USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
We have, in this first lesson, introduced a widely accepted definition of Science. We will explore now the scientific validity of some social and medical practices such as: Astrology, Psychoanalysis, Numerology and Hypnosis
All of them uses some scientific knowledge about the natural world, as well as scientific sounding tools, like star charts, calculations, papers, etc. Some people use astrology and numerology to generate expectations about future events and people’s personalities, others use psychoanalysis and hypnosis to treat mental-health disorders.
Some claim that these practices are supported by evidence — the experiences of people who feel that astrology, hypnosis, etc.. have worked for them. But, are they really scientific ways to answer questions?
Post your answer following these guidelines:
1- Pick ONE of the practices: Astrology, Psychoanalysis, Numerology or Hypnosis
2- Use the Science Checklist to guide your post: Does Astrology (or the one you picked) focus on the natural world?, Does it aim to explain the natural world?, etc..
3- Based on the definition you shared in
Assignment 1.1c,
is the practice you picked a branch of science?
IGHTED MATERIAL — DO NOT DUPLICATE, DISTRIBUTE, OR POST
8 Introduction to Scientific Thought
authority. Science rejects authority. However, there
is some overlap between the two. It is undeniable
that both science and religion offer explanations of
origins and the nature of human beings, which may
or may not contradict. We will consider more than
one perspective on how to think about the areas where
they intersect.
Then there is the related question of ethics.
Knowledge of the laws of nature gained by science
is neither good nor evil. It is neither ethical nor un-
ethical, but no one can deny that scientifically derived
technologies raise major ethical questions. Science al-
lows us to cure diseases, but it also gives us the ability
to destroy all life on the planet. Some hail genetically
modified crops as the solution to world hunger, while
others see them as an environmental disaster waiting to
happen. Maybe both are right. We will be considering
what form the relationship between science, scientists,
and society should take in view of the ethical issues
raised by scientific discovery. We will also be taking a
careful look at how the scientific community oversees
ethics within its own ranks. Academic honesty is the
hallmark of scientific inquiry. Without it, science is
crippled by plagiarism, falsified data, or unwarranted,
biased interpretation. How does science police its own
honesty issues, and when might ethical violations of
scientific integrity impact nonscientists?
Nonscience, Nonsense, and Pseudoscience
A major goal of this course is to train the student in
skepticism. One thing we can say for sure is that there
are a lot of urban legends, traditional beliefs, and
outright fraud pushed on us as if they were scientific,
when they are not. How is the nonscientist to wade
through the myriad of voices and claims? What is the
demarcation between science and pseudoscience?
In short, pseudoscience is any claim about the physi-
cal world which is not supported by well-documented,
reproducible scientific evidence. By this definition, re-
ligious, philosophical, artistic―or any of a variety of
other claims are not pseudoscience. Our goal here
is not to impugn the motivations of pseudoscientists.
If the one offering unscientific “alternative” medical
therapies is intent on committing fraud, if they are
sincerely misled, or even if they are actually correct
in their belief, but simply are putting forward a belief
which is not yet supported by scientific evidence, this
is not our concern here (although these are important
questions!). The fact is that just because something is
not yet “scientific” does not mean that it is untrue. In
fact, we will consider some borderline cases such as
continental drift, which appeared at one time to be
pseudoscience but is now a major scientific paradigm.
However, if we are being asked to believe that magnetic
therapy is scientific when it is not, that is something
we should be aware of. Some pseudoscience is fairly
benign, but some is outright dangerous, as desperate
people seek hope from unproved therapies. If nothing
else, we may save ourselves a bundle of wasted money.
Tens of billions of dollars are spent annually by believ-
ers in pseudoscientific claims. Our job is to shed some
light on these claims.
Fortunately for us, to the trained eye, pseudosci-
ence is generally easy to spot. A leopard cannot change
his spots
and pseudoscientific claims are almost with-
out exception identifiable by traits we will call “marks
of pseudoscience.” The key is to learn the tricks of the
trade. If it walks like a duck, it may or may not be
duck. However, if it walks like a duck, looks like a
duck, smells like a duck, quacks like a duck and has
the genetic material common to ducks, one can be
assured it is a duck. This analogy will serve us quite
well as we try to ferret truth from lie and real science
from false scientific claims.
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL – DO NOT DUPLICATE, DISTRIBUTE, OR POST
11POST
of
ge
ic
2-
y
!!!
133!
