Science Surprises

Exploring the Nature of Science

Edition 3.7: 14 July 2014

By Lawrence Flammer

Published by ENSIweb, LLC at Smashwords

Copyright 2014 Lawrence Flammer

ISBN 9781311806796

Science Surprises by Lawrence Flammer is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Preface

Students: As you use this booklet, keep in mind that there are several interactive lessons (or lab activities) that your teacher will introduce and guide you through. In fact, you probably have already done a few of those lessons before you got this textbook. This booklet should help you to better understand, remember and use the concepts you experienced in those lessons, and the additional lessons to come.

In the Appendices, you will find a number of extensions to the main chapters. Some will take you into greater depth and detail. Others will provide more examples. And still others are additional activities that your teacher may assign. Or, you might just want to do them if they intrigue you, if you finished your assigned work, and you have the time.

There were many more resources used to create this textbook (and the teaching guide) than are found on the Science Surprises References page, and those additional resources can be found in the Teaching Guide References.

There were many people who contributed to the Science Surprises unit, including several teachers and their students across the nation who volunteered to field-test the program. Acknowledgement to those people can be found in the teaching guide

Teachers: Be sure to read the Note to Teachers in this student textbook. This text supplement is intended to be used by students along with several engaging, interactive and hands-on lessons that are freely downloadable from the internet, and which you can prepare and introduce to your students.

Contents

Chapter 1. Why Science? What is Science?Why Science in Your Life? What is Science? What Do Scientists Do? What’s Next?Self Check A (Questions 1-8)

Chapter 2. What Science is NotQuestions Science Cannot Answer Answers Science Cannot UseWhat’s Next?Self Check B (Questions 1-9)

Chapter 3. Words of ScienceScientific Observations Scientific Explanations Problems With Words: Their Use and Misuse What’s Next?Self Check C (Questions 1-11)

Chapter 4. Quality of ScienceIs it Good Science or is it Poor Science? What Makes Poor Quality Science? How Can We Tell if it’s Good Science or Not? What’s Next?Self Check D (Questions 1-10)

Chapter 5. Pseudoscience: A Major MisuseSome Examples of Pseudoscience Comparison of Pseudoscience and Science Pseudoscience in the Science Classroom The Last Word What’s Next? The Future of Science, and Your Place in That FutureSelf Check E (Questions 1-7)

Summary

Note to Teachers

References

Credits for Figures Used (30 Figures)

Student Appendices Index (13 items)

Chapter 1. Why Science? What Is Science?

You can observe a lot just by watching. ― Yogi Berra, baseball player

From NASA.Gov as “bluemarble_apollo17_big.jpg"

Figure 1.1: Our Earth really is round, like a ball.

Of course you know that. But, a long time ago, everyone just assumed that the Earth was flat. Then, around 2,540 years ago (540 BC), a Greek thinker (Pythagoras) suggested that our world might be round, like a ball. But he wasn’t a scientist. Why not? Well, he didn’t test his idea, that’s why. And he didn't provide good, material evidence.

Then, about 300 years later (240 BC), a man from Libya (can you say “Eratosthenes?”) did more than just think about it. He actually measured some shadows in Egypt and cleverly figured out the actual distance around our globe.

He used some shadows and some basic math, and his result was only 16% off the actual distance! This was 2,240 years ago! And it's something you could do. Because of this, he became one of our first scientists. Do you know why? Ever since then, most educated people have agreed that our Earth is spherical. Even Columbus knew that.

This photo above (Figure 1.1) was taken from space on Apollo 17. Can you see the shading near the edges? This is typical for a photo of a ball. Today, many people have gone into space and have actually seen our world rotating under them. Look at the videos taken by astronauts orbiting around the Earth in the International Space Station. You see, our knowledge about how nature works is tentative (or temporary): it can be changed with new information.

<http://www.astronoo.com/en/articles/atom.html> Image credit: GNU Free Documentation License.

Figure 1.2: Atomic orbitals for different electron energy levels.

Even atomic theory has changed. Haven’t you seen pictures of atoms with tiny electrons in paths around a nucleus (Figure 3.4A)? That was an early scientific idea. Later, scientists found evidence that electrons were most likely in a hazy “cloud” region around the nucleus, and not in fixed orbits (Figure 3.4B). Still later, they found that the electrons were most likely to be in those fuzzy little “orbital” regions (Figure 1.2, above). Scientific understandings can change, but it’s always getting better, and closer to reality!

Modified version of NASA.Gov image: solar-system-210.en.png from http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/ice-dwarf/en/

Figure 1.3: Our Planets Orbit Around the Sun. This diagram shows all the planets moving in orbital paths around the Sun. (Nothing is to scale here, not the distances nor the sizes. And the planets are never all lined up like this). But the Sun is clearly the center of this system. Long ago, people assumed that the Earth was the center, with Sun and planets going around us (see Figure 1.7). But new evidence did not fit that view, disproving the old idea. Scientific understanding does change with new evidence.

Magician And Floating Lady clip art free vector

Figure 1.4: No Magic Allowed Here! Of course, you all know that science can only use natural explanations for natural phenomena. It cannot use magical or supernatural forces to explain the natural world. Many people think you can, but there’s a very good reason why you can’t do that in science. You’ll find out what that reason is later in this unit. This is also a key reason why science is so reliable.

What can science do? What can science not do? What is science? How does it work? Let’s find out. Read the 12 items below. Which ones are true? Which are False? List numbers 1-12 in your notebook, and indicate there if you agree or disagree with each item.

1. Science can only answer certain kinds of questions.

2. Good scientists try to disprove their explanations, not prove them.

3. Scientists can only use natural explanations, never supernatural ones.

4. A scientific theory is a well-supported explanation about the natural world.

5. A hypothesis is not just an educated guess.

6. The main goal of science is to understand nature, not just gather facts.

7. There are many ways to do good science; there is no one scientific method.

8. Scientific knowledge can always change and be replaced by new knowledge.

9. No explanation in science is known with absolute certainty.

10. There are many degrees of uncertainty in scientific knowledge.

11. With science, our knowledge about nature gets more and more accurate.

12. What we know about nature is only a small fraction of what we could know.

If you totally agree with all of the above features about science, then you are to be congratulated. And so should your former teachers who taught you about science. Those statements are all true. You might not even need this unit about the nature of science. But you can certainly help many of your fellow students to understand why they’re true. Unfortunately, there are many people who would not agree with some of those statements. They include doctors, engineers, lawyers, politicians, even some science teachers!

Did you disagree with even a few of those statements? If so, then the fact that they are all true may be your first surprise! This unit was made for you. There’s more to science than you may have ever dreamed. With the exciting experiences and discussions this unit provides, your class will discover what science can and cannot do, and why that is. Your class will also get a better idea about how science actually does what it does. And we will all see how valuable science is to each of us, and to our nation.

Why Science In Your Life?

Why is science so important? Here are four big reasons:

1. Understanding:

Science is clearly misunderstood by many people. Some people take advantage of that lack of knowledge by making false claims about science. Or they use science incorrectly. Some do this out of ignorance about science. Others do this on purpose. In either case, it creates false information that can influence your opinions and choices. Knowing what science IS and what it’s NOT can help you to recognize when it’s being misused so you won’t be fooled. A clear understanding of science is important when voting on political candidates and many political issues. It’s also important when looking for information about medical, diet or environmental questions. It’s helpful for just being a smart consumer.

2. Jobs:

Some of you may want a job in a field of science as a scientist or a lab tech. You might even want to be a science teacher! Many non-science jobs also require science training. These include engineering, environmental law, cosmetology, physical therapy, or any health career. In fact, a good understanding of science can help with careers in politics, law, business, or teaching at any level. Also, if you are a critical thinker and good problem-solver, you’ll probably get better jobs in any field.

3. Critical and Skeptical Thinking:

This means, as adults, you don’t just accept any information as it comes to you. You ask questions. You look for clues about its accuracy. You ask “Where does this come from? How reliable is that source? What’s the evidence for that?” You insist that new information be based on facts and critical studies. You check it by comparing with other views from other sources. This is essential if it’s about a medical question or some other very important decision. Critical and skeptical thinking is a basic part of science. Those skills are also useful for having a more successful life. You will less likely be fooled by political promises, tricky ads, false medical claims, or shady business deals. Your successes in life will often depend on your ability to use those skills. In fact, the success of our nation depends on how well we all understand and practice those science skills of critical and skeptical thinking.

