MWD On the Nature of Scientific Inquiry

This article is an Outline on The Nature of Scientific Inquiry. It does not delve into the details of science and utilizes no mathematics, but instead presents the basic concepts of scientific inquiry. This paper was written to provide the general public with the background of science so that when they encounter scientific issues, or public policy issues that utilize science, they will have a basis for interpreting the scientific information.

I should point out that I am NOT a scientist or engineer, nor have I received any education or training in science or engineering. This paper is the result of my readings on this subject in the past decades. Many academics, scientists, and engineers would critique what I have written here as not accurate nor through. I freely acknowledge that these critiques are correct. It was not my intentions to be accurate or through, as I am not qualified to give an accurate nor through description. My intention was to be understandable to a lay-person so that they can grasp the concepts. Academics, scientists and engineers’ entire education and training is based on accuracy and thoroughness, and as such, they strive for this accuracy and thoroughness. When writing for the general public this accuracy and thoroughness can often lead to less understandability. I believe it is essential for all lay-persons to grasp the concepts of within this paper, so they make more informed decisions on those areas of human endeavors that deal with this subject. As such, I did not strive for accuracy and thoroughness, only understandability.

Science Branches and Empiricism

The Branches of Science

Scientific Branches, also referred to as sciences, scientific fields, or scientific disciplines, are commonly divided into three major groups:

Formal sciences: the study of formal systems, such as those under the branches of logic, mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science which use an a priori (based on hypothesis or theory rather than experiment) as opposed to empirical (derived from experiment and observation rather than theory) methodology.

Natural sciences: the study of natural phenomena (including cosmological, geological, physical, chemical, and biological factors of the universe). Natural science can be divided into two main branches: physical science and life science (or biology). Natural science is an empirical science in which experiment and observation are paramount.

Social sciences: the study of human behavior in its social and cultural aspects that are generally regarded as including sociology, psychology, anthropology, economics, political science, and history. Social science is a less empirical science as experimentation is often not possible.

Scientific knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and must be capable of being verified by other researchers working under the same conditions. This verifiability may well vary even within a scientific discipline.

Natural, social, and formal science make up the fundamental sciences, which form the basis of interdisciplinarity - and applied sciences such as engineering and medicine. Specialized scientific disciplines that exist in multiple categories may include parts of other scientific disciplines but often possess their own terminologies and expertise.

Relationships between the Branches

The relationships between the branches of science are summarized in the following table:

Empiricism

Hard Science and Soft Science are colloquial terms used to compare scientific fields on the basis of perceived methodological rigor, exactitude, and objectivity. In general, the formal sciences and natural sciences are considered hard sciences, whereas the social sciences and other sciences are described as soft science. This is a difference in Empirical research methods between the hard and soft sciences.

Empirical research is a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience. Empiricism values some research more than other kinds. Empirical evidence (the record of one's direct observations or experiences) can be analyzed quantitatively or qualitatively. Quantifying the evidence or making sense of it in qualitative form, a researcher can answer empirical questions, which should be clearly defined and answerable with the evidence collected (usually called data). Research design varies by field and by the question being investigated. Many researchers combine qualitative and quantitative forms of analysis to better answer questions that cannot be studied in laboratory settings, particularly in the social sciences and in education.

Empirical research is conducted in an iterate empirical cycle until a hypothesis can be validated:

In the Hard Sciences, the Empiricism is rigorous, while in the Soft Sciences, the Empiricism is less rigorous. This is because the Soft Sciences are not conducive to experimentation but are based on observations that can be objective or subjective (and often a mixture of the two) based on the scientist's presumptions and assumptions that are subject to cognitive bias. The Soft Sciences often utilize statistical methods that have inherent problems, which I discuss in my article “Oh What a Tangled Web We Weave”. Good scientists will attempt to overcome their cognitive bias and ensure their statistical methods are meticulous, but mistakes occur, and disputations are common.

The rest of this webpage is an outline of the Scientific Method of the Hard Sciences, but many elements are applicable to the Soft Sciences.

The Scientific Method

Background on the Scientific Method

Science is a systematic and logical approach to discovering how things in the universe work. It is also the body of knowledge accumulated through the discoveries about all the objects in the universe.