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL – DO NOT DUPLICATE, DISTRIBUTE, OR POST
be explained by a number of hypotheses. There is
no “correct” hypothesis. The means of choosing a
scientific hypothesis is not necessarily rational. As
Thomas Kuhn discovered, the acceptable range of
hypotheses is determined, not by logic or common
sense, but by one’s working model. Kuhn called the
working assumption in a particular area of science
a paradigm. We will give considerable attention to
Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions and para-
digms. The currently accepted scientific hypothesis
is generally the one which explains the broadest
range of observations and which has not yet been
falsified. A “good” theory is one that is consistent
with evidence, not one that is “true.” Science is
not about truth in the philosophical sense. We will
see Karl Popper pointed out to scientists that the
demarcation between science and nonscience is not
consistency with observation and experiment, but
falsifiability. An explanation which is, in principle,
falsifiable by experiment but which thus far has
not been falsified, is considered a successful theory.
Dalton’s atomic theory, which was the foundational
theory on which chemistry was built, turned out to
be false on two of its three principal claims.
In this course, we will consider a number of
other questions about the nature of science. What
are induction and deduction and their relationship
to scientific inquiry? Is induction a reliable approach
to discovering truth about nature? If no scien-
tific statement is “true,” then why is it that scientific
methodology and thinking have been so fantastically
successful at creating new technologies?
So what is science? It is not a search for truth.
“Truth” will always be an elusive concept for science.
Science is an unending story of the search for ever
more successful and consistent explanations of pat-
terns observed in nature. It is the quest for deeper
cause-and-effect relationships in the physical world.
It is a balanced use of inductive and deductive ap-
proaches to discover explanations of the underlying
laws of the universe.
Introduction to Scientific Thought | 7
Ethics, Religion, and Science
If the scientific mindset is based on certain presup-
positions, then it amounts to a worldview. Yet science
is not done in a vacuum. In the real world, scientific
thought must interact with other worldviews and phi-
losophies. Many scientists accept the fundamental
presupposition of science, but also hold to one of the
major religious worldviews. Other scientists hold to a
philosophical naturalism, denying the reality of any
proposition other than that which is observable using
the scientific method. Galileo said “For the Holy Bible
and the phenomena of nature proceed alike from the
divine Word, the former as the dictate of the Holy
Spirit and the latter as the observant executor of God’s
commands.” Einstein declared that “Science without
religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” On
the other end of the spectrum, we have from Richard
Dawkins, “In the universe of blind physical forces
and genetic replication, some people are going to get
hurt and other people are going to get lucky: and you
won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties
we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design,
no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind,
pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares.
DNA just is, and we dance to its music.” Or there
is this from Richard Lewontin: “We exist as material
beings in a material world, all of whose phenomena
are the consequences of material relations among
material entities. In a word, the public needs to accept
materialism, which means that they must put God in
the trash can of history where such myths belong.”
It is not the purpose of this course to settle the
question of what is the correct relationship between
science and religion, but to challenge the student to
think about what is the “territory” of the two. We will
see that, as a rule, they are incommensurate-that they
are radically different worldviews, with completely
divergent vocabulary and methodologies. Science is
quantitative, religion is qualitative. Religion offers
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL – DO NOT DUPLICATE, DISTRIBUTE, OR POSTCOPYRIGHTED MATERIAL – DO NOT DUPLICATE, DISTRIBUTE, OR POST
–
6 | Introduction to Scientific Thought
philosophizing seems to be, first to inquire diligently
into the properties of things, and to establish those
properties by experiences and then to proceed more
slowly to hypothesis for the explanation of them.
For the hypothesis should be employed only in
explaining the properties of things, but should not
be assumed in determining them.”
The Scientific Method
The great victory of the Scientific Revolution was
the development of the scientific method. You will
spend a lot of time in this course learning about
scientific methodology. So what, exactly, is the
scientific method? Classically, it can be described as
follows:
1. Observation. A scientist discovers a pattern: an
apparent cause-and-effect relationship between
variables.
2. Hypothesis. A hypothesis is a tentative
explanation of the pattern discovered by
observation. The hypothesis is a statement about
a cause-and-effect relationship between an
independent and a dependent variable.
3. Experiment. An experiment is a carefully
controlled measurement of the relationship
between the independent and dependent
variable. The purpose of the experiment is to test
the validity of the hypothesis.
4. Verification. The scientist(s) asks whether the
data from the experiment supports
hypothesis, and whether it does so to the
the
exclusion of other possible explanations.
5. Predicted consequences. The investigator seeks
to broaden the implications of the initial
experiment and hypothesis. If this is true, what
else may also be true?
