SDSU A Scientific Approach to Life Report Summary

Please read the attached document before answering:

Find two examples of reports in the media that make a scientific claim.The reports must contain a scientific claim AND I will be most impressed if you find a claim that looks true but is actually not.This could be a newspaper article, a news report you saw on television or on the web, or a video you saw on YouTube. It could even be a post you saw on Facebook.

1. Summarize the information in each report. If you can provide a link to the report, or , if a link are not available, a description of the report and where you found it. You can also include a screenshot.

2. (This is the most important part) Use the information you learned in the previous reading assignment (A Scientific Approach to Life) and the Science Toolkit to evaluate your news article. You will need to do additional research to completely analyze the article. Provide a description of your analysis. Explain why you decided the information in the claim was untrue.

1
A scientific approach to life: A science
toolkit
Trans-fat free! Ethanol production: an eco-nightmare? Cancer researchers discover
new hope. Major petroleum company acknowledges reality of global warming. Clinically proven to reduce the appearance of wrinkles! These aren’t exactly the headlines
you’d find in a scientific journal, but they are examples of the sorts of scientific messages that one might encounter everyday. Because science is so critical to our lives,
we are regularly targeted by media messages about science in the form of advertising
or reporting from newspapers, magazines, the internet, TV, or radio. Similarly, as discussed in Science and society, our everyday lives are affected by all sorts of sciencerelated policies—from what additives are allowed (or required) to be mixed in with
gasoline, to where homes can be built, to how milk is processed. But you don’t have
to take these media messages and science policies at face value. Understanding the
nature of science can help you uncover the real meaning of media messages about
science and evaluate the science behind policies.
© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
2
Untangling media messages and public
policies
Everyday, we are bombarded with messages based on science: the nightly
news reports on the health effects of
cholesterol in eggs, a shampoo advertisement claims that it has been scientifically proven to strengthen hair, or
the newspaper reports on the senate’s
vote to restrict carbon dioxide emissions
based on their impact on global warming. Media representations of science
and science-related policy are essential
for quickly communicating scientific
messages to the broad public; however,
some important parts of the scientific
message can easily get lost or garbled in
translation. Understanding the nature of
science can make you a better-informed
consumer of those messages and policies. It can help you:
• separate science from spin
• identify misrepresentations of science, and
• find trustworthy sources for further information.
To demonstrate how this works, we’ll look at a set of questions that you can use to get
to the science behind the hype:
As an example, we’ll apply these to a hypothetical article relating to global warming
that might have appeared in a major newspaper in the early 1990s …
© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
3
Ice cores offer clues to global warming question
An international group of researchers working in Tibet have recovered new clues
about Earth’s ancient climate. These clues come in the form of ice cores taken
from the Guliya ice cap, which are believed to contain information about the components of the atmosphere over the last 200,000 years.
The scientists are beginning analysis of one of the three cores recovered by the
expedition last summer. Lonnie G. Thompson, leader of the research team, said
that this core could reveal new insights about Earth’s climate through the last
four ice ages.
A better understanding of these climate patterns will inform the so-called “global
warming” debate.
Some scientists believe that human-produced carbon dioxide is causing Earth to
warm dangerously. This view is supported by some ice core studies. However,
skeptics question this opinion, arguing that we lack evidence that the warming is
not simply a natural part of the planet’s climate fluctuations.
Ice cores contain atmospheric “fossils”—bubbles of preserved gases and dust
from different times in Earth’s history. Thompson explained that “These long-term
archives will let us look at the natural variability of the climate over long periods
….”
Another ice core taken from Antarctica has suggested that carbon dioxide levels
and temperature have increased and decreased in sync over the past 160,000
years, rising to unprecedented levels today.
However, scientists have not yet come to a conclusion regarding the main question inspired by the ice core data: Do higher carbon dioxide levels actually cause
temperature increases?
To see how the article measures up against our set of tips, read on …
© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
4
Who dunnit: Where does the information
come from?
In paperback mysteries, the answer to this question is withheld until the last page …
… but when evaluating a media message about science, it’s one of the first things to
consider:
• What is the source of this message? Is it a sensational article in
Cosmopolitan, a report from the
New York Times, a feature in a
science publication aimed at the
general public like Discover, or
an original journal article? Each
of these sources will provide you
with a different level of information—and probably, a different level
of fidelity to the original science.