The word "science" is derived from the Latin word scientia, which is knowledge based on demonstrable and reproducible data, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. True to this definition, science aims for definitive results through testing, measurement, and analysis. Science is based on fact, not opinion or preferences. The process of science is designed to challenge ideas through research. One important aspect of the scientific process is that it is focused only on the natural world. Anything that is considered supernatural does not fit into the definition of science.

The Ages of Science

Science in human history can be broken down into three ages; Mythological, Aristotelian, and Galilean. Each age represents a different way to explain how and why the universe works the way it does.

Before any formalization of science, people explained the ways of the universe through stories we refer to as myths. Their explanations were usually in the form of the Gods being displeased and causing bad things to happen, the Gods being please and causing good things to happen, or the Gods being indifferent and normal things happened. Although minor science was done (the Egyptians and the Babylonians come to mind) there was no systematic approach to determine why and how the universe worked.

The Ancient Greeks were the first people to develop a systematic approach to the question as to why and how the universe worked. They utilized a philosophical approach as they thought about the question and developed logical reasoning to derive an answer. So, if their answer made logical sense it must be correct. They had no inclination to challenge their answer through observation or experimentation. The pinnacle of this approach was with the Philosopher Aristotle (for whom the age is named). Although some Ancient Greek philosophers did minor observations and experiments this was not the acceptable means of proving your answers according to the Ancient Greeks.

Galileo Galilei was the first truly modern scientist, as he approached science by observing nature, performing experiments, developing a hypothesis utilizing mathematics, and testing his hypothesis to determine if it was correct. He was so good at this, and so correct, that other scientists adopted his methods as the way to do science. So much so that scientist who utilized these methods were known as “Natural Philosophers”, and the Ancient Greek methods practitioners became known as simply “Philosophers”.

The Pyramid of Science

All science is based on rigorous observation and experimentation. A scientist rigorously observes what is happening, and/or performs rigorous experiments to determine what is happening. From these rigorous observations and experiments two things can happen; 1) a hypothesis is deduced, or 2) a law can be derived. A hypothesis attempts to explain who, what, when, where, why, and how what is happening (see below for more information on the scientific method). A law simply explains what is happening. Once a hypothesis is released to other scientists, the other scientist attempts to apply other rigorous observations or experiments to determine the correctness of the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is determined to be correct based on all the available rigorous observations and experiments that have been done, it is promoted to a theory. Anybody who is familiar with science knows that science never proves anything. It asserts that based on all the available rigorous observations and evidence that it believes something is true. However, if additional rigorous observations and evidence refute what has previously been believed to be correct then you must modify or replace what you believe is true (revise or supplant a Theory). Even if most scientists believe something is true, they are often mistaken. The history of science shows that in many, if not most cases, that what scientists thought to be true, turns out not to be true. This is often called the advancement of science. Good scientists are often continually trying to prove or disprove what they believe to be true because they know this is good for science. Therefore, a theory is not set in stone but is the best explanation for all the rigorous observations and experiments at that point in time. To explain the difference between the two I am going to utilize Newton's Universal Theory of Gravitation for the hypothesis, and for the laws, I will utilize Lord Kelvin's Laws of Thermodynamics, Newtonian Motion, and Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion (refer to the short explanation of these laws as outlined below).

Inherent in every hypothesis or theory is the property of predictability and falsifiability. Predictability means that a theory or hypothesis can be used to predict what has happened in the past, what is currently happening, and what will happen in the future. Falsifiability means that it is possible that an observation or experiment could be made or done, the results of which could not be accounted for in the hypothesis or theory (see below for more information on predictability and falsifiability). If a hypothesis or theory does not have predictability and/or falsifiability it is not science.

Historical Examples

Newton's Universal Theory of Gravitation

Newton's law of universal gravitation states that any two bodies in the universe attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This is a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Isaac Newton called induction. It is a part of classical mechanics and was formulated in Newton's work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica ("the Principia"), first published on 5 July 1687.