6. Further experimentation and verification.
With sufficient verification, if the concept of
the hypothesis applies to a sufficiently broad range
of phenomena, it can reach the status of a scientific
theory. Contrary to common assumption, the prin-
cipal distinction between a hypothesis and a theory
is not the amount of experimental verification, but
how broad a range of phenomena are explained.
Having described the classic scientific “method,”
it bears mentioning that there really is no scientific
“method,” if by such a “method” one means a set
of steps which, if followed, will result in scientific
discovery. Scientists make their discoveries through
means not found in the traditionally described scien-
tific method. Trial and error, serendipity, a search for
beauty, intuition-and even sheer guessing-have
led to important discoveries in science. Add to this
the fact that no matter how many experiments one
does, no hypothesis can be fully verified by experi-
ment. In principle, inductive proof is unobtainable.
If we hypothesize that all swans are white, no matter
how many
white swans we observe, we cannot prove
that all swans are white. Perhaps there is a recessive
grey swans which is so rare in the popula-
for
gene
tion of swans that it is not expressed. Therefore, even
if literally all swans were white, it would not “prove”
by experiment that all swans are white.
In mathematical terms, because no measure-
ment is infinitely precise, no scientific conclusion
drawn from that measurement can be assumed to be
“true.” Isaac Newton’s theory of gravity was true to
one part in a million, and was in agreement with
all known observations for over 200 years, yet it
could not explain the precession of Mercury, and it
was eventually replaced by Einstein’s general theory
of relativity. Is Einstein’s theory “true?” Well, it is
consistent with all the evidence related to gravity so
far, but who knows if it will hold up to more precise
33333333
measurements.
It is also worth noting that there is no logical
connection between observation and hypothesis.
Any single observation or set of observations may
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL DO NOT DUPLICATE, DISTRIBUTE, OR POST
11
BANSR POST
edge
ernal
e by
ents
the
the
and
ose
of
b-
ise
ts
n,
al
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL – DO NOT DUPLICATE, DISTRIBUTE, OR POST
laws of planetary motion. Kepler, like Copernicus,
had one foot in the modern scientific world and one
in the medieval. According to Kepler, angels moved
the planets in their precise elliptical. He made a liv-
ing as an astrologer. With Kepler, the natural and the
supernatural worlds were still blended.
Most historians of science will agree that the
chief figure in the Scientific Revolution was Galileo.
More than anyone else, he made science an endeavor
performed in a laboratory, under carefully controlled
conditions, using instruments specifically designed to
do experiments. Galileo fought the battles with the
religious establishment from which Copernicus re-
frained. He said in his letter to the Duchess Christina
(1614) “The Bible was written to tell us how to go to
heaven, not how the heavens go.” He argued that the
scientist should pursue the scientific evidence wher-
ever it takes us. We should let nature speak for herself.
The philosophical debate during the Scientific
Revolution was between the rationalists, represented
by René Descartes (Discourse on Method) and the
empiricists, represented by Francis Bacon (Novum
Organum). How do we know? Is truth established by
human reason, as Descartes argued (“I think, therefore
I am”), or are observation and experience the arbiter
of what is true, as Bacon argued. Descartes observed
“The need to experiment is an expression of the failure
of the ideal.” If we read the writings of Galileo, Boyle,
and Newton, Bacon won the argument, at least for
a time. Experimentation was king during the 17th
century. Theoreticians had to tread lightly. In the 21st
century, the ideas of DesCartes and the preeminence
of theory are making a comeback. Bacon was a vision-
ary and a humanist. His vision was of human society
transformed by technologies developed by scientists.
He said that “Knowledge ought to bear fruit in work,
that science ought to be applicable to industry, that
men ought to organize themselves as a sacred duty to
improve and transform the conditions of life.” One
thing we can say without fear of argument: Bacon’s
vision for applied science has proved true, although
Introduction to Scientific Thought | 5
the improvements brought by science have not come
without a dark side.
The revolution started by Copernicus, Kepler, and
Galileo was completed by Robert Boyle and Isaac
Newton. Boyle helped to found the Royal Society,
which became the leading forum for the presentation
and evaluation of scientific ideas in the 17th through
19th centuries. In his Sceptical Chymist (1661), Boyle
attacked the purely rationalist approach of Aristotle.
He said that hypotheses are “the best we have, but ca-
pable of improvement.” Here Boyle established what
was not assumed before his time. It is fundamental to
how scientists view their work today. All scientific con-
clusions are tentative. We do not discover “Truth.” No
scientific discovery is “true” in the metaphysical sense.