4. Helping to Make a Better World:

It would take many pages to list all the ways science has helped our planet and our way of life. But here’s a short list: Have you heard of smallpox, diphtheria, rheumatic fever, or bubonic plague? Ever hear of polio, measles, or scurvy? How about tuberculosis, death from childbirth, or infant death? If you haven’t heard of even a few of those conditions, you can thank scientists for that. Those ten afflictions once destroyed millions of people every year. Some even changed history. In developed countries, now, those conditions are rarely seen anymore. They’re not all totally gone yet, but they’re not the curse they were decades ago. Why? Because of vaccinations, antibiotics, nutrition, and public health measures. All of this has happened because of medical science (Rifkin 2013).

Now we have new medications, plastics, fibers and renewable biofuels. Scientists discovered how to genetically modify organisms to produce these useful products. And engineers have designed ways to mass-produce them. For example, engineered bacteria or yeasts produce all the human insulin used today by people with diabetes. This is much better than the insulin we once got from pigs. Many diabetics are allergic to pig insulin!

Would you like to do something with your life to help people, and to make a better world? It would be hard to find a better way to do this than by doing science. Or maybe you’d prefer to use the discoveries of science by being a medical doctor or an engineer. This country, and this world, needs good scientists, engineers and doctors. And you could be one, if you wanted to.

What Is Science? What Do Scientists Do?

These may seem like silly questions, but you’d be amazed at the strange ideas people have about science. Some people distrust science, or don’t even like science. But when you look at what they don’t like, it’s often about false ideas they have about science. Let’s see how your ideas match the reality of science. Briefly, science is a powerful and useful tool to understand the natural world. It does this by finding only natural explanations. The goal of science is to understand the natural world. Surprise!

(Photo by the author)

Figure 1.5: Curiosity: “What’s this?” “Ooh, ooh, I found one, too!” “Look, it’s moving! I wonder what it eats?” Do you remember when you found wonder everywhere? All of us went through that stage as little children. But for scientists, that wonder and curiosity never stops. Even more, they want to devote their lives to getting reliable answers. They need to understand the universe and everything in it.

What do scientists do? The goal of scientists is not trying to gather as many facts as possible. Instead, scientists are driven by ignorance! (Firestein 2012). Ignorance here means “lack of knowledge about something.” Scientists are mainly trying to replace our ignorance about the natural world with reliable knowledge. Hopefully, that knowledge may be used to help solve the many practical problems that people face, as it often does. To get that reliable knowledge, here’s what scientists generally do:

1. Scientists observe nature and ask questions. Scientists are very curious about nature. They’ve never lost their childhood curiosity (Figure 1.5). They instinctively wonder how the natural world works and how it came to be the way it is. They are passionate to understand. And they’ve learned clever ways to do that. They observe very carefully. They look for clues. They ask specific questions to explore a subject of interest. That starts the scientific ball rolling.

2. They search the literature for the work of others on this question. They do this to see how others have approached the topic. They may also find what questions have not yet been fully answered. They look for and think of possible explanations or answers to each question. This is one of the creative parts of science.

3. They devise ways to test those possible answers one by one. They do this to find what works and what doesn’t work. They try to find the “best explanation.” Designing good tests requires even more creative skills.

4. Now they actually test those possible answers. They gather and analyze the resulting data. If it looks useful, they prepare a report of their work. They make sure that the details of their studies are clear. They expect other scientists to look for errors in the work, or try to duplicate what they did.

5. They publish their reports in peer-review professional science journals. They may also present their work at conferences. That way, their work can be widely shared and critically examined by many more scientists.

Where’s the Method?

Surprise! There is no one “Scientific Method” with steps that must be followed by all scientists. Science can be done many ways. (For more about this, see Appendix SA-1.1). However, all science today is based on certain assumptions and limits. A helpful way to understand how science really works is to combine those assumptions and limits into a short list of rules. We’ll call these the Rules of Science. If you’re curious about those main assumptions and limits of science, ask your teacher.

Rules of Science:

Most of our successes in medicine, agriculture, engineering and technology are due to science. Science helps us to understand how the natural world really works. This knowledge is reliable because science follows some basic rules. We will explore those rules in this unit.

Some Key Rules of Science

Science can only answer questions about the natural world.Scientific answers must be based on observation, not authority.Scientific answers can only use natural forces, never supernatural.Scientific answers must always be testable.Scientific answers can change with new data and new methods.Scientific answers having different lines of evidence are stronger.

=====================================

Science as a Way of Knowing:

Keep in mind that science is one of several ways of “knowing.” Think of your brain as a room with many windows to the outside world. Each window is a different way of knowing about that world. When you peer out each window, you find a different way to understand the world. Each way has its own methods, its own rules. For example, we could use the “direct observation” window, where we just use our senses to learn. We could also use logic, religion, philosophy or science “windows” to answer questions about the world. If you did the Palpating Pachyderms lesson, you got an idea about sensing the world through the window of touch. Most people use a mix of “windows” to understand their world.

Each of these “ways of knowing” follows different rules and may give us different kinds of information. This doesn’t mean there are different “realities.” It also doesn’t mean that some ways of knowing are wrong. The information we get could just be different parts of that reality. Or they may just be different views of the same reality. Go out in front of your school and look at it while standing, at eye level. Then imagine what it would look like from an airplane. Finally, how would it appear to a gopher on the ground? You will get different impressions, but it’s still the same school. You might even want to discuss those different impressions with your class. In any case, science has been clearly shown to be the most useful and reliable way to understand the natural world.

(Photo by author)

Figure 1.6: Game Rules? Is this “Chessball” or “Basechess?” What rules should be used?

Science as a game:

Another way to understand science is to see it as a kind of game. Different games have different rules. Can you imagine playing chess on a baseball diamond (Figure 1.6)? There would be chaos! For the same reason, it isn’t fair to “play the game” of science using some of the rules of philosophy or religion. The rules for those “games” do not work for science, and vice versa. For example, any effort to use religious beliefs for scientific explanations would break the rules of science. And, using scientific findings to explain religious beliefs could break the rules of that religion. Remember this: the amazing successes of science are because scientists have followed the rules of science.

Science is Not Always Logical:

You might be surprised that science isn’t always “common-sense” or logical. This may seem strange—but what we see isn’t always real! It may seem like we live on a flat Earth. The Sun seems to move across the sky every day, then rise again in the east. For that reason, it was once thought that our Earth was the center of the universe. This is the Earth-Centered model shown in Figure 1.7A, with our Moon, other planets and the Sun moving in orbits around us.

Courtesy of Hubblesite.org (OPO Copyright <copyright@stsci.edu>)

Figure 1.7A: Earth-Centered Model vs Figure 1.7B: Sun-Centered Model

But science has shown us, with lots of evidene, that our Earth is actually a big ball that spins one turn every 24 hours. It also takes a year for Earth to move around the Sun! You probably learned this in a science class, but it isn’t obvious. This is the Sun-Centered model shown in Figure 1.7B. We live in a world of many natural illusions. But science helps us to cut through those illusions. It gives us a much more reliable picture of the natural world than our senses or logic alone could ever do.

Thought question: Our Earth is about 24,000 miles around at the equator. If you were standing near our equator, about how fast (in miles per hour) would you be travelling around the Earth's axis? Does your answer sound logical?

Applied Sciences and Natural Sciences Compared:

Engineers and medical doctors (MDs) are thought by many to be doing science. But engineering and medicine are actually applied sciences, not natural sciences (See Appendix SA-5.3: Our Search For Understanding). Most engineers and MDs are not research scientists. Surprise! They are not seeking answers to mysteries about the natural world. This is what “real scientists” do. But they do solve problems, and their methods are in some ways similar to those of science. Engineers apply the findings of science to design structures, like buildings, dams, roads or electronic circuits. Medical doctors apply the findings of science to treat medical and health problems. As you learn about the fields of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM), keep in mind how they’re alike, but also how they’re different. Of course, some engineers and MDs are also scientists. They are helping to answer questions about the natural world that clearly have practical applications.

“Real Science”—usually called the natural sciences—are mainly in physics, chemistry, and biology. They include related fields like astronomy, geology, ecology and climatology. The research in these fields is mostly just trying to learn more about a part of the natural world. This unit, using Science Surprises, is mainly about the natural sciences.