So if you are reading a short summary in your local newspaper, don’t
assume that you’ve got the whole
story!
• Does that source have an agenda or goal? All media messages have goals, which
can affect the information presented. For example, scientific messages that appear in advertising (e.g., “Clinically proven to reduce wrinkles”) are aimed at selling a product and are unlikely to give the full story. Some publications are aimed
at rallying readers around particular issues, like environmental activism, antienvironmentalism, or health issues, and so may present a skewed view of the science. If you really want the whole scoop on a scientific issue, it’s best to look for
a source whose main goal is to explain the science involved. Science publications
aimed at the general public provide this sort of information. As we’ve seen in other sections of this website, scientists strive to be unbiased in their scientific work,
but occasionally the media’s interpretation of this work introduces bias.
© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
5
An original piece of scientific research may be interpreted many times over before it
reaches you. First, the researchers will write up the research for a scientific journal
article, which may then be adapted into a simplified press release, which will be read
by reporters and translated yet again into a newspaper, magazine, or internet article—
and so on. Just as in a game of telephone, errors and exaggerations can sneak in with
each adaptation.
GETTING IT WRONG EVERY WHICH WAY
In 2004, an international group of researchers modeled the effect of predicted
climate change over the next 50 years, and reported that this amount of change
might eventually cause 15-37% of a select group of terrestrial species to go
extinct. It was simple, straightforward science. However, much of the press
coverage that followed was both sensational and inaccurate. For example, the
Guardian ran the headline:
An unnatural disaster:
• Global warming to kill off 1m species
• Scientists shocked by results of research
• 1 in 10 animals and plants extinct by 2050
In fact, most newspaper reports got it wrong, frequently suggesting that over a
million species would go extinct by 2050—and not, as the science implied, that
over a million species would be sentenced to extinction by 2050 and would actually die off afterwards. In addition, many websites picked up the story, and as
one might expect, conservation-oriented websites tended to run more sensationalized versions of the story, and websites with an anti-environmental bent tended
to dismiss the story. In this case, it’s clear that the media source of the story
made a big difference in the information offered to readers.
Our sample article on global warming seems to have been based on an interview with
a key scientist and possibly also a press release. However, no specific scientific publication (e.g., a journal article) is cited, which makes it difficult to learn more about this
work. On the plus side, we have no particular reason to believe that a major newspaper or the author would have any agenda other than to inform readers of an interesting development in science.
© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
6
Beware of false balance: Are the views
of the scientific community accurately
portrayed?
Balanced reporting is generally
considered good journalism,
and balance does have its virtues. The public should be able
to get information on all sides
of an issue—but that doesn’t
mean that all sides of the issue
deserve equal weight. Science
works by carefully examining
the evidence supporting different hypotheses and building on
those that have the most support. Journalism and policies
that falsely grant all viewpoints
the same scientific legitimacy
effectively undo one of the main aims of science: to weigh the evidence.
Our sample article on global warming, for example, balances its report like this:
Some scientists believe that human-produced carbon dioxide is causing Earth to
warm dangerously. This view is supported by some ice core studies. However, skeptics question this opinion, arguing that we lack evidence that the warming is not
simply a natural part of the planet’s climate fluctuations.
and then ends it with more uncertainty:
However, scientists have not yet come to a conclusion regarding the main question
© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
7
inspired by the ice core data: Do higher carbon dioxide levels actually cause temperature increases?
This report maintains journalistic standards for balance, but it’s not a very accurate
depiction of the state of science at the time. Even in the early 1990s, scientists who
studied the issue had weighed the evidence and concluded that global warming could
likely be traced to humanity’s increased production of greenhouse gases, like carbon
dioxide. Yet the newspaper article seems to give equal weight to the few skeptics.
And this false balance is not unusual. A survey of articles in topnotch U.S. newspapers
published between 1988 and 2002, found that 52.6% of those that dealt with global
warming balanced the human contribution to global warming with a skeptical viewpoint. Meanwhile, the scientific evidence for the human contribution to global warming became ever more convincing. A survey of 928 scientific journal articles published
between 1993 and 2003 found that none of them disagreed with the idea that human
activities are causing global warming! Such a disconnect between the true views of
the scientific community and those represented in the popular press make it difficult
for a casual reader to get an accurate picture of the science at stake.
