirmation bias, but also how science originated)
Idols of the Cave - differences in individuals based on
upbringing and experiences (leading to likes and dislikes,
preference of novelty vs. antiquity)
Idols of the Marketplace - words in common use have
different meanings in science (e.g. hypothesis - actually is
current best explanation)

Page 4

Oliver Bogdanovski

Idols of the Theatre - incorrect perceptions from stageplays (false stories) of philosophical/religious/ideological
tradition
Kuhn and Paradigms
Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) wrote Structure of Scientific
Revolutions (1962), stating that science progresses through better
data and more inclusive theories and models (terrestrial and
celestial physics - Newton; magnetism and electricity - Faraday;
electromagnetism and light - Maxwell; waves and particles (Young,
Einstein); mass and energy - Einstein).
Paradigm - a dominant/pre-eminent framework or world view
in a given area of science, determined by consensus among
practitioners in a given field (challenged at most by a minority).
They influence the interpretation of new evidence, guiding further
investigation in a particular direction. Examples include:
stars are living creatures
heavens dictate our lives
everything is made of atoms and the void
aether model - nature abhors a vacuum
disease is caused by miasmas
living things have a spirit (differentiates them from nonliving)
all life comes from life
all living things are made of cells (viruses perhaps?)
geocentrism (supported by Aristotle, Ptolemy, church,
common sense until 17th C) vs. heliocentrism (ancient
Greeks, Brahe and Keplers measurements, Copernicus explained retrograding, and used simple circular orbits
instead of epicycles to explain changing planet sizes and
speeds and accounted for Galileos observations of
Jupiter and Venus, took over a century to be accepted,
later modified with Keplers elliptical orbits, Newtonian
physics (explained how it worked)); we now believe the
universe has no defined centre
paradigm of the four (or three elements) - all matter
consisted of earth, fire, water and air (ancient Greece;
explained movement/natural motion - earth and water
had gravity, air and fire had levity) or salt, sulphur and
mercury (Islamic medieval alchemists; not our current
elements); lasted until 17th C when Robert Boyle gave a
modern definition of an element in The Skeptical
Chemist, and Newton later explained the forces
paradigm of the fiery stuff (phlogiston) - everything
that burns contains phlogiston and released it when

Page 5

Oliver Bogdanovski

heating; metals formed an oxide they called calx which

they believe was evidence of phlogiston; believed we
would eventually run out of phlogiston (as burning in
enclosed space eventually died), and until the 18 th C
there was a belief that H2 was phlogisticated air (or even
pure phlogiston), and O2 was dephlogisticated air (it
would only burn once a smouldering splinter was added
to it); countered by rise of precise measurement
(paradigm would require negative weight as burning
increased mass (oxide formed), and replaced by
combustion/calcination due to combination with O 2 by
Lavoisier
paradigm of four humours - influential until 18th C with
the rise of scientific medicine, and impacted by Harveys
circulation of blood discovery (blood was believed to
have moved like tides or be created and destroyed, but
Harvey said more blood would have to be made than
food consumed and established primary of blood over
humours (when they were allegedly equal), but his own
hypothesis required the discovery of capillaries with
microscopes to be accepted)
Paradigm Shift - a fundamental change in approach or
underlying assumptions; replacement by or incorporation into
(subsumed) a more complete framework when the current paradigm
cannot deal with the broad range of evidence (and most paradigms
ultimately prove inadequate)
Kuhns Three Phases of Science:
Prescience - no accepted paradigm to guide
investigation
Normal Science - existing paradigm is not challenged
but rather extended in range of application or made
more precise (what scientists do most of the time)
Revolutionary Science - overthrowing the existing
paradigm in a paradigm shift
Epistemology and Thought Experiments
The men of experiment are like the ant, they only collect and
use; the reasoners resemble spiders, who make cobwebs out of their
own substance. But the bee takes the middle course: it gathers its
material from the flowers of the garden and field, but transforms
and digests it by a power of its own. Not unlike this is the true
business of philosophy (science); for it neither relies solely or chiefly
on the powers of the mind, nor does it take the matter which it
gathers from natural history and mechanical experiments and lay up
Page 6

Oliver Bogdanovski

in the memory whole, as it finds it, but lays it up in the

understanding altered and digested. Therefore, from a closer and
purer league between these two faculties, the experimental and the
rational (such as has never been made), much may be hoped. Francis Bacon (early 17th Century)
Epistemology (study of knowledge) is split into two broad answers:
Rationalists - the general nature of the world can be
established by thought alone as the mind has inherent (a
priori - prior/before) concepts not derived from experience
(e.g. Euclidean geometry, Descartes - a vacuum is repugnant
to reason) - equivalent to a spider
Empiricists - genuine knowledge comes from experience
(ultimately sense impressions), and can lead to scepticism of
the existence of a real world (a posteriori - post/later; e.g.
David Hume - a wise man proportions his belief to the
evidence) - equivalent to an ant
Emmanuel Kant proposes a third way: knowledge has two sources,
both intellect and senses, the former providing the tool to order the
sense impressions (e.g. concepts of time, space, substance,
causality, categories) - equivalent to the bees.
Galileo was one of the first to use thought experiments,
disproving Aristotles theory that heavier objects fall faster when
subjected to gravity by imagining a heavy ball and a light ball
connected by a string being dropped. Theoretically, the heavier ball
would fall faster than the smaller ball, causing the string to go
taught, and tension pulling the smaller ball down, but the heavier
ball up. However, as the whole system is heavier, it should fall
faster, not slower. Hence heavier objects cannot fall faster.
The Role of Measurement in Science
Roger Bacon (13th C) stated, this world cannot be made
known without a knowledge of mathematicsall this information is
secured by means of instruments Similarly Galileo (17th C) said,
Philosophyis written in the mathematical languagewithout the
help of which it is impossible to conceive a single word of it...
Stephen Hales (18th C), Humphry Davy (19th C), Lord Kelvin
(19th C) and Francis Galton (19th C) said similar things.
Modern science progresses by quantifying (not observing and
classifying), with new measuring instruments and methods
generating new knowledge. Galileo invented the pendulum clock
(noticed a period is only dependent upon length and strength of
gravity, not pendulum mass/nature or speed, compared to pulse and
found it was constant - isochronism). Helped define shape of Earth

Page 7

Oliver Bogdanovski

(swings more slowly near Equator) and that the Earth turns
(Foucault).
Sanctorio (the first medical scientist) invented a pulsilogium
(varied length of pendulum to patients pulse, quantified it), a
thermometer (blowing would heat air to your body temperature,
which would push wine back down a numerically-marked tube), and
weighed everything that went in and out, finding more went in than
out, and there must be invisible perspiration (idea originally from
Galen).

Page 8

Oliver Bogdanovski