There are also the so-called “social sciences.” They include psychology, sociology and political science. These all deal with patterns of human behavior, and this involves very complex issues. It’s hard to use math to describe them. Also, results in those fields are easily affected by the opinions of those doing the studies. That is something that we try to avoid in the natural sciences.

What’s Next?

Now you have an idea what science is, why it’s so amazingly powerful, and why it’s so important to our society and every citizen. But what is not science? What can science not do? What are the limits of science? Answers to those questions are important to know. They will sharpen your understanding of what science is. You will explore them in the next chapter.

Self Check A:

Without looking back, answer these 9 items briefly in your notebook. Then re-read the section, and make appropriate changes or additions (*TPS = be ready to discuss in class):

1. List three ways that science can help you.2. Write a brief definition of science (from memory!)3. What is a key driving force of science?4. What are five things that scientists generally DO?5. Why do we not use “The Scientific Method” here?*6. Why is science not always logical?*7. List three of the rules of science.8. In what way is science like a game?*9. Why are most engineers and medical doctors not scientists?*10. List three ideas or words in this chapter that were hard to understand.11. List three things that were surprises (new) to you.

RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 2. What Science Is Not

Perception is not always reality. — Mercedes Benz, automobile ad

Now you know what science is. But that’s not enough. To be totally clear, you also need to know what science is not. Science does have its limits, and the Rules of Science hinted at some of those limits:

Some Limits of Science

Science can’t answer all kinds of questions.Science can’t use all kinds of answers.Some scientific answers aren’t as strong as others.If an answer can’t be tested, it isn’t science.If an answer doesn’t survive testing, it can’t be used.Science never proves anything for certain.Good science can’t use just some of the rules.

========================================

(Photo by the author)

Figure 2.1: Why is this sunset so beautiful? Can science tell us that it’s beautiful? Of course not. Science could analyze scenes that people consider beautiful. But “beauty” is a personal opinion, it's "in the eye of the beholder." The author took this picture in Hawaii, and he thinks it’s one of the most beautiful sunsets he’s ever seen. What do you think? You probably already realize that science can’t make that judgment call. There really are some questions that science cannot answer.

Questions Science Cannot Answer

As powerful as science is, it cannot answer all questions. It can only deal with questions about the materials and events of nature. This is something you came to realize when you did the Sunsets, Souls & Senses lesson. Questions about morals, art, politics, religious beliefs, or beautiful sunsets (Figure 2.1), are not good subjects for science. They involve personal feelings, attitudes and opinions. And these are hard to test in any scientific way. Recall that science can only deal with the natural world. Surprise?

Some Questions Science Cannot Answer

“What is the right thing to do?”“Why do you like to dance?”“What is the meaning of life?

“Why do I love you?”“Who was the best president?”

“Why is that sunset so beautiful?”“What is the purpose of my existence?”

==================================

Answers Science Cannot Use

1. Answers just based on authority:

In the early 1900s, most geologists were certain that our continents have always been where we find them now (Figure 2.2B below). How in the world could continents move around? But in 1915, German scientist Alfred Wegener wrote a book saying that those continents must have moved. He provided several lines of supporting evidence. But geologists just ridiculed him. Then, in the 1950s, a lot more evidence was found. Wegener was right! Evidence triumphs over authority!

In science, it’s the power of material evidence that wins, not the authority of experts. The long-held ideas of scientific “experts” have been shown to be wrong many times. This happens when new observations don’t fit the earlier explanations. As a result, scientific answers get better and better over time. (See Appendix SA-3.2: Some Old Theories Replaced).

Adapted from US Geological Survey

Figure 2.2: Continental Drift: Notice how South America and Africa fit like puzzzle pieces when you bring them together (as in A). This was one of the clues that those two continents must have once been together (A), then moved apart (B). Rock comparisons, fossil studies and various methods of dating have clearly shown that this movement took many tens of millions of years to happen. And it’s still happening! Other clever techniques have even shown that some pieces were shaped and oriented differently.

2. Answers based on opinion, popularity, or belief:

Answers based on opinion, popularity or belief have often been found to not work. That’s why scientific answers are not chosen by debate or vote. Science is not a democratic process (Figure 2.3). Scientific answers may not even be “politically correct” or seem fair. Remember that scientific answers must be based on critical observations.

(Image by the author)

Figure 2.3: Science is not democratic. We make political decisions by voting for them. But science is not a democratic process. Scientific answers are NOT determined by vote. They must be based on critically tested observations, not opinions. (Poland & Johnson 2011).

3. Answers just based on logic or common sense:

Science can’t use answers just because they seem convincing or logical. Scientific answers may be the opposite of “common sense.” With your experience doing False Assumptions in this class, why was it hard to solve the problems? We sometimes do tend to make false assumption, don’t we? In addition, there are many findings in science we don’t expect. They’re not logical or just don’t fit our experience. Discovery is one of the delights of science. As mentioned earlier, there are many natural illusions. But science provides ways to see what’s really going on behind those illusions. Remember the Sun-around-the-Earth illusion? In science, there is a “best answer.” It’s the simplest explanation that fits all the observations. Surprise?

Of course, scientists may reach general agreement for a certain explanation. But it’s only because the data from their separate studies agree. In other words, they all see that the answer does explain all the facts of a case. This is called "consilience" (more about that later). It’s not just a vote based on personal opinions.

4. Answers that cannot be tested:

Scientists try to understand how nature works. They do this by carefully observing some objects, events or clues in nature. This usually raises questions about “how” or “why.” So scientists try to think of some possible answers that fit those observations. (This is a very creative and inventive part of science.) But it’s very important that those possible answers can be tested to see if they work. Those possible answers must use known natural forces, never supernatural or mystical forces. The reason for this is that such forces cannot be properly tested. Why is that?

Here's why: The best tests of possible explanations are those where certain results of an experiment or observation can be predicted. If the explanation is a good one, we expect one kind of result. If it’s not a good explanation, a different result is expected. But supernatural or mystical forces, by definition, don’t follow natural laws. That means we cannot predict how they will work. So, the results of testing that kind of explanation could go either way. Therefore, testing tells us nothing useful about a supernatural explanation. Such explanations can never be disproved. That’s why science can’t use them.

5. Answers that do not survive testing:

Eventually, we want to know the “best” answer—the one that best explains all the observed facts. Scientists do this by figuring out clever but foolproof ways to test their ideas. This requires very creative skills. Ideas that do not survive the testing must be revised or eliminated. True testing means that a serious effort is made to falsify (“disprove”) each possible explanation. Contrary to popular myth, scientists really do not try to “prove” their ideas. Surprise!

That is an old myth for several reasons: For one thing, “proving” something suggests there is a bias or opinion that can favor both the testing and its results. This is something scientists try not to do. Also, when trying to “prove” an idea, it’s tempting to use only evidence that supports the idea and to ignore evidence that does not. In addition, “proof” sounds final and certain, and that is clearly not a feature of science.

In mathematics you can develop proofs for math problems. This isn’t done in science, even though math is used in science as a tool. In science, math is often used to describe certain conditions or events. Math also provides a way to make predictions that scientists can look for. This makes it possible to critically test possible explanations. But in science, anyone who talks about “proof” or “proving something” may not really understand science. You should be skeptical (cautious) about accepting what they say about science. Scientists are usually engaged in testing ideas, not proving them. They then report whether an idea was supported by the tests, or not.

Some Answers Science Cannot Use

Answers based just on authorityAnswers based on opinion, popularity, or beliefAnswers based just on logic or common senseAnswers that cannot be testedAnswers that do not survive testing

========================================

More About Scientific Tests:

Scientific testing has been mentioned frequently here. Testing is probably the most important single feature of science. So just what is this “testing?” In the testing process, scientists may plan and carry out experiments. Or they may simply make certain planned observations, looking for certain clues. Designing those tests requires a creative and clever mind, so that the idea is clearly challenged. If a certain explanation is correct, we should expect a certain result. If the explanation is wrong, we would expect different results. In other words, the results could go either way. This would depend on whether the suggested explanation works, or not. This is called a “fair test.” The explanation that survives is accepted as the "best explanation, for now.”

