An Introduction to the Methodology of Science and it's importance

Science -

Science is the common sense which holds the world together. The system which separates fact from fiction. The ultimate unbiased search for the truth. Science is the logical attempt to explain all that is our universe. The open minded skepticism and humility that feeds out ever-growing appetite for knowledge. Thanks to our ancient Greek ancestors, we took our first step out of the dark cave of superstition and fear, ignorance, deception and close mindedness. When the Ancient Greeks were overthrown, the world lost what it had gained form them, and was plunged into the middle ages, where witches were the causes of illnesses, cats were embodiments of evil, and people lived in fear and desperation.

The History of Science -

The basis of today's scientific method was developed by the ancient Greeks. Incredible unique thinkers, like Ptolomes, who attempted to measured the diameter of the earth, Aristotle, Socrates, Pythagorious. This new way of thinking revolutionized their view of the world. No longer would things forever remain unsolved, mysterious, or attributions of supernatural entities, but by carefully watching, and keeping track of, and analyzing, and looking at relationships, in things, materials, everywhere, suddenly patterns begin to emerge. Patterns which could predict the outcome of further observations, and even the manipulations of observations, the experiment. In the reign of ******, A great library was constructed in ancient Greece, this library held all of the known documentation, when ships entered in their busy ports, they would be searched, for scrolls, writings, anything, they would then be painstakingly hand copied, the originals returned to their owners, and the copies placed in the library. This library, the first library, was immense, as was it's undertaking. I can imagine myself in the this ancient Greek library, huge beautiful columns, walls and walls of scrolls, as far as one could see. This was the epitome of the ancient Greeks never ending search for knowledge, their quest for understanding. It, for all intents and purposes, contained the knowledge of the world. The library was eventually destroyed, those inumerous scrolls lost for ever. It was not until 1500 hundred years later did science really resurface again, in the strict methodology of ******, with the same goal as the ancient Greeks, the search for knowledge, and truths.

Science became what it is today, a method.

The Importance of the Scientific Methodology -

Science is a methodology. It is an established set of rules, established in the hopes of defining the best possible method for solving a problem. A problem, as science holds, must be approached logically, it must be approached without any preconceived notions, without any bias, and without arrogance. One must be ready and willing to disregard any previously held ideals, as soon as evidence surfaces that suggests something contrary to those beliefs, they must be disregarded immediately. It is the best method yet known for problem solving of any kind, when one wishes to find the "truth". The scientific methodology has many components, all of which must be followed strictly to attain a true scientific result. Any notion in science, in theory, or "Law" can be tested by anyone who feels the urge to do so. There is no faith in science. Faith is defined as belief without evidence, or proof, and this is contrary to the very heart of the scientific methodology. In science, one must be willing to accept something that goes against there beliefs, and in some cases even common sense. But in accepting these concepts, one must remain skeptical. Naive acceptance is not scientific, but neither is adament close minded denial. When presented with a claim, a scientist should ask for sources, for evidence, and for other examples of the same experiment of phenomenon being repeated by independent individuals. This independent confirmation is as vitally important to science as evidence itself is. Why is it so important? If one were to readily accept any and all claims without replication, then false information could easily make it's way into the scientific community, endangering the advancement of society overall. Another key element of science is observation. Without it, no theories could be produced, nor verified. Also repeatability, an experiment must be repeatable at will for it's results to be accepted. Absolutely imperative to the scientific methodology is what is know as "Occam's Razor", so important, that it deserves a section all it's own.

Occam's Razor -

Occam's razor is a fundamental principle in science, and one of the main components that separates it from religion. The philosopher William of Occam (1300-1349) stated "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" which translates to "Entities should not be multiplied more than necessary". It basically tells us that if there are multiple explanations for a given observation, the the simplest is accepted as the correct one. Carl Sagan talks about this principle to great lengths in his book "The Demon Haunted World, Science as a candle in the Dark". He tells us hypothetically of a neighbors claim that a dragon is living in his (the neighbor's) garage. Excited, we proceed to check out the claim, we open the garage door, and low and behold, there is nothing there. "Where is the dragon?" we ask. "Oh," the neighbor responds "it is an invisible dragon" Carl Sagan goes onto to describe our attempts to "detect" the existence of the dragon.We pour paint on the floor to track the dragons foot prints. The response is that it is a flying dragon. We take an infrared camera to view it flames, but it is not a fire breathing dragon. There comes a point where we must assume that the dragon is not there. This is what Occam's razor does for us. We assume the simplest explanation to be the correct one. So is there a dragon living in everyone's garage, as your neighbor would have you believe? Or is it that your neighbor is either lying, or seeing things.

Now the actual principle as defined by William of Occam refers to a specific number of steps in a statement, e.g. "Some claim that God caused himself to exist and also caused the universe to exist - he was the "first cause" - Occam's Razor suggests that if one accepts the possibility of something causing itself then it is better to assume that it was the universe that caused itself rather than God because this explanation involves fewer entities." The negation of Occam's Razor would suggest that an arbitrarily complex explanation is just as good as the simplest one. "God and his cat created a robot called Sparky who built the universe from parts bought from a shop in another dimension. "

This principle is applied throughout all of science, and it is the reason why many scientist assume that a god does not exist. The principle is a universal one in science, and must always be adhered to by scientists.

Definitions -

"a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities"

"the principle in philosophy and science that assumptions introduced to explain a thing must not be multiplied beyond necessity, and hence the simplest of several hypotheses is always the best in accounting for unexplained facts."