For thousands of years, astrologers and scientist have been trying to figure out the motions of the planets, all without success. The first important scientist who contributed to the solution to this problem was Copernicus when he placed the sun at the center of the solar system and had all the planets revolving around the sun. Although better than all the other theories to that point, there were many problems with Copernicus theory. The biggest one being he had the planets revolving around the sun in circular orbits. The next important scientists to tackle this was Johannes Kepler, who used the observations of Nickolas Brahe (the best pre-telescope Observer throughout history). Kepler's three laws of planetary motion accurately described the motions of the planets but did not explain why this was happening. It was up to Newton's Universal Theory of Gravitation to explain, i.e. create a theory, of how gravity worked. This and the other works of the Principia were so important to physics that most historians of physics defined Pre-Classical Physics as that which occurred prior to Newton's Principe, and Classical Physics as what occurred between the Principe and Einstein's theories. Like all scientific theories, the predictability and falsifiability of Newton's Universal Theory of Gravitation were very high. Scientists could for the first time predict the motion of bodies in the heavens, and the predictions matched the observed results.

Newton's universal theory of gravitation held sway for over two hundred years. With the advancement of telescopes and telescope measuring instruments scientists were able to more accurately measure a planet's position in the sky. Upon measuring the position of the planet Mercury a problem began to arise, the problem known as "The precession of the perihelion of Mercury". The perihelion of a body revolving around another body is the point where the lesser body is closest to the greater body (the aphelion is the point where the lesser body is furthest from the greater body). As Mercury is the closest planet to the sun it revolves around the sun faster than all the others (approximately once every 88 Earth days). As a result, scientists had many observations of the perihelion of Mercury. Under Newton's law of universal gravitation, the perihelion advances in its orbit ever so slightly every revolution due to the effects of the other planets on its orbit. With the greater precision of the telescopes and measuring instruments, it was discovered that Mercury's perihelion was precessing greater than expected. Several ad hoc and ultimately unsuccessful solutions were proposed, but they tended to introduce more problems (one suggested solution was the possibility of a planet inside the orbit of Mercury which caused the precession, the said planet was even given the name Vulcan). The race was on by scientist to either fix Newton's Universal Theory of Gravitation, or find the planet Vulcan, or to find a new theory of gravity.

Einstein’s General Relativity

In 1915 Albert Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity, which explains this anomaly in Newton's theory. Other observations and experiments proved that Einstein's theory fits all the available observations and experiments. Einstein's theory then replaced Newton's theory of gravitation, and still holds sway to this day.

For more information on the science of Gravity, I would direct you to my article “Gravitational Physics”.

So it is with a scientific theory. The theory only stands if all the observations and experiments bear it to be true. Once an observation or experiment is not explained by the theory the race on by scientists to either improve the theory or replace the theory with a better theory.

Laws of Thermodynamics

Thermodynamics is the science of energy conversion involving heat and other forms of energy, most notably mechanical work. It studies and interrelates the macroscopic variables, such as temperature, volume, and pressure, which describe physical, thermodynamic systems.

The Three Laws of Thermodynamics (actually four - as the Zeroth is an axiom) are as follows.

Entropy - a thermodynamic quantity representing the amount of energy in a system that is no longer available for doing mechanical work. Entropy increases as matter and energy in the universe degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity.

C.P. Snow, the British scientist, and author has offered up an easy and funny way to remember the Three Laws. He says they can be translated as;

The Laws of Thermodynamics are often used in Patent Applications. If a Patent Application can be shown to violate a Law of Thermodynamics it is immediately rejected (that is why perpetual motion systems and perpetual energy systems patents are immediately rejected).

For more information on the science of Atomic Physics, I would direct you to my article “Atomic Physics”.

Isaac Newton's Laws of Motion:

There are three physical laws that form the basis for classical mechanics. They describe the relationship between the forces acting on a body and its motion due to those forces. They have been expressed in several different ways over nearly three centuries and can be summarized as follows (plain English followed by scientific English):

Engineers make use of these three laws in all that they do. Without applying these laws, the engineering will fail. For more information on the science of Engineering Failures, I would direct you to my article “Engineering Failures”.

Johannes Kepler Laws of Planetary Motion

Three laws devised by Johannes Kepler to define the mechanics of planetary motion.