This testing process is sort of like the way we crash-test new cars for their safety. They are crashed into walls to see how well the car (and a dummy) “survive” (Figure 2.4 below). In a similar way, scientists try to “destroy” a possible explanation. If it survives the “crash,” that possible explanation is strengthened. If it does not survive, that explanation is weakened, and may be rejected. If a scientist does not fully test a “favorite” explanation, then other scientists certainly will. And that could be embarrassing! Or worse! Remember that testing ideas is probably the strongest and most unique feature of scientific studies. Surprise!

Copyright permission from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Arlington, Virginia USA. www.iihs.org.

Figure 2.4: Car Test: Why do insurance companies want to destroy cars?How is running a test-car into a wall like science?

Scientific Argumentation:

When scientists get together at science meetings, or even in their labs, they may argue! No, they’re not really fighting. But they do try to point out where there’s a lack of good material evidence. This is another way scientific claims are challenged. So, contrary to popular views, argumentation is good in science. That’s true as long as it’s scientific argumentation. This means there must be solid material evidence to support each argument. And that evidence must be justified for every claim. In other words, they must point out the reasons why and how the evidence supports the argument.

A Key Rule of Science:

Scientific answers must always be testable. It must always be possible to test and possibly disprove a scientific answer. Explanations that we can’t try to disprove can’t be used in science.

More About Answers Impossible to Disprove:

Some Answers Impossible To Disprove

“Life is so complex that it must have been created by some intelligent designer.”“Some people can predict the future because they have a magical talent.”

“Some of our behavior is caused by mysterious forces from the stars.”“Gravity is caused by a mystical force.”

“There is life after death.”

Read those statements in the list above. Have you heard any of these before? Can you see a common feature of those explanations? Right—they all require mysterious or supernatural forces. As mentioned before, a supernatural force can do anything. It does not necessarily follow natural laws. For that reason, the action of a supernatural force cannot be predicted. Therefore, if we try to do a fair test of that force, any result we get could be caused by that force. So you see, such a test could not tell us whether an explanation is correct, or not. Supernatural explanations cannot be scientifically disproved. That’s why they cannot be used in science.

Important:

Science does not say that supernatural forces don’t exist. Many people believe they do, even many scientists. But since such mystical forces can’t be properly tested, they simply cannot be part of any scientific explanation. Surprise! With that in mind, study the cartoon in Figure 2.5 (below). Why is it funny? Or, what's wrong with the cartoon (be critical)?

Copyright permission from Sidney Harris at ScienceCartoonsPlus.com

Figure 2.5: Why is this cartoon funny?

So how can we try to understand an event that seems to be caused by mystical or supernatural powers? People once thought that tornadoes, thunder and lightning (Figure 2.6, below) were caused by "the gods." And what about disease? Some people still believe that gods or evil spirits cause disease. If scientists do want to study anything like that, they must assume, for purposes of testing, that it does not have a supernatural cause. (Why is that?) Scientists then consider possible natural forces that might be working, and they test for those forces.

Figure courtesy Harald Edens NOAA site

Figure 2.6. Do you know what lightning is? Who figured that out? Look it up.

By doing this, many such events once thought to have mystical causes have been shown to be quite natural. We have come to understand the natural causes of thunder, lightning, and tornadoes. We have also learned that diseases are not caused by “evil spirits.” Science has shown that most diseases are caused by microbes, diet, certain genes, or some combination of those factors.

Instead of living in fear of these things, we now have ways to predict or deal with them. We have modern weather forecasting and modern medicine. They are both based on the sciences that led to their understanding. Now we can avoid, prevent, or control those scary events that were once thought to have mystical causes, and many lives are saved.

A National Science Education Standard says it all in this partial quote: “Explanations … based on … personal beliefs, … or authority may be personally useful …, but they are not scientific.” (NRC 1995), Emphasis added.

What’s Next?

Now you know what science is and what it is not. You also know more about how science works. But science, to many people, seems to have a “secret language.” The words of science do have specific meanings. But it gets confusing when those same words have different meanings in common use. For various reasons, science can seem very complicated and hard to understand. Is there an easy way to learn the language of science? The next chapter will help.

Self Check B:

Without looking back, answer these 10 items briefly in your notebook. Then re-read the section, and make appropriate changes or additions (*TPS = be ready to discuss in class):

1. List three of the limits of science.2. List three questions science cannot explain?3. Explain in a sentence why science cannot base an explanation just on opinions or views.*4. List five kinds of answers science can not use.5. What is probably the strongest and most unique feature of scientific studies?*6. How do scientists “test” possible explanations?* 7. Explain in one sentence why science cannot use supernatural explanations.*8. How could science study what seems to be a supernatural event?*9. List three ideas or words in this chapter that were hard to understand.10. List three things that were surprises (new) to you.

RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 3. Words Of Science

The first step in the scientific [testing] process is always trying to prove ourselves wrong]. I have an idea, I discuss it with my colleagues, and we try to destroy it. The better the idea sounds, the harder we try [to destroy it]. ― Chris Lee, physicist

Scientific Observations

You may have heard (or thought) that “The main goal of science is to collect facts or learn the truth.” Wrong! The main goal of science is to understand nature, not to collect or produce facts. “Truth” will be discussed later. Understanding nature means finding the best explanations for how nature works. But before we can do that, what must we do? Right! Observe nature! To get answers, scientists must observe carefully and critically, gather facts, and look for patterns to help find explanations. But it’s those explanations that are the real goal of science, not the facts or observations. Surprise!

Just what are observations? And what are explanations? Some of the words used in science do not mean the same as they do in everyday life. In science, most words have very precise meanings. For example, in everyday language, “facts” are details about anything real and permanent. “Observation” means something that you see, or it could be an opinion you have about something. But in science, those words have different meanings.

Scientific Observation, Data, And Fact

Observation: Any information received directly or indirectly through the senses: by seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, and/or touching.

Data: All of the observations that were made and recordedduring a particular study.

Fact: An observation that appears the same to all critical observers.It is therefore is assumed to be real. Surprise!

=======================================

Fact assumed to be real?

Why is “fact” defined this way? Well, you already know that our senses can play tricks on us. Haven’t you watched a magician do tricks—make something disappear, or appear, out of thin air? You know those are illusions intended to fool you. Maybe your teacher will show the class some neat tricks or optical illusions, if you ask nicely! For example, see Figure 3.1 (below). If your class hasn’t done the Perception lab ("Perception is not always reality"), and figured out why a T-illusion is an illusion, ask your teacher about it. If the class doesn’t do this, maybe you can form a team to do it as a special investigation.

Courtesy of Akiyoshi Kitaoka, Ritsumeikan University

Figure 3.1. The Ouchi Illusion. Shift and turn your head a bit from side to side. Describe what happens. How can something seem to move when it really doesn’t? Or does it?

Natural Illusions:

You’ve also seen how nature can fool you, too. Remember how the Sun seems to move across the sky, from east to west during the day? Then it disappears below the western horizon, and somehow travels under us to rise the next morning in the east? And doesn’t the Earth really seem like it’s flat and just standing still? Well, those are natural illusions. It’s hard to believe, but we’re actually standing on a ball-shaped Earth that’s spinning fast. In fact, our Earth makes one complete spin in 24 hours, while the Sun stays in about the same place. Astronauts in space can actually see that (see Figure 1.1).

Near our equator, everything is moving about 1600 km (1000 miles) per hour! The "moving-Sun" illusion is like being on a merry-go-round and watching a friend on the ground come into view, then disappear behind you as you continue around. However, in that analogy, we do feel the air rushing past. And we can also stand on the ground to watch the merry-go-round go ‘round. But on our “merry-go-Earth” we don’t feel that wind, and the Sun does seem to move around us. Wow!

In addition, the Earth also travels about 940 million km (583 million miles) in one year in its orbit around the Sun. How fast (in km/hr, or mi/hr) is Earth travelling in that orbit? Now add that to our speed moving around this spinning Earth. Wow-Wow! Why aren’t we blown away? Can you think of any other natural illusions? Be sure to share them with your class.

With kind permission PNAS and the authors: Lloyd and James Kaufman. 1999. Explaining the moon illusion.

Figure 3.2: This shows another natural illusion: The Big Moon Illusion. Have you ever seen a full moon in the evening eastern sky? Didn’t it look bigger than when you saw it overhead later in the evening? Why is that? Some say it’s the way our brain views the shape of the sky. The sky seems to be a flattened dome, with the overhead nearby and the horizon far away. It makes sense: Birds flying overhead are closer than birds on the horizon. When the moon is near the horizon, your brain, trained by watching birds, miscalculates the moon's true distance and size. How could we test this idea? (Ask your teacher for the article by Kaufman and Kaufman, 1999, in the Teacher References). And, what's wrong with this diagram? (Hint: does the "true sky" line mean that there really is a dome above us? What does the "true sky" line actually mean?)