WHO’S THE EXPERT?
Some popular science stories
provide journalistic balance by
including the views of two scientists—one on each side of an
issue. For example, a magazine
article about the origins of life
might quote Scientist A, who
argues that we have a good understanding of the chemical reactions that led up to the origin of
life, and Scientist B, who argues
that we don’t know much about
these reactions now and that we
never will. In untangling such
conflicting messages, it pays to
investigate each scientist’s area
of expertise. Knowing that Scientist A is a biochemist who studies
the origins of life and that Scientist B is a physicist who works on
electricity and magnetism could
factor into your assessment of
the controversy. Scientific knowledge is immensely deep and varies widely across fields. No single
scientist can be an expert on everything. Also, beware of science
stories that quote Dr. XYZ without explaining Dr. XYZ’s area of expertise. Plenty
of scientists don’t have Ph.D.s, and plenty of doctors (e.g., those with Ph.D.s in
English) don’t necessarily have a strong scientific background.
© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
8
Too tentative: Is the scientific
community’s confidence in the ideas
accurately portrayed?
Contrary to popular opinion, science doesn’t prove a thing …
All scientific ideas—even the most widely-accepted and best-supported, like the germ
theory of disease or basic atomic physics—are inherently provisional, meaning that
science is always willing to revise these ideas if warranted by new evidence. However, that tentativeness doesn’t mean that scientific ideas are untrustworthy … and
this is where some media reports on science can mislead, mistaking provisionality for
untrustworthiness. For example, in our sample article, the evidence for humanity’s
contribution to global warming is depicted as shaky (“Some scientists believe that
human-produced carbon dioxide is causing Earth to warm dangerously. This view is
supported by some ice core studies.”), even though evidence supporting the idea is
actually quite strong. Sure, science can’t prove that human activities lead to global
warming, but neither can it prove the existence of gravity; yet both ideas are trustworthy and strongly supported by evidence.
Some policies make the same misinterpretation of provisionality in science. For example, in 2002, the U.S. government called for more studies to resolve “numerous
uncertainties [that] remain about global warming’s cause and effect” before taking
action. It is true that numerous uncertainties about global warming existed in 2002
and exist today. Uncertainty and tentativeness are inherent aspects of the nature of
© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
9
science. However, even in 2002, climatologists had a strong and well-supported understanding of key features of global warming.
HEED THE HYPE
On the opposite end of the scale, some media reports blow the implications of scientific
findings out of proportion, failing to mention
caveats and additional research yet to be
done. For example, every few years, gene
therapy makes a spotlighted appearance in
the news—and for good reason. Gene therapy
holds the promise of correcting genetic diseases at their source by replacing broken
genes with working versions, but this is still
largely just a promise. A 1993 newspaper
article, for example, predicted that “Human
DNA will be a major heart ‘drug’ of the near
future with gene therapy a common treatment procedure,” though such treatment was
still unavailable as of 2007. Such sensationalized reports ignore the logistical difficulties
of getting new genes to the cells that need
them. So while the nightly news may herald widespread gene therapy as “just
around the corner,” a deeper investigation into the science behind the hype would
paint a different picture. Almost 30 years after the first rumblings about the possibility of gene therapy, the technique is still in experimental stages.
© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
10
What controversy: Is a controversy misrepresented or blown out of proportion?
Here’s a headline unlikely to
run in any paper: Senate getting along: No fights or arguments for days! That’s because
good news is generally no news.
Clashes, on the other hand, are
exciting and often important.
So it’s not surprising then that
media reports on science often
focus on controversy. However,
when a scientific idea is portrayed as controversial in the
popular media or in a policy,
that conflict might be one of a
few different types, which stem
from different sources:
• Fundamental scientific controversy—scientists disagreeing about a central hypothesis
or theory. If you imagine scientific knowledge
as a web of interconnected ideas, theories
and hypotheses are at the center of the web
and are connected to many, many other
ideas—so a controversy over one of these
principal ideas has the potential to shake up
the state of scientific knowledge. For example, physicists are currently in disagreement
over the basic validity of string theory, the set
of key ideas that have been billed as the next big leap forward in theoretical physics. This is a fundamental scientific controversy.
