The Natural Sciences-Methods & Tools

Objectives:
understand how the methods of science reflect important aims and assumptions
about the nature of the natural sciences
appreciate the reasons why and conditions under which scientific claims can be
trusted
understand the conditions under which natural science claims are revised

Methods and tools

The scientific method is a framework that defines the way that knowledge is developed,
tested and revised in the natural sciences. The process begins with the observation of
some phenomenon in the real world, followed by the development of a hypothesis about
how or why that thing happens. The explanation must in turn allow for predictions to be
made, and then further tests are made to see if the predictions pan out. The framework
itself is straightforward, and when the science is uncomplicated, so is the method.

The table given below describes the processes involved in the observation of what
happens when water is mixed with dirt.

KNOWLEDGE QUESTION
Is there a single ‘scientific’ method?

Stage of process Description

Observation of phenomenon
You observed what happened when you added water to dirt. No
doubt you first got thick mud, and then, as you added more and
more water, you got a soupy solution in which the dirt was
suspended. The colour probably changed: at first, it got darker,
and then, with more and more water, it got lighter and lighter.
Maybe some of the dirt did not blend into the water and formed
a sludge on the bottom of the glass.

sludge: wet dirt

Making a hypothesis A hypothesis is a guess, although it is a guess based on

observation and experience, not a wild guess! From observing
the water mixing with mud, you were asked to form a hypothesis

1
 The Natural Sciences-Methods & Tools

about whether it would be possible to separate out the dirt and

water again, and, if so, whether the two parts would be the same
as they were when you began.

Perhaps your prediction was that yes, you could separate out
the water, but that no, you would not end up with the same
products as before. The mixture could be heated to remove the
water, in which case, the water would no longer be liquid, but
gas. This would also be true if you did not heat the mixture, but
rather waited for the water to evaporate. If you found a very fine
strainer to try to strain the water out, you would not get it all, and
you would likely lose some of the dirt.

A prediction about the state of the dirt after evaporation might

be a little harder to make. The dirt alone in the jar probably
looked like pretty big clumps. Once a lot of water was mixed in,
however, the dirt suspended in the liquid likely consisted of very
small particles – maybe even particles that were not visible to
the naked eye. It seems like a logical guess that when the water
evaporates off, the particles of dirt would not get bigger again.

Making a prediction Let’s imagine that you tested the hypothesis and found that you
were correct. (If you did actually test the hypothesis, then you
can continue thinking through how the experiment fits the
scientific method using your actual findings, rather than the
imagined ones here!)

Now we can make a prediction: if we mix a large enough

quantity of water into a quantity of dirt so that the dirt becomes
suspended in the liquid and itself appears to be part of the liquid,
we will not be able to remove the water in such a way as to
restore the dirt to its original texture and appearance. (Maybe
your prediction would be somewhat different, depending on
what your actual findings were.)

Testing The prediction you made in the last step can now be tested by
other scientists in an effort to verify your finding or to disprove
it.

KNOWLEDGE QUESTIONS
❖ What is the role of imagination and intuition in the creation of hypotheses
in the natural sciences?
❖ What is the role of inductive and deductive reasoning in scientific inquiry,

2
 The Natural Sciences-Methods & Tools

prediction and explanation?

intuition : quick understanding to interpret but without using reasoning or perception/ a snap judgment.

Inductive and deductive reasoning - inductive reasoning aims at developing a theory while deductive
reasoning aims at testing an existing theory. Inductive reasoning moves from specific observations to
broad generalizations, and deductive reasoning the other way around.

❖ Do other AOKs employ a method similar to the scientific method?

❖ Which features of the scientific method help people to make knowledge in
other areas?

This simple experiment helps to demonstrate the basic procedure of how scientists do
science, but as it stands, it is not nearly precise enough. There are two main problems:

§ The hypothesis has two parts, rather than just one. We can’t effectively test two
things at one time because we won’t know what in the experiment affected which
part of the hypothesis
§ The prediction is too vague. It doesn’t specify how much water or how much dirt,
or what kind of dirt. Sand might not produce the same results as the kind of dirt
which is used on farms to grow things, and possibly both of those would produce
different results from what would happen if red clay soil were used.

The fact that scientists would not make such a vague prediction underscores the very
important point that scientists don’t make claims which apply outside of the conditions in
which they made the observations and in which they conducted the test of the hypothesis.
Scientists are concerned with making the most precise claims that they possibly can, and
in order to be able to do that, they must be very accurate about what they observe and
what they think the implications of those observations are.

Accurate: In the sciences, ‘accurate’ and ‘precise’ have two distinct meanings.
To say that some measurement is accurate is to say that it matches reality.