Science is a powerful tool:

Obviously, our senses are not always reliable. And our brain does play tricks on us. What we think we see and remember is not always real. Many studies have shown that eyewitnesses to crimes are often wrong. As a result, the testimonies of eyewitnesses in court are not as reliable as we once thought. In fact, we are finding that many people have been wrongly convicted, and sent to jail based on eyewitness testimony. And we are now seeing more and more prisoners having their convictions reversed and are being released from jail. This is because new and better evidence of their innocence (like DNA evidence) has been found. This is one way that the power of science is helping people.

Remember that anything science calls a "fact" must have been critically observed by many people. This tends to cancel out the differences in what people think they’ve seen or heard. And that tends to leave us with what was actually being observed. After critical testing, this becomes the most reliable basis for a fact in science. As you can see, science is a powerful tool, using certain rules and techniques to expose the reality behind illusions.

Scientists use other powerful tools to help them observe what they can’t observe directly with their senses. This includes the very small, the very distant, the very fast, the very slow, and the very old. They can also measure those dimensions precisely. And that enables them to use precise mathematical descriptions of their observations. What tools or techniques do scientists use to observe and measure those five examples? Discuss them with your team and your class.

Can a scientific fact change?

We are always getting better tools for observing. As a result, we have found that some previous “facts” are not really what we thought they were. But science is self-correcting. For example, we once thought humans had 48 chromosomes in each cell. Several scientists had counted them carefully and reported this in science journals. But with better equipment and techniques, we found later there were really only 46 chromosomes. Scientific facts don’t change very often, but they can change. Surprise! We sometimes say scientific facts are very durable because they are not likely to change.

Scientific Explanations

Observations and facts are directly tied to our senses. On the other hand, explanations are formed in the mind. We can say that explanations are what we think or infer from the observations. Our brain thinks about our observations, and tries to make sense of them. We may wonder how those observations came to be the way they are, and how they relate to each other. In science, explanations must be based on scientific observations and scientific facts. But, it’s the answers, or explanations, formed in the brain, that are the main goal of science.

Do you remember doing the Mystery Boxes lab? Did you notice that you were coming up with possible explanations (or answers) without realizing it? Our brain often works that way. While observing (tilting the box different ways, feeling, listening), you got some idea as to what was probably inside the box. You hardly noticed that you moved directly on to testing those ideas. You did that by tilting the box certain ways, and listening or feeling for predicted movements (observations). By tilting different ways, you were testing for different answers. (Does it seem to roll, or slide, one way, but not the other?) Finally, you selected the answer that seemed to fit all your tests best. In science, we make a point of stating the tentative explanation. Do you know what a possible, tentative explanation is called?

In science, some answers are better than others:

Better answers just work better, and have survived lots of testing. We say they’re more durable. If we don’t have much evidence for an answer, it would be called a possible answer. We could say it’s more tentative or uncertain. The level of acceptance for an answer can be anywhere between tentative and durable. As an explanation survives more testing and is used widely, our level of confidence gets higher. We have words to describe explanations at different levels of confidence. These are words like hypothesis, model, law, and theory.

How do they rank?

A scientific theory generally explains a number of facts. It uses laws and hypotheses that have been well-tested by many scientists. Therefore, scientific theories hold the highest level of acceptance. They are the most reliable, most durable, and most useful explanations in science. Surprise! (How does this contrast with the way “theory” is used in everyday language?) Theories are the most useful because they raise new questions and open the doors to further research and deeper understanding.

Natural laws rank about as high as theories. But they tend to be more precise. A natural law usually describes how key parts of a natural process relate to each other. Such a description is often shown as a mathematical formula.

Scientific hypotheses start off with the lowest level of acceptance. But they can become stronger as they are used and survive repeated testing. If they don’t survive, they may be changed, or rejected. A scientific model is a more general word often used instead of hypothesis, law or theory.

========================================

Scientific ExplanationsTheory: In science, a well supported explanation of a broad feature of the natural

world; it can include facts, laws, models, inferences and tested hypotheses.

Law: A descriptive statement about how some feature of the natural world behaves under certain conditions, often shown by a mathematical formula.

Model: A description, diagram or structure that shows how parts of an explanation might be connected or related to each other.

Hypothesis: A possible explanation or relationship of certain facts about the natural world, based on observation. It must be testable.

========================================

By the way, you may have heard that a hypothesis can become a theory that can then become a law. This is typically not true. A scientific theory is a well-supported explanation of a broad natural feature. It usually includes hypotheses, laws, observations, and facts. Surprise!

See Appendix SA-3.1: Examples of some hypotheses, major theories and laws.

Also, see Appendix SA-3.2 Some Old Theories Replaced.

Hypothesis Practice:

The word hypothesis is often misused. Many have misused it to mean the test of an explanation, or the predicted results of that test, or both! So we need to spend some time working with those concepts. You will be asked to study Appendix SA-3.3: Hypothesis EXPLAINED. This will clarify the differences between a hypothesis, a test, and a prediction. Your teacher may also hand out some practice sheets to help you with those terms. Be sure to discuss with your team why acceptable examples are acceptable. And discuss why unacceptable examples are not acceptable.

Do This #3.1: Build a Concept Map or Mind Map showing how these “Words of Science” relate to each other: fact, law, theory, and hypothesis. Think about how they are related to each other. You should now be able to build a concept map. This is a diagram that arranges those four words so they can be connected with arrow lines pointing from one term to another. Each arrow line should have a short label saying how one word relates to the other. To do this, first print the terms laws, hypotheses, facts, and theories on little strips of paper, or Post-its®. Move them around on your notebook page. Put the words for highest acceptance near the top. Then connect them all with labeled arrows saying how they relate to each other. When you and your partner(s) agree on a final arrangement, copy it to a sheet of paper and add your names. Be prepared to discuss and defend your map with your partners, and then with the class (in other words, be prepared to explain to others why you arranged them as you did). Doing this, by the way, is an example of scientific argumentation!

When you finish, give some thought about where you think “observations” should go. Then consider where “questions” or “problems” should go. Show your placements of these terms by writing them on strips of paper and putting them in place. Then add labeled connecting arrows. Discuss and defend those additions with your team, making changes that seem to improve this arrangement.

Do This #3.2: Priority of Terms: Let’s further test your full understanding about those original four terms (laws, hypotheses, facts, and theories). How do you think scientists would rank them for usefulness? Arrange them in a column (one word above the other). Put the most important (most useful) term on top, and the least important on the bottom. Place the remaining terms in order between them. Compare your sequence with others in your team. Be critical. Discuss these, and rearrange if you change your views. What is the evidence for your choice? Be careful, you might be surprised! It may not be what you thought at first! When each team shares and defends its “best” sequence, try to clarify your understanding of each term. Ask questions where you’re not sure. The most important term is also the most useful. When the class has settled on a final sequence, consider where “observation” would best fit. Explain why. Discuss this. (What's this “discussion” process called?)

More About Tentativeness & Uncertainty:

Explanations are clearly products of our minds, and can change with new information. But scientists know this and expect change. This can be surprising to those who think that science produces only certainties and facts. Surprise! Actually, one of the strengths of science is its uncertainty. It’s a strength because science is open to change when new facts are found that support new explanations. What people often miss, though, is that there are degrees of uncertainty in scientific answers. As we learn more about the natural world, even our theories get better. In other words, our understanding of the natural world gets better.

ENSI lesson: The Checks Lab

Figure 3.3: Remember the Checks Lab? When you “found new evidence” in the Checks Lab (new checks), you probably had to change your earlier explanation. This new explanation (or story line) had to include the information from those new checks. That’s exactly how science works. Did you also notice that the Checks Lab is not an experimental process? It’s an example of how “historical science” works. It’s the same process used in forensic science, to help solve crimes. Did you do the Crime Scene lab, The Great Fossil Find, or the Laetoli Puzzle? They all use good science to answer questions about past events, and they’re not experimental. Lots of good scientific investigations are done without experiments.