• Secondary scientific controversy—scientists disagreeing about a less central aspect
of a scientific idea. For example, evolutionary biologists have different views on the
importance of punctuated equilibrium (a pattern of evolutionary change, characterized by
rapid evolution interrupted by many years of
constancy). This controversy focuses on an
important aspect of the mode and rate of evolutionary change, but a change in scientists’
acceptance of punctuated equilibrium would
not shake evolutionary biology to its core. Scientists on both sides of the punctuated equilibrium issue accept the same basic tenets of evolutionary theory.
• Conflict over ethicality of methods—disagreement within the scientific community or
society at large over the appropriateness of
a method used for scientific research. For example, many people have concerns over the
ethicality of stem cell research that relies on
human embryonic stem cells. These cells are
gathered from fertilized eggs a few days old,
which are donated by couples undergoing in
vitro fertilization and who cannot use those
eggs. Such concerns do not represent conflict
© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
11
over scientific knowledge, but over what constitutes ethical means for building
that knowledge.
• Conflict over applications—conflict over
the application of scientific knowledge. For
example, activists sometimes clash over the
issue of nuclear energy plants and whether
or not they are a safe and environmentally
sound means of producing energy. Although
there are honest scientific controversies on
issues relating to nuclear reactions, this is
not one of them. This is not a conflict over a
scientific idea, but over how such ideas should
be applied.
• Conflict between scientific idea and non-scientific viewpoint. For example,
scientific evidence supports the view that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old;
however, some groups reject this view in favor of a young Earth, created just a
few thousand years ago. This is a conflict over scientific knowledge, but not one
within the scientific community.
True scientific controversy (the first two sorts listed above) is healthy and involves disagreements over how data should be interpreted, over which ideas are best supported
by the available evidence, and over which ideas are worth investigating further. This
sort of catalyst sparks careful examination of the data and additional research and so
can help science move forward. However, other sorts of controversy can impact science in different ways. Conflicts between scientific ideas and non-scientific viewpoints,
for example, can hinder science if the controversy shuts down research in contested
areas.
Furthermore, mistaking one form of controversy for another could easily lead one
astray about the science at stake. For example, our sample article on global warming refers to “the so-called ‘global warming’ debate,” but what is the nature of this
debate? As reflected by the reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, the global scientific community is largely in agreement that global warming is occurring and that human activities are to blame—so this so-called debate is
not a fundamental scientific controversy. However, there are many smaller details of
climate change (how fast it is occurring, how best to model it, etc.) that are actively
being researched and discussed—so the debate is an example of a secondary scientific
controversy.
© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
12
COUNTERFEITING CONTROVERSY
The social controversy about
evolution has played out in
many ways, like this textbook
warning label, which was
ruled unconstitutional.
Evolution provides an example of a conflict between
a scientific idea and a nonscientific viewpoint. Biologists
overwhelmingly agree that
life has diversified through
evolutionary processes over
billions of years. Because
of this scientific consensus,
there is no fundamental scientific controversy over evolution. However, as with
any area of scientific research, secondary scientific controversies (in this case,
over the pace of evolutionary change, the frequency of different modes of speciation, etc.) continually arise as research progresses and scientists test new ideas
against evidence. Unfortunately, groups against teaching evolution in schools
sometimes take advantage of these secondary controversies, trumping them up
as fundamental controversies and falsely presenting them as indicators of a “theory in crisis.” Even more unfortunately, this misrepresentation has contributed to
a social controversy over what ideas should be taught in our science classrooms,
with the anti-evolutionists arguing for the inclusion of what they term alternative
viewpoints. This social debate has long since departed from the science at stake.
There is no scientifically viable alternative that can stand up to the overwhelming
evidence supporting evolutionary theory.
The four tips we’ve seen so far have all dealt with misrepresentations or exaggerations of science. To check out tips for evaluating the science itself, read on …
© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
13
Getting to the source: Where can I get
more information?