Before Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation Kepler's Laws were used to determine Planetary Motions. They were very cumbersome to utilize and took a lot of mathematical calculations to utilize. Newton's Theory of Gravitation supplemented Kepler's Laws because it was better and simpler to utilize.

The Scientific Methodology

Scientific Methodological Steps

When conducting research, scientists use the scientific method to collect measurable empirical evidence in an experiment related to a hypothesis (often in the form of an if/then statement), the results aiming to support or contradict a hypothesis.

An experiment should include an experimental group and a control group. The control group is what the experimental group is compared against.

Scientific Theories and Laws

The scientific method and science, in general, can be frustrating. A theory is almost never proven, though a few theories do become scientific laws. One example would be the laws of conservation of energy, which is the first law of thermodynamics. Laws are generally considered to be without exception, though some laws have been modified over time after further testing found discrepancies. This does not mean theories are not meaningful. For a hypothesis to become a theory, rigorous testing must occur, typically across multiple disciplines by separate groups of scientists. Saying something is “just a theory” is a layperson’s term that has no relationship to science. To most people, a theory is a hunch. In science, a theory is the proven framework for observations, experiments, and facts. As Stephen Jay Gould, an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science has stated:

“Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.”
- Steven Jay Gould

It should be noted that Scientific Laws are descriptive and not explanatory. Many scientific laws describe regularities but do not explain why the events they describe occur. Scientific Laws cannot be equated with causes or as explanations for a second reason. Many scientific explanations do not depend, either principally or at all, upon scientific laws. Many scientific explanations depend primarily upon antecedent causal conditions and events, not laws. That is to say, citing past causal events often does more to explain a particular phenomenon than citing the existence of a regularity in nature. A scientific example of this is that scientific laws can explain the result of a cue ball striking a billiard ball but do not explain why the cue ball was set in motion. Was the cue ball's initial movement that of a person involved in a competitive poll competition that used a billiard cue stick to strike the cue ball, or was it just a friendly game of pool in which a person used a billiard cue stick to strike the cue ball, or perhaps, even a drunk person grasping the cue ball and flinging it at the billiard balls. Scientific laws cannot explain where the person placed the cue tip in relation to the cue ball (up, down, or center), the angles and direction of the cue stick, and the amount of force to be applied against the cue ball by the cue stick. Once a person has made these decisions and applied them, then scientific laws can determine the outcome of these decisions. Thus, the initial conditions (or scientific boundaries) must be set before the scientific law can be applied.

Consequently, science often cannot be used to explain the “primary explanatory work” of why an event initially occurred (for a more thorough explanation of this, I would direct you to the article by Stephen C. Meyer, “Laws, Causes and Facts”), but once a decision is made scientific laws can explain the outcome of the decisions. A good example of this from the history of science was Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation, which Newton himself freely admitted did not explain, but instead, he merely described gravitational motion that states that any two bodies in the universe attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This is a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Isaac Newton called induction. It is a part of classical mechanics and was formulated in Newton’s work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (“the Principia”), first published on 5 July 1687. As he put it in the “General Scholium” of the second edition of the Principia: “Hypothesis non fingo” (i.e., “I do not feign hypotheses”).

Newton’s universal theory of gravitation held sway for over two hundred years, but as Newton freely admitted he did not know what gravity actually was, he simply described how it worked. Over these centuries, Astronomers observed an inconsistency in the orbit of the planet Mercury that Newton’s gravitational theory could not account for. They tried to reconcile the inconsistency with Newton’s theory but failed. It took another great scientist, Albert Einstein, to propose a new theory of gravity in 1912, General Relativity, which resolved this inconsistency of the motion of Mercury and predicted other gravity phenomena that Newton’s theory could not account for. Therefore, General Relativity theory displaced Newton’s Universal Gravity theory.