All scientific answers are said to be “tentative,” but new ones are far more tentative than older ones that are still around. “Tentative” means that we’re not absolutely certain about the answer. Hypotheses are, by definition, “tentative” (surprise!), so we are clearly unsure about them. But as a hypothesis is used and tested, and works, we get more confident about it. Sooner or later, it may be combined with other hypotheses and facts and become part of a broad theory. Scientific theories are well supported by many studies over time, and they work. They combine the most useful and successful explanations we have about a major process of nature. And they are the most durable, too. Therefore, we often treat theories as if they were very close to reality. Surprise! This is not certainty, but very close to it, and is usually treated as such for all practical purposes. Like observed facts, even scientific theories can change, but major change is unlikely. See Appendix SA-3.2 Some Old Theories Replaced. So now we have better theories than what we had before.

A good example of a theory is the atomic theory. This is the idea that all matter is made of atoms. It also includes details about atomic structure and how that knowledge has changed over time.

Atomic Structure:

Not too long ago, scientists wondered what an atom looked like. So they used a variety of clever investigations to give them clues. From those early studies, they figured out that an atom has a heavy but very tiny central nucleus. And whizzing throughout the atom were tiny particles they called “electrons.” See Figure 3.4A.

A: Planetary diagram by the author; B: Permission of Chris Skilbeck at http://cronodon.com/Atomic/AtomTech4.html

Figure 3.4A: Early model of atom showing tiny nucleus and electrons whizzing about;Figure 3.4B: Electron cloud model showing where electrons are most likely found.

Later, scientists found evidence suggesting that the electrons had no fixed orbiting paths. In fact, they showed that you could never tell exactly where an electron was. You could only say that they were more likely to be in certain areas, and less likely in others. Imagine each of several electrons to be a tiny black dot, and you took a time-exposure photo. All you’d see would be a blur of blackness with fuzzy edges. This is called an “electron cloud” (see Figure 3.4B). The cloud is darkest where the electrons are most likely to be.

The nucleus turned out to be a tight cluster of proton and neutron particles. It’s so tiny that if it were drawn to scale, you really couldn’t see it in these diagrams. The total volume of the atom is mostly empty space with tiny electrons zipping throughout. The size ratio of the nucleus to the entire atom is about 1 to 100,000. If this atom were enlarged to the size of a football stadium, its nucleus would be the size of a grain of sand! And the atoms of all elements are roughly similar in size.

Later studies suggested that the electrons have different energy levels. Still later, they were shown to be more likely in different shaped “cloud” regions, called "orbitals" (see Figure 1.2 in Chapter1). And the protons and neutrons are actually made of quarks. But these are really just more details. They answer different questions about the atom, all figured out from many clever studies. Those details help to apply our knowledge about the atoms to new practical uses. New studies in the future may give us even deeper details. But those details are not likely to change this general picture. From all of this, we have high confidence in the general structure of an atom. It’s always subject to change so it is technically uncertain. But the general structure is widely accepted and treated as if it is close to reality. We can say that it’s a durable concept. And it is useful.

Change is a Strength of Science:

As discussed earlier, there are different levels of relative uncertainty in science. Scientists can (and often do) disagree with the work of other scientists. They actually argue with each other about their claims. This is called scientific argumentation (see Chapter 2). It’s a very special kind of arguing. What they insist on is that every scientific claim made by a scientist must be backed by material evidence. This is one way that errors in methods or conclusions are discovered. In fact, it can be said that uncertainty (or degrees of ignorance) is one of the driving forces of science. If new data don’t fit the current understanding, scientists may change those ideas and try new tests. This openness to change gives us confidence that we are getting ever closer to the realities of the natural world. This means that scientific knowledge is always getting better. And we are getting less ignorant! The scientific knowledge of today is far more reliable, and useful, than it was even ten years ago. Surprise! Other “ways of knowing” are not nearly as open to change. This is one of the reasons that science has been such a powerful and useful tool for understanding nature.

A Word About “Models”:

Sometimes you hear about scientists testing a particular “model” in much the same way that they would test a “theory” or “hypothesis.” A scientific model may refer to a description, diagram or structure that shows how we think the parts of an explanation are related. When a model is tested (challenged) and shown not to work, we say it is weakened, so it may be changed or rejected. If the model does work, we say it has been strengthened or supported.

The words “hypothesis” or “theory” give a better idea about how well an idea is accepted. Using “model” is not as clear about that; it gives us no idea how tested the idea might be. In general, however, a model may not be as well established as a theory. It depends on how the word is being used. In any case, where we might be tempted to use “theory” for its everyday usage, “model” would be much better. That way, “theory” is reserved just for those scientifically well-established understandings.

A Word (or Two) About “Truth":

You may hear claims that science is supposed to be searching for truth, as if “truth” meant “fact” or “reality.” However, “truth” can mean different things to different people. “Truth” to many is what has been said or written by a highly regarded authority. This is sometimes called “revealed truth.” This “truth” may be real and comforting to supporters of that authority, but it doesn’t follow the rules of science. The success and usefulness of science are based on critical observations and tested explanations, not authority. Clearly, those “truths” based on authority have different sources and follow different rules. This can be confusing. Therefore, it’s probably best to avoid saying that science seeks “truth.” Surprise! Then what is science seeking? (See Chapter 1).

Try replacing “truth” with “reality.” Reality is what the real world actually is, not what we think it is or what it seems to be. We may never “know” that reality with absolute certainty. But in science, we try to come as close to that reality as we can. At the same time, we humbly recognize the flaws in our senses and reasoning abilities. Therefore, scientific knowledge is probably just a close approximation of reality. But if it works in its applications to real-world issues, then it’s probably close enough.

Problems With Words: Their Use and Misuse:

Even when you read your science text or other science books, you will discover that these words of science are not always used in the ways described here. This is especially true when you hear other people talk about science, even scientists or science teachers. For example, you might have learned that a “hypothesis” was just “an educated guess.” Is that all it is, really? From certain clues, you could guess what’s for dinner, but is that a hypothesis? What’s missing? You may have heard a scientist being interviewed on TV say “I’ve got a theory about the cause of that disease.” Saying it in this casual way suggests that it’s just an idea, not really an established scientific theory. So, why do we hear these things? If you’re curious, read Appendix SA-3.4 for More Problems with the Words of Science.

What’s Next?

Hopefully, the key words of science make more sense now. But how can we really trust science? Sometimes a recommended medicine is found not to work. It might even be dangerous for some people. We may also read that an earlier scientific explanation has been replaced with a new explanation about something. Or we see that some scientist has committed fraud. How can we depend on science? How can we tell when we see poor science, or when we see reliable science? The next chapter will give you some clues.

Self Check C:

Without looking back, answer these 12 items briefly in your notebook. Then re-read the section, and make appropriate changes or additions (*TPS = be ready to discuss in class):

1. What is the main goal of science?2. Use a diagram to show how these terms are related to each other: fact, theory, law, model,

observation, hypothesis.*3. What do scientific theories, laws, hypotheses and models all have in common?*4. Why is a scientific explanation not really a scientific fact?*5. Can facts change? If so, when? (Continue to next page.)*6. What’s wrong with the idea that a theory is a mature hypothesis?*7. What’s wrong with saying that science seeks the truth?*8. Why is "uncertainty" a strength of science?*9. Give 2 reasons why scientific theories are the most useful and successful explanations.*10. Give 1 example of a strong theory that was replaced with a new, better theory.11. List three (or more) ideas or words in this chapter that were hard to understand.12. List three things in this chapter that were surprises to you.

RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 4. The Quality Of Science

Science is not perfect. It’s often misused; it’s only a tool, but it’s the best tool we have. Self-correcting, ever-changing, applicable to everything; with this tool, we vanquish the impossible. — Carl Sagan, scientist

Is It Good Science... Or Is It Poor Science?

You may hear that “Doctors say ‘Brand X Memory Pill is the best memory pill on the market.” Or “Scientists have scientifically proven that this heater will heat your house for pennies a day.” I’m sure you’ve seen ads like these on the Web, TV and in magazines and newspapers. When you did, did you ask yourself questions like “How many doctors?” “What kind of doctors?” Where were their studies published?” And, “What kind of scientists?” “What size house, what time of year, what location?” “Who paid for the studies?” And what does saying something was “proven” tell you (from what you already know about science)?

http://www.detoxmetals.com/

Figure 4.1

How Poor Science Happens:

Science has clearly been shown to be a powerful tool for getting reliable answers. Therefore, many people assume that anything “scientific” must be reliable and accurate. Although this is generally true, there’s no guarantee. Poor science can happen for at least four reasons:

1. Some science is not always done well (this is true for any kind of work).2. Scientists can be overly influenced by their biases and prejudices.3. Some people might “do a study” and call it “science,” without using the rules of science.4. People want to make their product or belief appear to be “the best” by any means, even saying

it has “scientific support” when it doesn’t.