Sometimes an article in your
local newspaper just isn’t
enough. Maybe you’ve opened
your morning paper to a report
on herbal treatments for cold
symptoms. With your stuffy
nose and scratchy throat, the
idea sounds appealing—but you
need more information about
side effects, drug interactions,
and the supporting evidence.
Or perhaps you’ve heard about
policy changes that would encourage people to buy cars that
can run on ethanol instead of
regular gasoline, but before you jump on the bandwagon you want to know the scientific basis for this switch. A popular science article or an article in your local paper
may not give you enough information to make a judgment and may even selectively
discuss evidence, ignoring some lines entirely—but with a little extra research, you
can do better than your local paper. Where should you go to learn more about the science underlying these issues? For topics of current research, the books available at
your library may be out of date and many details are likely squirreled away in journal
articles that could be difficult to access and interpret. In this situation, the internet is
a great resource, but not all internet sites are created equal and not all of them offer
unbiased explanations of the science at stake.
Here are a few considerations for finding additional sources of scientific information
online:
• Find sources with scientific expertise. Try to find websites produced by a
research institute, a governmental body,
a respected educational institution, or
a major scientific association (e.g., the
American Psychological Association).
These sorts of organizations are all key
parts of the scientific community and have
an interest in accurately explaining scientific issues. For example, the Centers for
Disease Control, the American Association
for the Advancement of Science, the U.S.
Geological Survey, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or Nature magazine are all
trustworthy choices. On the other hand, Badger Creek Elementary and Tipsfromtodd.com probably don’t have access to up-to-date scientific information and may
not feel any responsibility to provide fair and accurate information.
© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
14
• Avoid ulterior motives. Try to
avoid websites from groups that
might stand to gain by biasing the
information presented, like some
lobbying or advocacy groups. It’s
particularly important (and easy)
to avoid websites that are trying to
sell something. For example, Buyherbal.com is unlikely to give unbiased evidence of the effectiveness
of the herb Echinacea. Instead you
might try the National Institutes
of Health website, since that organization has no stake in the issue
other than helping people stay informed and healthy.
Can you spot the conflict of interest?
• Keep it current. Science is ongoing and is continually updating and expanding
our knowledge of the universe. Scientists publish many hundreds of papers each
year on areas of active scientific research. For example, in 2006 alone, more than
15,000 scientific articles on the topic of breast cancer were published. Because
of the rapid pace at which our scientific knowledge advances, websites can easily
become out-of-date if not actively maintained. So a website last updated in 2002
is unlikely to give you a useful understanding of the costs and benefits of using
ethanol as fuel. Instead, look for a more current website.
• Check for citations. As described in Scientific culture, scientific publications
generally give credit to related research by providing a list of citations—and that
means that citations can help you gauge a website’s scientific validity. A website that provides a comprehensive list of citations from scientific journal articles
is more likely to provide an accurate portrayal of the science involved than one
with suspicious, scanty, or nonexistent references. As an added bonus, by studying those references, you can double-check the website’s information or dig even
deeper into the issue.
© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
15
As an example of how one might get more information on a science-related issue, let’s
return to our sample article on global warming, which briefly describes scientist Lonnie Thompson’s ice core studies. Where could one find more details on ice cores and
how they can inform global warming research? First, you might check out an interview with the scientist from National Geographic. This 2004 article is written for the
general public (and includes no citations) but is from a trustworthy source and offers
the direct perspective of a scientist involved with the work. And if that’s not enough,
you might turn to NASA’s in-depth tutorial on paleoclimatology, which meets all of our
guidelines: it’s from a trustworthy source without ulterior motives (NASA), was posted
relatively recently (2005), and includes citations from the scientific literature.
© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
16
Convince me: How strong is the evidence?
When evaluating a scientific idea, scientists carefully consider the relevant evidence …
… and you can too. You’ve read an article in the newspaper, done a little more research, uncovered several lines of evidence, and now it’s time to weigh those data for
yourself. Here are some questions to ask as you consider the evidence:
• Does the evidence suggest correlation or
causation? In other words, do the data
suggest that two factors (e.g., high blood
pressure and heart attack rates) are correlated with one another or that changes
in one actually cause changes in the
other?