Modifiability of Scientific Theories

No scientific theory is perfect. New observations or experimental results can point out inconsistencies or errors in a scientific theory. Inconsistencies or errors do not necessarily mean the scientific theory is wrong. If a scientific theory can be modifiable to account for these inconsistencies or errors, then it should be modified accordingly. Only when there are a series of inconsistencies or errors in a scientific theory, or an observation or experiment that cannot be incorporated into the scientific theory, should the possibility of an incorrect scientific theory be considered. At that point, it may be advisable to consider rejecting the scientific theory or displacing it with a new scientific theory. After all, Newton’s Universal Gravitation theory, which held sway for over two hundred years, was displaced by Einstein’s General Relativity theory due to new observations and experiments.

Predictability & Falsifiability in Scientific Theories

As I mentioned earlier inherent in every hypothesis or theory is the property of predictability and falsifiability. A more thorough an explanation of these items is as follows:

Predictability

Predictability is a characteristic of law-governed phenomena. When the laws are expressible as mathematical functions of time, knowledge of the initial conditions at some time allows us to predict the conditions at all later (and retrospectively earlier) times. Predictability is also said to be a requirement for science. It is related to the idea of reproducibility. For an experiment to be accepted as scientific the observational and experimental results must be reproducible and repeatable (predictable).

In Science there are two types of predictability; deterministic and probabilistic. In general, deterministic is knowing the properties of the object being observer or experimented upon, the forces being applied to the object, and the outcome expected due to these properties and forces. Probabilistic is predicting the possible outcomes based upon the probability of what could possibly happen based on what is know of the nature of what is being studied. Most of Science is based on deterministic predictability but the science of Quantum Physics is based on probabilistic predictability. It appears that we live in a Universe in which at the quantum level probabilistic predictability rules, while at the other levels deterministic predictability rules.

However, every scientist knows that predicting the outcome of an experiment or observation is one thing, accomplished by educated guesses and deductions. Confirming a prediction is another thing. Establishing a quantitative observational agreement with the prediction is prone to unavoidable observational errors (human or equipment). In addition, prediction in Science is not always exact with a 100% certainty. Some scientific systems are deterministic, and some are chaotic, and some are random. Some deterministic systems have so many constants and/or variables that accurate predictions are impossible. Chaotic systems can have long-term predictions (with simple equations) or short-term predictions (without simple equations) but are not exact. Random systems (most often found in Quantum Theory) cannot be predictable but are often probabilistic. In these situations, scientists make probabilistic predictions and observe or experiment to determine the truth.

A simple example is that a geologist can predict that a certain geological area is prone to earthquakes and that they should occur within a certain number of years. But they cannot say exactly when the earthquake will occur, nor the exact strength, nor the exact epicenter of the earthquake, nor the exact fault line it will take. Another example is in Celestial Mechanics the orbit of two bodies is very deterministic with a simple equation (Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation). However, when you add a third or more body the equations get so complex that they are practically unsolvable (although modern supercomputers are helping to solve these problems). This does not mean that scientific theory is unpredictable (or incorrect), only that it is not possible to have an exact prediction. In Quantum Theory all predictions are random but probabilistic. Quantum Physicist cannot tell you what, where, and when something will occur, but they can tell you the probabilities of the possible outcomes of what, when, and where.

Falsifiability

Falsifiability (or refutability or testability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or an experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that it is capable of being criticized by observational or experimental evidence. Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. Most philosophers and scientists have asserted that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable.

Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice. For example, "it will be raining here in one million years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically. On the other hand, a statement like "there exist parallel universes which cannot interact with our universe" is not falsifiable even in principle; there is no way to observe or experiment whether such a universe does or does not exist as it cannot interact with our universe.

It should also be noted that just because a scientific theory has has been determined through observation or experiment to be incorrect it does not necessarily mean that the scientific theory is false. Scientific theories are often adjusted or fine-tuned based on observation or experimentation. This is a normal developmental process in science. When it is no longer possible to adjust or fine tune a scientific theory to account for the observational or experimental data, or the adjustments or fine tuning becomes excessive then it may be necessary to conclude that the scientific theory is false. This often happens when a Paradigm Shift (see below) occurs.