Some other examples of Occam's Razor in action -

I was reading once in some tabloid magazine about a woman who lifted a car off of a stuck child, the police officer who responded claimed something along the lines of "it's a miracle" or implied that god's hand came down and lifted the car off of the person, or whatever. It is well known that under extreme circumstances of stress, a persons adrenal glands start producing a massive amount of adrenaline, and that person is endowed with, apparently, "superhuman" strength. However, this can not take place often for is it very damaging to the muscle. Occam's razor applies to the claim of the police officer that it was a "miracle". What is truly a "miracle", did god's hand come down and lift the car from the child?, or is there a much simpler explanation. There was nothing miraculous about it, it was a simple hormonal response to a high stress situation, probably stemming from the woman's own instincts to protect offspring.

Watching a news broad cast one evening around Christmas, I heard a story of a some manger articles that were stolen only a few days before Christmas. The community was shocked. The day before Christmas, the figurines were found. "It's a miracle!" Someone proclaimed. Was this a miracle? Probably some guy out walking his dog looked over and saw these figures I thought to myself. Sure enough, this guy comes on TV "I uh was uh just out walking my Dog, and I looked over, and there they were" Some Miracle. Again, did God himself (or herself) cause the Dog to have to go to the bathroom, so the guy would take it for a walk, and ultimately come across the figurines. Or did this guy take walks everyday about this time..

more to come -

The Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence -

Another important ideal in science is that if no proof exists of a claim, it does not prove that the claim is invalid. Or, as stated above, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This may seem, at least initially, to contradict the principle of Occam's razor. If we could not detect the dragon in the garage, did we not prove that it is not there? No we didn't, Occam's razor is not a proof. we merely assumed that the dragon was not in the garage. You can not prove something does not exist. This applies to tangible objects, such as our dragon. This is a fundamental idea that is often forgotten. You will hear many times from people, even from some scientists, variations on this. "No One has ever seen God, so he does not exist" But it really applies all the time, to everyday life. You hear a lot about UFO's and Alien abductions, and some people will say that "No one has ever seen a UFO, at least, no one reputable, so they must not exist" But, lack of evidence, is not proof that these tangible objects do not exist, whatsoever. So lack of evidence can not be cited as proof of non-existence. Here is an excerpt from a discussion I had with my long time friend.

Me - "Not true, it is not impossible to prove something does not exist..."

John - "This is true, it is possible to prove the existence of things, but you can not prove that something does not exist, it may exist, but we may be unable to detect it. You misinterpreted me, say for example I want to prove that there is a correlation between Economic students and schizophrenia (sp?) well first I have to collect statistical data, and in this hypothetical I find no correlation, so then, a correlation does not ---->EXIST<----- between Economic students and schizophrenia...whatever. "

Me - "Right, exactly, A correlation does not exist that you can ---->detect<-----, does that mean that there IS a correlation, no, like I was just saying, since it is not detectable, you ---->assume<---- that no correlation exists, This is another example where Occam's razor would apply, is it that there is a correlation that exists, but you can not detect, or is it that there is no correlation. Well, To function in everyday life, you assume that there is no correlation You can not prove something does not exist. "

John -" OK, then by this logic you have to say that when you do prove something EXISTS, then you must say you DETECT it's existence, you assume it exists, the same way you don't DETECT an existence, it should work both ways shouldn't it? "

It does work both ways, as John pointed out, everything that science is based on, are assumptions. When it comes right down to it. But there is a point where you have to disregard the assumption. This is evident in court cases. When someone is proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they committed some particular crime. No one actually knows if the person committed the crime, except the person and the victim. But when all of the evidence presented suggests that the person was there, at that time, and committed that crime, then the logical assumption is made that the accused committed the crime. Of course, maybe he did not, maybe someone created a clone of him, and the clone committed that crime. Or maybe an Alien came down and disguised himself as that Individual, but there is absolutely no evidence suggesting either of those possibilities. So it is proven that the individual committed the crime. In reality, it is the simplest explanation that he committed the crime, and it is therefore assumed that he did. This is the basis for proof in the American Legal system. and it is good enough for science. In all actuality, everything that a scientists says is really preceded by an "we assume that" or "to the best of our knowledge".

Belief has no impact on reality -

Another important principle is that belief does not have any effect on reality. You might hear people ask sometimes, "Do you believe in God?" Well, whether a person believes in God or not has no bearing on whether or not God actually exists. An atheist may absolutely believe, without a doubt, that God does not exist. But, that God may actually exist, regardless of the belief of the atheist. The opposite is true, a theist may absolutely believe, without a doubt, that God exists, but, since that has no impact on whether or not that God actually exists, that God may very well not exist. I do not believe that China exists. I have never seen it, have you? Sure, I have seen pictures, but it could be just a clever hoax. Well, regardless of whether or not I believe China exists, it either does, or it does not (Let's not get into Quantum Mechanics) and there will be 1 Billion people who are pretty sure it does exist.

A friend once said to me, in regards to evolution "I just can't believe that we came from monkeys!" Without getting into the Evolution vs. Creation debate, I simply responded, "Well, you're belief has no impact on reality" Regardless of the nature of the debate, this simple fact must be understood, no matter how whole heatedly my friend believes that we did not come from monkeys, the probability that we did or did not "evolve" remains exactly the same.

<--Back Next-->

Related Topics and Articles- [Logical and Skeptical Thought]

Related Links - Related Books -

[Methodology] - [Psuedoscience] - [Fight Ignorance] - [Alternative Medicine] - [Alternative Science] - [Stop Aging] - [Creation "Science"] - [Physics] - [Materials Science] - [Nutrition, Fitness, and Health]

-->Under Construction<--
Last Updated [6/19/98 ]
These files are in the majority text only because Geocities is slow enough as it is, a graphics version is soon to come on a new server...