• Is the evidence based on a large sample
of observations (e.g., 10,000 patients with
high blood pressure) or just a few isolated
incidents?
• Does the evidence back up all the claims
made in the article (e.g., about the cause
of heart attacks, a new blood pressure
drug, and preventative strategies) or just
a few of them?
• Are the claims in the article supported by
multiple lines of evidence (e.g., from clinical trials, epidemiological studies, and
animal studies)?
• Does the scientific community find the evidence convincing?
For example, our sample article on global warming mentions one relevant line of evidence—ice cores—but provides few details. A little additional research reveals that
ice cores contain bubbles of air captured from Earth’s atmosphere many hundreds of
thousands of years ago. Those air bubbles contain isotopes of oxygen that provide
an indication of past temperatures. These samples suggest that, historically, global
temperatures have risen and fallen in step with carbon dioxide levels. And further research into global warming uncovers other lines of evidence—for example: modern
atmospheric records indicate that human activities have been increasing the concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, modern climate records indicate that the climate is currently warming, and models of the Earth’s
atmosphere provide a picture of why increased carbon dioxide levels might lead to
higher temperatures. The scientific community finds this evidence convincing.
© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
17
FOLLOW THE MONEY
When examining the evidence behind a scientific issue, it’s worth paying attention
to the funding source for that research. Is it a group with no particular stake in
the outcome (like the National Science Foundation), or is it a group with a more
personal interest in the issue? Mars Incorporated, for example, funds research on
the benefits of chocolate, and tobacco companies have funded research on the
health effects of smoking. If research is funded by an interested party, it makes
sense to examine that study carefully. Do its findings fit with those of other studies? Does the study seem to be fairly designed? Scientists strive to design fair
tests and assess the evidence without bias, but because scientists are human
too, biases sometimes sneak in and can take time to be corrected. For example,
several studies have found that research funded by pharmaceutical companies is
more likely to produce results favoring the company’s product than is research
with other funding sources.
© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org
18
Summing up the science toolkit
Here, we’ve seen that a little consideration can go a
long way towards assessing the scientific messages
that come your way everyday—whether it’s the hearthealthy logo on your cereal box or a news report of a
government decision on coastal conservation. You can
get to the science beneath the spin by applying what
you know about how science works: how scientific
ideas are evaluated and publicized, the inherent provisionality of scientific ideas, the nature of scientific
controversy, and how science is funded. Science itself
is simply a way of learning about the natural world,
but because that knowledge is powerful and affects
many aspects of our lives, identifying misinterpretations and misrepresentations of science is a key part
of a scientific outlook on life.
But that’s not all that a scientific view of the world
will buy you. Some aspects of the process of science
can be put to use in your everyday life. For example,
you can use scientific reasoning, evidence, and ideas
to solve everyday problems—like figuring out what’s
wrong with your car by testing one hypothesis about
the problem at a time, just as a scientist might set up
an experiment. More generally, a scientific view of the
world can help you retain and increase your curiosity
about and appreciation of the natural world. A view of
the Himalayas is certainly breathtaking, but it is even
more powerful when viewed with an understanding of
the natural processes that the mountain range represents—40 million years of colliding plates pushing up
peaks and exposing them to the slow work of erosion.
The night sky is pretty, but it is fascinating when one
understands the distance of the stars and the ancient
events that their light represents. And a hummingbird
is beautiful, but it is awe-inspiring when one considers
the lightning rate of the chemical reactions within its
cells that power its fast-beating heart. Science asks
the deepest of all questions about the natural world
around us: how did the universe get to be the way it
is today, and what will it be like tomorrow? This is an
incredible mystery—but one which science gives us
the tools to understand and appreciate.
A scientific view of the world has
many practical benefits and can also
help you to better appreciate the
natural world.
Fire weather map provided by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Weather Service; nutrition facts
image provided by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; medicine bottles provided by Courtesy Dewitt Stetten,
Jr., Museum of Medical Research, National Institutes of Health; hummingbird photo provided by Dr. Lloyd Glenn Ingles ©
California Academy of Sciences; Himalayas photo provided by NASA; star photos provided by NASA/ ESA/Antonella Nota
(STScI/ESA).
© 2013 The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California • www.understandingscience.org