Comparison Of Good Science And Poor Science

Good Science: Follows the rules of science, closely and carefully.

Poor Science: May attempt to follow the rules of science, but errors and oversights may be made. Poor techniques and poor logic may be used. The work may be overly influenced by bias. Only studies supporting that bias may be presented.

==========================================

What Makes Poor Quality Science?

We often hear that some new idea or product is “scientific” or was “proven by science.” Those words are often used to convince others that a favorite idea or product is a good one. But what do you know about the “science” that was done? Did you look to see where the studies were published? Were all the rules of science followed? Surprise! Some so-called “science” is not reliable because it is not done right. As you probably know, not everyone does a good job. Some cooks use too much salt. Some lawyers don't always provide a good defense. And some doctors may not always diagnose illnesses accurately. Even some good scientists may sometimes do poor science.

Careless work:

Errors can be made in measuring or recording data. Or there could be some factor not properly controlled (see Appendix SA-1.1). That factor might be the real cause for the experimental results. Those results, then, may lead to an incorrect conclusion. Scientists who do this may be exposed during peer-review, or later by other scientists. The guilty scientist either starts doing better work, or earns a bad reputation, and gets little or no work.

Fraud:

As a group, scientists are very honest. Their work (and reputation) depends on their honesty. But some scientists have changed their data on purpose. They may do this to support a desired conclusion. Some may just ignore some of their own data, or the work of others. Due to biases, they may have wanted to reach certain desired conclusions, so they may “fudge” their results. But fraud in science is eventually exposed by other scientists. As a result, it isn’t very common, but it still happens. Where possible, published papers with exposed fraud are eventually removed from the journal. And the scientist’s reputation suffers.

Biases:

We all have our own views and opinions about various issues. We may not even be aware of what those biases are. There is gender-bias, where some assume that one sex is smarter or better than the other. There’s political bias, where we favor one political view over another. There’s racial bias, age bias, national bias, and religious bias. Biases can influence how we observe and how we analyze what we observe. Scientists are only human, and their biases can affect their science. However, working with other scientists and following the rules of science tends to reduce the influence of bias on their work. That’s another reason why science is so reliable.

If you have done the Women’s Brains lesson, you have a good idea about what biased research can look like. Also, be sure to read the examples of confirmation bias (below). This is where a scientist may change the data to support a certain bias. These all show how scientists can produce biased work without realizing it.

See Appendix SA-4.1 Part A: Confirmation Bias in Science: Examples. In this short article, scientist Chris Lee explains confirmation bias, with examples. Read this part and answer the Discussion Questions 1-9 (provided by your teacher).

Conflict of interest:

This is a special kind a bias. If a scientist works for a drug company, it would be tempting to get results that favor the company. If the results of a study did not favor the company, and are published, the scientist might lose his/her job! Apparently this is not unusual in many industries. If the results of any study seem to support the company that pays the scientists, be suspicious! Scientists are supposed to reveal any conflict of interest in their reports. So look for such statements. You should also look for the source of funding for a project. It could also be a company that rejects any studies showing negative results about their products (Lenzer 2009). Certain tobacco, oil, and drug companies have been noted for this (see two pages ahead: “2. Publishing” for an example). A neutral, independent lab should check those studies.

Some companies say that their genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are safe. They say that their scientists show their products are perfectly safe. Independent studies have shown this is not true for some of those products. To explore this idea further, see SA-4.5: The GMO Controversy. Some years ago, the tobacco industry said that tobacco was safe. Independent science told us the opposite. (See Figure 4.2). There was more and more evidence that tobacco use was causing cancer and other problems. We now know that tobacco company leaders simply lied just to protect their business (Felberbaum 2014).

From Euro-Cig.com: 1953 Arthur Godfrey Chesterfield Cigarette Milder Ad

Figure 4.2

Alternative Medicine:

Many people believe in using “alternative” medical treatments, such as homeopathic medicine (see Figure 4.3, below) or therapeutic touch. “Alternative” means, in this case, that those treatments have not been scientifically shown to be effective. Most of those treatments depend on mystical causes that science can’t test. (Why is that?) Science can only test them reliably if we assume there are no such magical forces involved. (But how could they do that if “mystical forces” are required?)

A treatment may seem to work for some people because people are different. Or it may happen because the patient expects it to work. This is called the “placebo effect.” To avoid the placebo effect, standard randomized double-blind and controlled studies must be done to test any treatment. Whenever this is done properly, we find that those “alternative medicine” treatments really don’t work beyond random chance or their placebo effect. Testimonials praising the benefits of those treatments come from individual experiences. We say they are “anecdotal.” Any claims that science “proved” treatments like these would have to be called “pseudoscience.” More about that in Chapter 5.

Homeopathic medicine: This is an “alternative medicine” treatment. It claims to have a variety of medicines to treat any disorder. These are often very diluted samples of a chemical said to provide relief or cure. The best treatment is claimed to be the one that is most diluted. But it has so much water in it that it’s not likely to have any of the “active” chemical! This is contrary to the way medical treatments usually work. There is clearly a mystical feature here.

These treatments have never survived good scientific tests of their effectiveness. See Figure 4.3 (below). Also, ask your teacher about doing a web search for the pros and cons about homeopathy (or other alternative medical treatment). This would be an excellent opportunity to practice your skills of skeptical and critical thinking. If possible, share and compare the findings of your team with the findings of other teams for the same treatment.

Permission to use this cartoon kindly granted by Edwin Tan

Figure 4.3. Why is this cartoon funny? Discuss with your team. Why is homeopathic medicine considered a pseudoscience?

ACTIVITY: Appendix SA-4.3: Good Science vs. Poor Science: Cyclamate Studies. Practice recognizing examples of good science and poor science.

How Can We Tell If It’s Good Science, Or Not?

1. Be a skeptic:

If something sounds too good or too amazing to be true, be suspicious. Assume that it’s probably not true. Ask questions. Seek sources with critical reviews and fact-based discussions of opposing views by different people. There are some excellent websites that do this. For example, see the UC Berkeley Wellness Letter for critical reports of medical and health questions. But be careful; there are many more websites that promote “alternative” (non-medical) solutions. Those sources often feature their “treatments” for sale. They may also give a negative view of scientific or “main stream” medical treatments. Ask people who should know about the topic, especially scientists or professors in that field. Don’t be afraid to email professors of that subject at a local university. Ask what the peer-reviewed literature says. Be alert for some of the clues that are usually found in poor science, misused science, or pseudoscience (see Chapter 5).

Below is a Science Checklist (Figure 4.4) from the excellent Berkeley website: Understanding Science. Take any article, ad or suspicious claim, and ask “How scientific is it?” Also, see the box in Chapter 5: Comparison of Pseudoscience and Science.

Understanding Science (Berkeley website:

Figure 4.4 Science Checklist.

What do you suppose the promoters of “health aids” want to do? Right! They are most interested in selling their products and making a profit. Is that a bias? That is a bias! Therefore, always be wary of the claims for health- and beauty-aid products. Good scientific research has shown that most of these items do not do what they claim for most people. In fact, some can actually be hazardous to your health. Be careful. Consult your doctor. Consult reliable medical reports online if possible. These should be from hospitals or university medical websites. Consult the informed publications of university medical centers, e.g., the University of California's Wellness Letter. There are also critical and readable reports in certain relatively unbiased magazines, e.g., Consumer Reports (they’re online, too).

2. Publishing:

How can we be confident of the work of scientists generally? Scientists are expected to publish their studies in peer-review journals (PRJs). Their honor and their jobs depend on this. Before a study is published, other scientists who specialize in that field are asked to read the report. They check to make sure that the procedures and rules of science were followed. They also make sure that the conclusions fit the data and what is already known in the field. If the results don't fit, there must be convincing evidence for that. Any problems are reported to the author. The author must then correct the problems before the study is published, or it isn’t published! If the author has good evidence for unusual claims, the author may need to explain them better. This greatly increases the reliability and reduces bias in research published in PRJs.

