How do we acquire

knowledge in the
natural sciences?
1. The scientific ‘method’

400 years ago, Galileo set up an experiment to test the hypothesis that objects accelerate when
they fall. Experimentation was commonly employed by the Arabs, but their methods were looked
down on by the Europeans, who followed the Church’s dictum that conclusions could only be
reached by discussions and logic, following Aristotle.

Galileo’s reliance on empirical knowledge led Europe into the Enlightenment, and established the
scientific method, which is still regarded as the only satisfactory approach when it comes to the
acquisition of knowledge about the natural world.

The stages of the scientific method

Watch this clip, and write a short description of each of the following stages of the scientific
method.

1. The problem
2. Hypothesis
3. Prediction
4. Testing
5. Peer review
6. Publication
7. Replication or falsification
8. Theory
9. Corrections and modifications
10. Laws

Science should, therefore, provide an explanation based on impartial research backed by

rigorous checks and balances, and not belief. False scientific evidence should never get past
stage 4, let alone become a theory.

2. Serendipity in science
Serendipity is a very peculiar English word, with a very specific meaning. It is very useful when
applied to discoveries in science that have been made ‘by chance’, although as Louis Pasteur
said, ‘Chance favours the prepared mind.’ The best way to understand the role of chance is to
focus on specific cases, and below there is a list of examples from which you can find these. Do
they support Pasteur’s assertion?

1. Penicillin
2. The pacemaker
3. Radiation
4. Safety glass
5. Teflon
6. Saccharine
7. LSD
8. Rayon
9. Viagra
10. Uranus
11. X-Rays

3. The role of induction and falsification

We have seen that the scientific method involves formulating a hypothesis. There are many ways
in which a scientist may arrive at their hypothesis (including serendipity), but probably the most
common one is observationalist-inductionism – that is, observing that a phenomenon has always
occurred that way in the past, and inducing that it will always happen that way in the future.
Proving this hypothesis to be true will be the aim of their experimentation during the testing
stage.

To put this in context, let’s say that I am the first scientist to notice that water always boils at the
same temperature, 100?C. Using induction, I suggest the hypothesis that water always boils at
100?C. I then set out to test this hypothesis, and boil water over a period of years, and always
arriving at the same conclusion. I submit my findings to a respected journal, my peers check my
findings, and my hypothesis is published. No one refutes my idea, and my hypothesis duly
becomes a theory. Over time, the theory then becomes a law.

But there is a problem with this way of viewing science. We cannot prove anything with 100%
certainty in the natural world, so the purpose of science is not to show that things are true, rather
that things are false. If a hypothesis stands up to testing over a long period of time, it is given the
term theory. This means that we are not so much interested in theories that are true as we are
theories that are not false.

This idea provides us with a convenient definition of a scientific hypothesis: a statement that can
be (potentially) falsified. If it is not (potentially) falsifiable, then it isn’t scientific, and belongs to
some other field. In the example given above, if I say that water boils at 100?C, this is clearly
scientific, as it can be proven false (or true) in an experiment. If I say that the earth was created by
God, this clearly isn’t a scientific theory, because there is no way of testing this idea, and proving
it to be false (or true).

The scientist/philosopher who advocated this idea was Karl Popper. In the 1960s he challenged
what was then the accepted view that science worked along observationalist-inductionist lines –
or, reaching conclusions about hypotheses on the basis of previous results, rather than the
potential falsifiability of the idea. According to Popper, nothing that cannot be falsified can be
called a scientific hypothesis/theory.

Some people have criticised Popper’s ideas, as it is difficult to show that some theories are false
– for example, evolution. Indeed, Popper said of this:

Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.

However, the idea of falsification being an integral part of a scientific theory is a very useful way
of testing the validity of most scientific hypotheses, and separating the ones that have little claim
to scientific legitimacy.

4. Are scientists always objective?

The scientific method is designed to be a flawless system, protecting us not only from ‘bad
science’, but also allowing ‘good science’ to emerge and flourish. How well it does this is open to
interpretation. To form an opinion on this, read through this on the climate change email scandal.

1. What does the article say about the peer review system?
2. Why does the article say that there are ‘cracks in the system’?
3. What is the University of East Anglia’s CRU and who heads it?
4. What allegations have been made against him?
5. If these allegations are true, what does it suggest about the scientific method?
6. Research another scientific scandal, explaining what occurred, why, and the results.
7. Do you think that scientists have any special ethical obligations that other professionals
don’t have? If so, what are they, and why?

Concluding questions

1. Which element of our acquisition of knowledge in the natural sciences do you think is the
most important? Why?

2. How important is the role of reason in the process of knowledge acquisition in the natural
sciences?

3. Is the scientific method flawless?

Cite this page as: Dunn, Michael. How do we acquire knowledge in the natural sciences? (10th
May 2013). https://theoryofknowledge.net.