The best we can hope for is to create explanations that
are consistent with experimental evidence. Science is
progressive. It changes over time. According to Boyle,
it will always improve. Another of Boyle’s statement
demonstrates how those responsible for the Scientific
Revolution broke with Greek rationalism. “We assent
to experience, even when it seems contrary to reason.”
This is a classic statement of empiricism.
Perhaps it is a bit arbitrary, but it is convenient to
think of Isaac Newton as completing the Scientific
Revolution. His Principia (1689) was the greatest
work of the Scientific Revolution and perhaps
the greatest in the history of science. In this great
work, Newton described his discovery of calculus
and his three laws of motion. Most important was
his discovery of the universal law of gravity. When
Newton derived Kepler’s laws of planetary motion,
the Scientific Revolution had its greatest victory. It
is hard to exaggerate the importance of Newton’s
proposal that the laws of nature apply, not just to
the earth, but to the entire universe. His “ah ha!”
moment was not when he realized apples fall to the
earth, but when he realized the reason the apple
falls to the earth is also the reason the moon goes
around the earth. Newton described his scientific
method as follows: “The best and safest method of
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL – DO NOT DUPLICATE, DISTRIBUTE, OR POSTCOPYRIGHTED MATERIAL – DO NOT DUPLICATE, DISTRIBUTE, OR POST
4 | Introduction to Scientific Thought
it cannot be proved to be true. The assumptions of
science also cannot be used to establish one way or
another whether there is a higher reality. One can be
an atheist, an agnostic, or one can hold to a religious
worldview and still be a scientist. Are the working
assumptions of science, as described above “True,”
with a capital T? The honest scientist will admit that
they do not know if these assumptions are true in the
absolute sense. Such an experiment cannot be done.
What we can say is that from our experience, the
fundamental assumptions of science are true for all
practical purposes. When we attempt to describe the
physical world using these assumptions, they work.
In fact, they work spectacularly well. Whatever one
thinks about the materialist assumption as a meta-
physical position, we can all agree that the scientific
worldview has had a powerful effect on the course
of human history since it was accepted as a working
model several hundred years ago.
So, where and when did this set of assumptions
originate? The Greeks came close. Thales predicted a
solar eclipse, showing in at least one important way
that nature can be predicted using observation and
mathematics. Pythagoras described the world using
abstract mathematics. Aristotle viewed the physical
world as having purpose (teleos). Yet the Greeks did
not invent science. They had faith in deductive logic
and reason, but failed to see the necessity of inductive
processes, and were philosophically disposed not to
do experiments. We will see that human reason alone,
apart from experiment and induction, is singularly
poor at discovering the underlying laws of nature.
The historical root of modern science is found in
western Europe. It began with natural philosophers
such as Roger Bacon (1214-1292). Arguably, Bacon
was the first modern philosopher of science. He ap-
plied Christian theology to think about the natural
world. His God was Creator: eternal, unchanging,
and knowable. He concluded that the universe should
be governed by unchanging, universal, ordered laws,
which are knowable by human beings. In his great
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL-DO NOT DUPLICATE, DISTRIBUTE, OR POST
treatise, Opus Maius, he proposed that knowledge
of the natural world can be gained through “external
experience, aided by instruments, made precise by
mathematics.” Here we see the first three elements
of the traditional scientific “method,” albeit in the
“wrong” order. He proposed we should study the
world through observation, experimentation, and
forming mathematical hypotheses to describe those
observations, confirmed by the experiments. Two of
his three proposals were brand new. The Greeks ob-
served, but they did not form mathematically precise
hypotheses, and definitely did not design instruments
to do experiments to test those theories. After Bacon,
natural philosophy was to become an experimental
endeavor.
The Scientific Revolution
Philosophers such as Bacon and William of Ockham
laid the groundwork in the 13th and 14th centuries
for what we now know as the Scientific Revolution,
which occurred in the 16th and 17th centuries.
The greatest figures in this revolution are Nikolai
Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Robert
Boyle, and Isaac Newton. We will spend consider-
able time in this course looking at their stories.
Copernicus was perhaps the first modern “scientist,”
in that he made observations of the heavens and
devised hypotheses designed to fit his data. He said
“True assumptions must save the appearances.” In
other words, a hypothesis should only be proposed
and accepted if it is in agreement with data. Reason
alone cannot be trusted. His book On the Revolution
of Celestial Orbs (1543) started a true revolution. His
heliocentric (sun-centered) theory changed our view
that we are at the center of the universe.
This revolution gained momentum almost a cen-
tury after the career of Copernicus. Johannes Kepler
applied mathematics to the precise astronomic obser-
vations of his mentor Tycho Brahe to create his three
C
C