Deductive, Inductive, and Abductive Scientific Reasoning, and Bayesian Inference

When evaluating a scientific hypothesis or theory in which there is no direct evidence that can be confirmed by observation and/or experimentation, scientists must utilize Deductive, Inductive, and Abductive reasoning, then apply Bayesian Inference to reach a conclusion. Thus, to understand the arguments for or against Naturalistic or Theistic Evolution, a brief description of these techniques is in order:

Deductive reasoning deals with certainty, involving reasoning from general principles to specific conclusions. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Example: All humans are mortal (premise), and Socrates is a human (premise); therefore, Socrates is mortal (conclusion).

Inductive reasoning deals with probability, involving reasoning from specific observations to broader generalizations. The conclusion is likely, but not guaranteed, to be true. Example: You observe that the Sun has risen every day of your life, so you conclude that the Sun will rise tomorrow.

Abductive reasoning deals with guesswork, involving reasoning from incomplete information to form a hypothesis or a best guess. Example: Your car won’t start in the morning. Based on your knowledge of cars and the circumstances, you hypothesize that the battery is dead.

Bayes’ theorem is a probability theory used to calculate the likelihood of an event being true or not true based on conditions related to the event. (i.e., an equation used for calculating conditional probabilities).

In other words, Bayes’ theory is a logical statistics-based theory that expresses the concept that we can compare conditional probabilities to find the likely truth with a mathematic equation.

In non-math terms, Bayes’ theory says, “the more variables considered, and the more certain we are of those variables, then the more certain we can be about our conclusion.”

Or, “the more data pointing to a true outcome, the higher the odds that the outcome is true.” Likewise, “the more data pointing at a false outcome, it’s less likely it is the outcome is false.”

It can also be said that applying Bayes’ theorem to Abductive Arguments provides inference to the best explanation for a natural event.

The Utilization of Occam’s Razor

Occam’s razor is a Philosophical premise that is often utilized in science. In philosophy, a razor is a principle or rule of thumb that allows one to eliminate (“shave off”) unlikely explanations for a phenomenon or avoid unnecessary actions. Thus, Occam’s razor can be stated in several different ways:

This philosophical razor advocates that when presented with competing hypotheses about the same phenomena, one should prefer the one that requires the fewest assumptions. Occam’s razor is not meant to be a way of choosing between hypotheses that make different predictions but only to help determine the most likely explanation. Similarly, in science, Occam’s razor is used as an abductive heuristic in the development of theoretical models rather than as a rigorous arbiter between candidate models.

Occam’s razor is used to evaluate two or more competing scientific hypotheses to determine the most likely explanation for a scientific phenomenon. It is the problem-solving principle that recommends searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements. It is also known as the principle of parsimony or the law of parsimony. However, it should be noted that Occam’s razor does not state that the simplest explanation is the more likely explanation, as an explanation must account for all of the known facts to be considered as a likely explanation. Thus, a simple explanation that does not explain all the known facts may be rejected as not scientific.

The Advancement of Science

Linear Not Constant

Science is continually advancing with new discoveries and new hypothesis and theories. This advancement can often be seen as linear with branching (see diagram below), as one scientist builds upon the efforts of other scientists. Although this advance is linear it is not constant. Sometimes a discovery triggers a group of new discoveries, and there is a rush of advancement. Other times it is a leisurely pace where one discovery builds upon another discovery.

This is the way normal science generally grows and expands. But sometimes something radical occurs - A Paradigm Shift.

Paradigm Shifts in Scientific Theory

In recent history, modern science underwent radical transformation through the development of new theories that were not anticipated or predicted by the tenets of contemporary theories. As such, the advancement of human understanding in the sciences through radical new theories has been coined by Thomas Kuhn as a "paradigm shift.” Examples of such paradigm shifts include the theories of relativity, quantum theory, DNA and molecular biology, and evolution (the evolution of the universe as well as the evolution of life). This is best seen in the difference in Classical Physics vs. Modern Physics. From the time of Isaac Newton until the start of the 20th century Physics was in a period now known as Classical Physics. It can broadly be defined as deterministic and that had a "Clockwork" mechanism. Given the objects and forces acting upon them, you could determine the results. Scientists of all disciplines searched for new theories that would explain all the mechanisms of the universe. They each built upon each other’s findings to expand the scope of what was known about the universe. The statement "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement" has been widely misattributed to Lord Kelvin since the 1980s, either without citation or stating that it was made in an address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science (1900). There is no evidence that Kelvin said this, and the quote is instead a paraphrase of Albert A. Michelson, who in 1894 stated: "… it seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established … An eminent physicist remarked that the future truths of physical science are to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals. Little did they know that a paradigm shift was about to occur. Scientific experiments were beginning to reveal results that Classical Physics had no explanations as to their nature. A new generation of physicists (including Max Plank, Albert Einstein, and Niels Bohr among many others) put aside Classical Physics and developed a new approach to these problems (Atomic, Relativistic & Quantum Physics) now referred to as Modern Physics. This happens in all the branches of science as new observations and experiments reveal unexpected results that the current theories cannot explain. As the unexplained results begin to pile up it is realized that a paradigm shift needs to occur to explain the results. The Scientist (or Scientists) who come up with the new paradigm often become very famous and are revered for their insights.