3
 The Natural Sciences-Methods & Tools

Underlying assumptions
The basic framework of the scientific method has its roots in a set of assumptions that
scientists make. The Geological Society of America published a brochure entitled ‘The
Nature of Science and the Scientific Method’, in which they detailed a list of those
assumptions, including the following:

1 The world exists apart from our sensory perception of it.

2 Humans are capable of perceiving the real world accurately and
attempting to understand the physical Universe.
3 Natural processes are sufficient to explain or account for natural
phenomena or events. Scientists must, therefore, explain the
natural world in terms of natural processes. They must
not explain the real world in terms of supernatural processes,
which cannot be observed or tested.
4 All human perceptions are shaped by our past experiences, which
means that our ability to perceive is shaped by those experiences.
Our perceptions, therefore, may be inaccurate or biased.
5 Scientific explanations are limited. Scientists cannot observe every
instance of any phenomenon; therefore, scientific knowledge is
necessarily contingent knowledge rather than absolute. This means
that scientific knowledge must be open to revision if new evidence
arises. It is impossible to know if we have thought of every possible
alternative explanation or every variable. The technology available
to us at any given time might be insufficient for helping us observe
all that is there, in the real world.

Contingent: Means that something depends on the circumstances. When we say that scientific findings are
contingent, we mean that they are based on conditions that exist at the time of the finding.

Let’s consider these assumptions. The first two mean that the pursuit of scientific
knowledge must be, first and foremost, based in observation. Scientists are trying to
observe what is really there, outside of ourselves, and to understand it. We see those
beliefs reflected in the first stages of the scientific method: that observation is the starting
place, and then a hypothesis is made based on observation.

4
 The Natural Sciences-Methods & Tools

The third assumption is quite interesting. It is purely an assumption which is based in the
fact that we cannot observe supernatural acts, test our ideas about supernatural acts or
make predictions about what supernatural acts will happen next. The nature of
supernatural acts, if they exist, is completely different from the nature of observable
physical phenomena: by definition, omnipotent beings capable of creating the Universe,
for example, can do anything and are not controlled by forces outside of themselves.
There is, therefore, no way to predict what they might do. This assumption is reflected in
scientific method in the fact that scientific knowledge must be predictive. If we cannot
take what we have observed and tested and make accurate predictions about what
will happen the next time and in all future times, then we do not have scientific
knowledge.

KNOWLEDGE QUESTION
How can it be that scientific knowledge changes over time?

The fourth assumption expresses an acknowledgement that humans (including

scientists!) can make mistakes, and the requirement that other people must be able to do
the same experiment and get the same results is a reflection of that awareness. Scientists
are not satisfied with one person’s word that natural processes work in a particular way.
The process of scientists checking each other’s work is called replication.

The final assumption on the list above accounts for a number of features of the way that
scientific knowledge is generated. First, it contributes to the need for findings to be
expressed in very precise knowledge claims. Since knowledge in science is contingent,
then it matters that we make transparent exactly what the conditions are under which the
knowledge claim is true. Good science does not consist of claims which cover a whole
bunch of circumstances – if scientists are not precise, then the knowledge claims they
make are even more contingent and even more likely to be overturned in the short term.

5
 The Natural Sciences-Methods & Tools

KNOWLEDGE QUESTION
How do the underlying assumptions of the other AOKs shape the kind
of inquiry, including methods and tools, that is central to that AOK?

Secondly, this fifth assumption contributes to the need for peer review of scientific
findings. We accept that scientific knowledge is contingent, but we do not think that means
we can be sloppy about work and careless about claims and then just shrug when our
claims are overturned. Quite the opposite. Scientists take care not to make claims until
they are thoroughly checked and established beyond reasonable doubt, under the
conditions which currently exist. Peer review is a way for scientists to check each
other’s work, to validate the processes used to generate claims, and to correct any
errors in reasoning that may have marred the findings.

CONCEPT CONNECTION
Objectivity
Another important reason for peer review is that scientific knowledge must be
made as objectively as possible. The aim of science is to find out about the world
as it is, not as scientists think or feel or believe or wish it to be. One function of the
scientific method is to screen out as much as possible any bias or subjectivity on
the part of the scientist, and peer review acts as a final check for any such
interference with facts.

Another method which arises from the fifth assumption is the ongoing development of
new technologies and continuing research in fields about which we already know a great
deal. The microscope and the telescope are both examples of technological
developments that allowed scientists to see parts of the physical universe
previously inaccessible to humans, given our limited eyesight. Both of those
developments led to major changes in scientific understanding. We don’t know what

6
 The Natural Sciences-Methods & Tools
technological advances might yet open up the world, and so the effort to develop them
continues. With every new invention, scientists revisit past findings.

