THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND GEOLOGY
A. DEFINITIONS
1. SCIENCE
Science is any methodological activity, discipline, or study.
Therefore, science is NOT
a
certain body of information, but a
method of
learning or a process for discovering truth.
2. NATURAL SCIENCE
Definition: any activity designed to further our
understanding of
why
things happen the way they do in the natural world.
Auxiliary
Assumption:
scientists assume that the natural world
behaves in a consistent and
predictable manner, according to
certain physical laws (as
opposed to behaving randomly). This
implies
that "cause and effect" relationships exist in
nature.
Although scientists generally rely upon certain
principles (such
as
logic) in
conducting their work, there is no single, universally
accepted "scientific method". Nonetheless, most every scientist
would
agree that science includes at least three basic elements:
(1)
collecting facts, or "data", (2) formulating a
"hypothesis" to
explain those facts, and
(3) testing the hypothesis. These three
elements are
explained in more detail below.
1. COLLECTING FACTS ("DATA")
a. Observations
Making observations is the most basic way to collect facts,
and in its most basic form, requires no special training or
equipment.
Example: it doesn't take a scientist to notice Devil's Tower!
b. Measurements
Making measurements usually requires measuring devices,
and often the use of those devices requires special training.
Example: not everyone knows how to
monitor a volcano!
2. PROPOSING EXPLANATIONS
The next step is to formulate a
hypothesis to explains the facts.
A
hypothesis, by definition, is neither right nor wrong, it's simply
an
untested explanation. However, good science avoids basing
a
hypothesis on "anecdotal
evidence", attempts to evaluate all of
the information that is
available, and even uses common sense.
3. HYPOTHESIS TESTING
Once a hypothesis has been tested it can be rejected, modified,
or accepted.
A hypothesis that survives the scrutiny of proper
testing is then known as a
theory or a model (not a proven
fact).
C. TESTING HYPOTHESES
There are various ways to test a hypothesis. Three of the common
approaches are used in geology are:
Controlled experiments (usually carried out in
laboratories) are
properly designed to test a certain hypothesis, and they can be
repeated.
Unfortunately, many hypotheses in geology cannot
be
directly tested in a controlled experiment (e.g., the origin of
Devil's
Tower cannot be discovered by using this approach).
Note that some people distinguish between "hard" and "soft"
science
on this basis: "hard" science relies on controlled and
repeatable experiments to support its hypotheses and theories,
whereas
"soft" science does not.
2. PREDICTIONS
A hypothesis or model can also be tested by making
predictions
based
on that hypothesis. If a prediction comes true, then there
is reasonable evidence for accepting the hypothesis. Of course,
not
every hypothesis can be tested in this way (e.g., the origin of
Devil's Tower cannot be discovered by using this approach).
When it is impossible to collect direct evidence
(e.g., through a
controlled experiment), geologists must rely on
"circumstantial"
evidence to
test hypotheses (as
would a detective).
However, circumstantial evidence is subject to interpretation, so
the
conclusions drawn using this approach are less certain.
Any hypothesis (including a scientific one) could be right or wrong,
but for a hypothesis to considered
scientific, it must satisfy certain
criteria. To illustrate, we
shall consider two possible explanations
for the origin of
Devil's Tower: it was created by the devil, or it was
created as described by a Native
American Indian
legend (picture).
The unscientific aspects to these hypotheses include:
A hypotheses is unscientific if it ignores any contradictory
data.
In the
case of Devil's Tower, there are facts that
contradict the
Indian
legend (e.g., the fact that the tower breaks
into columns
shows that the cracks
were not formed
by a bear's claws).
Explanations that cannot be tested are not considered scientific.
For
example, the hypothesis that the devil created Devil's Tower
cannot
be tested and therefore falls outside the realm of science.
3. BAD AUXILIARY ASSUMPTIONS
Using a bad auxiliary assumption to develop a hypothesis is not
considered scientific. The Indian legend for the origin of Devil's
Tower
presumes the existence of a large bear that could make
the
observed "scratches" in rock: a bad auxiliary assumption
(and
some might argue that the presumed existence of the devil
is also
a bad auxiliary assumption).
4. USING INVALID ANALOGIES
An invalid analogy assumes similarities where none exist. In
the
Devil's
Tower example, the Indian legend is uses a bad analogy
in
assuming that the
"scratches"
are similar to claw
marks left by
bears
in trees, because solid rock behaves quite differently than
wood,
even if the bear claws are presumed to be large.
5. OVERLY COMPLICATED EXPLANATIONS
The principle of "Occum's
Razor" states that hypotheses should
be as
simple as they can be to explain the observations. In this
regard,
the Indian legend is a bit more complicated than it needs
to be,
and the acceptance of that hypothesis to explain the origin
Devil's
Tower would justify unrelated hypotheses (e.g., the origin
of
certain stars).
In addition to the above, remember that scientific hypotheses avoid
the use of anecdotal evidence
and illogical arguments.