Please Note - Predictability, Falsifiability, and Paradigm Shifts are ideas that have been expounded by the Science Philosophers Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn and have generated much controversy and debate within the scientific community. I have not utilize these philosophies in a strict sense but in a more general manner. For more on this subject I have prepared a short article "Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn" which explains my utilization of their ideas.

Scientific Speculation

There is another area of scientific inquiry that is known as Scientific Speculation. This area of scientific inquiry is not based upon observations or experiments. It is simply scientists speculating "what if". As it is not based on observation or experimentation it cannot be actual science, but it is an important area of scientific inquiry. This raises the scientific question of the Real World Out There (RWOT). Science needs to be in the business of explaining the RWOT. Otherwise, what is the purpose of science? Without the goal of RWOT science would simply be an intellectual enterprise with no goal other than science (much like mathematics is). Any science without the goal of explaining the RWOT is not actual science but speculative science.

A scientist, or group a scientist, will speculate as to what may turn out to be a scientific inquiry, but they do not have the ability to observe or experiment at that moment in time. Scientific speculation is very important as it gets the creative juices of the scientist started. Often the results of this scientific speculation are that they discover ways in which they can turn the speculation into science. Many of the scientific theories of the 20th century (especially in astrophysics, atomic physics, and quantum theory) has started out as a scientific speculation. Often mathematics is utilized as the discussion point for the speculation. If the mathematics is good, they then start to determine if they can create experiments or find observations that would confirm the speculation. Many times, the scientific speculation stray into other areas of scientific inquiry, and new science is a result.

Scientific speculation should be encouraged, as it often leads to scientific breakthroughs, but it should be labeled as speculation, and not taking as actual fact until proven by observation or experimentation. A good example of this is the discovery of the Higgs boson. The Higgs boson was first postulated in the mid-1960s, and it was not actually proven until 2013 after the Large Hadron Collider was developed, and an experiment was performed that revealed the Higgs boson. Another good example of this is the modern scientific speculation of the creation of the universe known as the multi-verse. It may never be possible to prove or disprove the multi-verse, but it has led to much useful discourse among scientists.

You must always keep in mind that just because science says something may be possible does not mean that it is possible. Just because science says that something may happen does not mean that it has happened, is happening, or may happen. It is just as possible that it has never has happened, is not happening, and will never happen.

Chaos, Complexity, and Network Science

The newer science of chaos, complexity, and network science, and what does it has to do with scientific inquiry is; Directly Everything and Indirectly Everything! If you are going to create, develop or utilize scientific and engineering studies you need to be aware of chaos, complexity, and network science. You first need to understand something of chaos, complexity and network science to understand their impact on this subject. For this understanding, I have prepared another article “Chaos, Complexity, and Network Science” that I would direct you too. Briefly, however, Chaos, Complexity, and Networks Science is as follows:

Chaos theory is the field of study in mathematics and science that studies the behavior and condition of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, a response popularly referred to as the butterfly effect (Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?). Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.

Complexity characterizes the behavior of a system or model whose components interact in multiple ways and follow local rules, meaning there are no reasonable means to define all the various possible interactions. Complexity arises because some systems are very sensitive to their starting conditions so that a tiny difference in their initial starting conditions can cause big differences in where they end up. And many systems have a feedback into themselves that affects their own behavior, which leads to more complexity.