The fact that scientific findings are contingent also means that we cannot prove things in
science the way that we can prove them in mathematics. In creating proofs,
mathematicians are able to account for every conceivable instance of what they
are studying. We saw that in proving the Pythagorean Theorem, Pythagoras was able
to demonstrate that the theorem accurately described every possible right triangle.
Scientists cannot do the same thing: for example, no scientist could ever observe every
green plant that exists, let alone all the ones which might exist in the future, to show that
they use photosynthesis to create food for themselves from light.

Natural scientists, then, do not try to prove things, and when peers attempt to replicate
an experiment to see whether the findings were sound, they do not try to prove the
original scientist right; instead they try to prove them wrong. This process is called
falsification. If an attempt to falsify a scientific claim succeeds, then the claim is wrong. If
an attempt to falsify a claim fails, however, then the original claim is strengthened. If the
claim is repeatedly supported by experiment, then it becomes stronger and, over time,
may rise to the level of a theory, especially if the claim fits in with knowledge about how
related processes work.

KNOWLEDGE QUESTIONS
❖ Do other areas of knowledge have published sets of underlying
assumptions like the natural sciences do?
❖ Are the underlying assumptions of other areas, such as the human
sciences, significantly different from the assumptions which underlie the
natural sciences?

Finally, this assumption is the reason that scientists call established frameworks
‘theories’, rather than ‘proofs’ or ‘facts’. Scientists don’t call anything a theory until enough
evidence has been amassed to make the knowledge virtually certain. But in science,

7
 The Natural Sciences-Methods & Tools
because the process is inductive, rather than deductive knowledge, claims can never be
absolutely certain, the way they can in mathematics. Scientists are, as we noted earlier,
concerned about precision. It would not be precise to call theories proofs, because no
matter how well established they are, they might be altered at some point in the future
based on new evidence.

Reflect:
§ What other technological developments have radically changed our
understanding of the world?

8
 The Natural Sciences-Methods & Tools

ACTIVITY
Create a chart for yourself like the one below. Fill in the second column with notes about
which aspects of the methods scientists use to make knowledge are related to each of
the assumptions which underlie science.

Foundational assumption Methods and tools in natural science

related to each assumption

The real world exists independently of our

perception of it

Humans are capable of accurate perception of

the real world

Natural processes are sufficient to account for

natural phenomena

Our perceptions may be biased or inaccurate

Scientific explanations are contingent

CONCEPT CONNECTION
Certainty

In the natural sciences, we can be absolutely certain only about things over which
we have control, which is to say, things which have been invented by humans. We
are absolutely certain about the names of species under Linnaean classification,
because those names have been assigned by humans. If those who have the
authority to do so decided to, they could change some of those names, and then
we would be absolutely certain about the new names. This is what happened with

9
 The Natural Sciences-Methods & Tools

Pluto in 2006. The International Astronomical Union (IAU) redesignated Pluto as a

dwarf planet (‘Pluto and Ceres’). The IAU is the group with the authority to
determine the classification of astral bodies, and so we are absolutely certain that
Pluto is not a planet, but rather is a dwarf planet. At some future date, the IAU
might develop still more categories and then there will be new names, and we will
be absolutely certain about those names.

Astral body - a star, planet, comet, or other heavenly body.

Notice that although we can say that we are absolutely certain about aspects of
science that we invent (which very often involves the naming of things), this does
not mean that that reality will not change in future. Where we can actually alter
reality, we can be certain of the reality until we change it, and then we will be
absolutely certain about the change that we made. The same cannot be said of
natural objects and natural processes which are not invented by humans. By
definition, they are those things which would exist even if we were not around to
observe them. We do not have control over how those work; scientists are in the
business of discovering them.

A theory, such as the theory of evolution, is a framework for explaining a natural

process, or constellation of processes, which is extremely well established. The
basic existence of evolution as a mechanism through which species develop and go
extinct over long periods of time is thoroughly settled. There is virtually no chance
that the whole notion of evolution will ever be proven wrong. But the existence of a
theory doesn’t mean that learning stops. Scientists continue to study the details of
evolution and how it has played out in different species over millions of years. All of
the increasingly accurate understanding that has been developed in the last 100

10
 The Natural Sciences-Methods & Tools

years or so, however, has fit into the paradigm of evolution. Nothing has occurred to
cause any significant challenge to the understanding that species develop through
small genetic changes, and there is no reason to think that there ever will be any
finding that could undermine the idea of evolution in a significant way. The possibility,
however minute, exists though, and so scientists, acknowledging the truth of
assumption: Scientific explanations are limited. Scientists cannot observe every instance of any
phenomenon; therefore, scientific knowledge is necessarily contingent knowledge rather than
absolute use the term ‘theory’ to describe their most certain findings.