Network science studies complex networks such as telecommunication networks, computer networks, biological networks, cognitive and semantic networks, and social networks. Distinct elements or actors represented by nodes, and the links between the nodes, define the network topology. A change in a node or link is propagated throughout the network and the Network Topology changes accordingly. Network science draws on theories and methods including graph theory from mathematics, statistical mechanics from physics, data mining and information visualization from computer science, inferential modeling from statistics, and social structure from sociology.

Miscellaneous Thoughts

Generally, Science is the study of the physical world, while Engineering applies scientific knowledge to design processes, structures or equipment. Both Engineers and Scientists will have a strong knowledge of science, mathematics, and technology, but Engineering students will learn to apply these principles to design creative solutions to Engineering challenges. Generally, a scientist attempts to be as precise as possible to prove their hypothesis and theorems, while an engineer attempts to be approximate (good enough) to be able to create something from the scientific principles.

Hard Science vs. Soft Science has been debated throughout the Scientific Revolution. Many considerations determine where a scientific branch exists in the pecking order. Most importantly, it is that the results of the scientific branch can be validated - i.e. can it be proven with the constraints of the Limitations of Science (as described above). Given the above philosophers of science can rank the pecking order of hard vs. soft sciences as follows by what is more provable vs less provable:

You should keep this in main when you are listening or reading the scientific information given by an expert in a scientific field. Remember that they could be right, but they could also be wrong, and that the science may shift under their feet in the future.

Final Thoughts

Science is the best way to understand the natural process that governs the universe and the objects within the universe. What it cannot explain is best left to Philosophers, Moralist, Ethicists, and Theologians. - Mark W. Dawson

I would note that since the time of Isaac Newton we know much more – but have not gained an ocean of knowledge – probably just a sea of knowledge.

The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

Containing His Articles, Observations, Thoughts, Meanderings,
and some would say Wisdom (and some would say not).

On the Nature of Scientific Inquiry

Introduction

Science Branches and Empiricism

The Branches of Science

Relationships between the Branches

Empiricism

The Scientific Method

Background on the Scientific Method

The Ages of Science

The Pyramid of Science

Historical Examples

Newton's Universal Theory of Gravitation

Einstein’s General Relativity

Laws of Thermodynamics

Isaac Newton's Laws of Motion:

Johannes Kepler Laws of Planetary Motion

The Scientific Methodology

Scientific Methodological Steps

Scientific Theories and Laws

Modifiability of Scientific Theories

Predictability & Falsifiability in Scientific Theories

Predictability

Falsifiability

Deductive, Inductive, and Abductive Scientific Reasoning, and Bayesian Inference

The Utilization of Occam’s Razor

The Advancement of Science

Linear Not Constant

Paradigm Shifts in Scientific Theory

Scientific Speculation

Chaos, Complexity, and Network Science

Miscellaneous Thoughts

Final Thoughts

Further Readings

Disclaimer

The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

Containing His Articles, Observations, Thoughts, Meanderings, and some would say Wisdom (and some would say not).

On the Nature of Scientific Inquiry

Introduction

Science Branches and Empiricism

The Branches of Science

Relationships between the Branches

Empiricism

The Scientific Method

Background on the Scientific Method

The Ages of Science

The Pyramid of Science

Historical Examples

Newton's Universal Theory of Gravitation

Einstein’s General Relativity

Laws of Thermodynamics

Isaac Newton's Laws of Motion:

Johannes Kepler Laws of Planetary Motion

The Scientific Methodology

Scientific Methodological Steps

Scientific Theories and Laws

Modifiability of Scientific Theories

Predictability & Falsifiability in Scientific Theories

Predictability

Falsifiability

Deductive, Inductive, and Abductive Scientific Reasoning, and Bayesian Inference

The Utilization of Occam’s Razor

The Advancement of Science

Linear Not Constant

Paradigm Shifts in Scientific Theory

Scientific Speculation

Chaos, Complexity, and Network Science

Miscellaneous Thoughts

Final Thoughts

Further Readings

Disclaimer

Containing His Articles, Observations, Thoughts, Meanderings,
and some would say Wisdom (and some would say not).