The scientific method in context

There is no one scientific method. The guiding principles and the general methods that
we have looked at so far are a framework which can be applied in a great many situations.
However, what the method looks like differs greatly from context to context.

11
 The Natural Sciences-Methods & Tools

KNOWLEDGE QUESTIONS
❖ How does the social context of scientific work affect the methods
and findings of science?
❖ Does the social context of the other areas of knowledge affect the
methods and findings of those areas of knowledge in similar
ways? How so?

Observation means quite different things in different contexts. Biologists studying the
behaviour of octopuses, for example, have to get out into the ocean in areas of the
world where the octopuses they wish to study live, such as Indonesia, and then
they have to actually follow the octopuses around in order to see what they do.
Those observations require the scientists to have access to boats and to be able
to dive in order to get where the octopuses are. Octopuses could, of course, be
studied in captivity, but it would not be scientific to simply assume that the way they
behave in captivity is the same as the way they behave in the wild – maybe they do, but
maybe they don’t. Scientists could not make such a hypothesis until they had
observations that could support it.

One particular kind of observation led teuthologists to hypothesize that octopuses are
actually quite intelligent. Dr. Julian Finn and Dr. Mark Norman, marine biologists at
Museum Victoria in Australia, observed an octopus in the oceans of Indonesia using
coconut shells as tools.

Teuthologist: A scientist who studies cephalopods, such as octopuses.

Watch some of the footage that Dr Finn shot of the octopus at work.
https://youtu.be/Bz1G49er0bo

Dr Julian Finn and Dr Mark Norman (Museum Victoria) talk about their experiences filming the
Veined Octopus, and the significance of its coconut-carrying behavior

12
 The Natural Sciences-Methods & Tools
This was the first time that any cephalopod had been observed using tools; previously, it
was thought that tool use required a large, complex brain. This extraordinary
observation led to a new hypothesis about the intelligence of octopuses.

The kind of observations that Finn and Norman made are dramatically different to the
kinds of observations that a physicist interested in determining whether subatomic
particles, such as the Higgs Boson exist, has to do. The existence of the Higgs Boson
has been theorized since 1964. The hypothesis was based on complicated observations
involving other particles and on knowledge of Einstein’s theory of relativity (Gray and
Mansoulié). In order to try to observe these particles, physicists had to build the Large
Hadron Collider at CERN, in Switzerland. The LHC is a particle accelerator, which is a
machine that can separate atoms into their component parts. Particle accelerators are
used as an important technology in the pursuit of finding out what the smallest
components of atoms are (TechTarget).
1. Higgs Boson : a subatomic particle whose existence is predicted by the theory which unified
the weak and electromagnetic interactions.

The LHC is 27 km in circumference. It cost $4.5 billion and took a decade to build (Knapp).
When the LHC was run, the observations that were made were quite different from taking
a scuba dive to make a video of an octopus that can easily be seen with the naked eye.
No one can see the tiny subatomic particles; they have to be detected by tracking the
energy which is released when particles collide with each other. Physicists, then, use
complex statistical analysis to demonstrate that what they are seeing is activity which
results from the behaviour of particular kinds of particles (Gray and Mansoulié).

13
 The Natural Sciences-Methods & Tools

We can see from these examples how important being able to observe the world is to the
ability to create hypotheses and to the ability to test them. What it is possible to
hypothesize depends on the nature of what we have been able to observe at any
particular point. If an activity is truly scientific in nature, then new observations collected
in aid of trying to demonstrate the validity of a hypothesis – or to falsify it – generate more
questions to be answered.

ACTIVITY

One hypothesis about the nature of the Universe on perspectives in science is the idea
that everything that we know and experience of the Universe is actually just a simulation
being run in a massive computer by beings who are vastly more intelligent than we are
(Moskowitz). This might sound like kind of a kooky idea; however, it has been given
serious consideration by some big-name physicists. In 2016, it was the focus of the
annual Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate at the American Museum of Natural History in
New York. The debate was moderated by Neil de Grasse Tyson, and featured physicists
from MIT and Harvard, among others.
kooky : strange or eccentric

14
 The Natural Sciences-Methods & Tools

Read an article about the discussion, and then answer the following questions:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/

1 What evidence is offered in support of this hypothesis?

2 What arguments were offered in opposition to the idea?
3 Can you think of any way in which physicists might begin to test the idea
through observation or experimentation?
4 What does the idea suggest about the nature of mathematics?
5 What crossover into other areas of knowledge does this idea raise?

15