However, in the medical community, “there is a tendency to not publish negative results. If such studies are submitted, some medical journals may not accept them for publication.” (Lenzer 2009). So, keep in mind that you might not be getting the full story.

If you did the Mystery Boxes lesson, what part was like publishing your conclusions? Right! When someone on your team drew a diagram of your box on the board or a poster. That was like publishing your team’s conclusions. Other teams could then compare your team results with what they concluded from testing the same box.

Publishing in a professional journal also makes the study available to all other scientists. That way, they can critique the study, or repeat the work if it seems questionable. Hypotheses and observations may be tested many times, many ways, and by many scientists. This is one of the strengths of science. Any errors made by one scientist would likely be exposed by other scientists. Scientific journals often print letters from scientists pointing out errors in published research (see Appendix SA-4.3: Good Science vs. Poor Science). These can be errors of process, or errors of interpretation. Or they can show how the findings of a study do not fit with other studies. Or they may say that the evidence is not good enough to support the conclusion. Criticism and conflicts (scientific argumentation) are normal for good science. Surprise! Publishing in a peer-review journal may not be perfect protection against poor science, but those studies do tend to be the most reliable. Criticism is a major strength of science.

See Appendix SA-4.2 Part B: Confirmation Bias in Science – Avoiding It. Scientist Chris Lee describes a typical path to publishing for one of his research projects, with examples. Read this part and answer the Discussion Questions 10-24 (provided by your teacher).

Science in magazines or books: If you see a surprising scientific claim described in a magazine or trade book, be skeptical. Be more doubtful if the claim was not supported in any peer-review journal (PRJ). The claims in the magazine or book don’t get the same critical screening as they would in a PRJ. Surprise! For example, a few scientists have published books and articles about “irreducible complexity.” This is the idea that the human eye, for example, is too complex to have come into existence in little steps by natural processes. But no research supporting that idea has ever been published in any PRJ. On the other hand, there are many studies from different fields (with solid evidence) showing how those natural processes could easily have done this. Those studies have been published in peer-review journals over many years. If your class didn't do the CONPTT lesson, ask about it.

3. Searching the Internet:

For good scientific or medical information, go to university or medical school sites. Avoid personal blogs or product-centered sites. Look for sites that refer to journal articles. These aren’t foolproof tips, but they should be helpful. Also, if some site makes amazing claims for something, be suspicious. Be cautious. Be skeptical. Remember this quote from scientist Carl Sagan: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Look for sites that present opposing views. Even better, look for evidence that refutes the claims made by the other side. This should be item by item, with good reasons that you can understand. You may have been asked to avoid Wikipedia as a source. But it is critically checked and revised by informed people. Studies have shown it to be a good place to start a search. Surprise! Just be sure to look at credible academic sites, too. Again, these are not foolproof tips, but they should be helpful.

4. Look for Consilience: A Good Sign of Good Science:

Look for studies of your topic done by different scientists in different fields. If their data-backed conclusions support each other, this is good. This greatly strengthens those conclusions. This is called “consilience.” When we get evidence from different fields that agree, we are more confident of that answer. Surprise! For example, many studies in geology, physics, astronomy, and other fields all point to a very old Earth. (And there are no studies that even suggest otherwise). This is not “consensus,” where scientists just agree with each other. Instead, it’s consilience. Those studies use different data from different fields, but they all fit with each other. Their findings are consistent with each other.

Research in geology, astronomy, physics and chemistry all say that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old. This consilience gives us a very high level of confidence in the reality of that age. And there is no empirical (observable) evidence that points to anything different. Some people have claimed that we really can't know what happened in past ages. We weren't there! But scientists have developed many clever ways to do just that. They look for certain clues, just like they do in crime scene investigations.

Climate scientists agree by 99.8% that humans are causing climate change (Figure 4.5, next page). And those scientists specialize in different aspects of climate. But climate-change rejecters say that 31,000 scientists disagree with that. When you check into it, you find that those 31,000 “disagreeing scientists” include medical doctors, mechanical engineers, and computer scientists. None of these have experience in doing climate science. Those climate-change rejecters also don’t say what those disagreements are about. They could just be about certain minor details. So be wary when you see such claims. (See SA-5.1).

CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL, BUT ARE HUMANS CAUSING IT?

Out of 13,950 peer-reviewed climate-study papers, published in science journals from 1991-2012...

Permission to use these data and this graphic by Dr. James Powell

Figure 4.5: Why do you think those 24 papers said “NO?” Click Here for details of Dr. Powell’s study. Also, take a look at Appendix SA-4.4: "Climate Change is Real, But..."

Other Ways to Distinguish Good Science From Poor Science:

There are a number of guides and other tools to help you do this. Your teacher may share one or two of those with you. Be sure to practice using those tools whenever you suspect claims that seem too good to be true. We will also look at some of these in Chapter 5.

Don’t be Cynical About Science: In any case, with all the negative reports we see about science, don’t be cynical about science. That’s when you just take a negative view about all science. We know that good science has produced a lot of amazing and useful knowledge, and will continue to do so. Just keep a healthy skeptical attitude about science. Be vigilant. Ask questions. Be selective. Remember to ask “Does it follow all the rules of science?”

There’s one more benefit for being skeptical and thinking critically. When you go to college, most of the professors of most courses will ask you to read a number of articles and essays. Not just read them, but critically analyze them. And not just in science classes, but most other classes, too! You should practice this useful skill now, so you will be better prepared for college, and for life.

What’s Next?

Now you can see why most science is generally good science, and tends to be very reliable. But you can also see that poor science can happen, too. And there are ways that you can recognize the difference when you look for it. But what’s this “pseudoscience?” How can you have “fake science?” Why does it exist? How does it get started? Why do we need to recognize it when we see it? And, most importantly, how can we recognize it when we see it? Read on.

Self Check D:

Without looking back, answer these 10 items briefly in your notebook. Then re-read the section, and make appropriate changes or additions (*TPS = be ready to discuss in class):

1. What are two clues that an ad claiming scientific support may not be true?*2. List three reasons why poor science happens.3. What is the one feature of good science that is different from poor science?*4. List two ways that personal bias can influence science.*5. What are three features of good science that tend to make it stronger?*6. What is one clue that a published scientific claim may not be good science?*7. You want to use the internet to see if a health product does what it claims. What two things

would you look for to get the most reliable information?*8. What is consilience? How does it affect our confidence in the explanation produced?*9. List three ideas or words in this chapter that were hard to understand.10. List three things that were surprises to you.

RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 5. Pseudoscience: A Major Misuse Of Science

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ― Carl Sagan, scientist

We’ve already seen a few examples of poor science. But when the promoters of those examples claim that “science has proven” their beliefs, beware! They are trying to use the powerful word “science” to convince you that their “magic pill” works. Any view, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific, but does not follow all the rules of science, is called a pseudoscience (fake science).

Some Examples of PseudoscienceAroma Therapy, Astrology, Biorhythms, Climate Change Rejection

Dianetics/Scientology, ESP (Extra Sensory Perception), Eugenics, Homeopathy, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, Numerology, Palmistry,

Phrenology, Plant Emotions, Telekinesis, Therapeutic Touch

====================================

What is Pseudoscience?

Pseudoscience (soo-doe-science) is a special case of poor science. Poor science is usually performed while trying to do real scientific work, but fails for any of the several reasons described in the previous chapter. The goal of any pseudoscience is to promote some belief, idea or product by pretending to use science to “prove” that belief, idea or product. See the bias here? The promoters of a pseudoscience may claim that “scientific studies support” or “prove” their beliefs or products. But when we investigate them, we learn that those studies fail to follow one or more of the rules of good science.

Promoters often “single out” only those studies that support their claims. They also ignore or distort studies that do not support their claims. Some promoters may write books or articles claiming that their work is “scientific.” But if there are no critical studies supporting the subject published in peer-review journals, it’s probably not science. It’s more likely a pseudoscience! Surprise! One way to check out a particular pseudoscience is to use an academic search engine like Google Scholar. In Google, Just type in “Google Scholar,” then type the search words to search for. Try it, using one of the examples in the list above. Try using different search words. If you can, discuss your findings in class.

Many people support one or more pseudosciences without even knowing they are pseudosciences. You probably have friends or family members who believe in a pseudoscience or two. In addition to the list of some pseudosciences in the box (above), go online and search for “examples of pseudoscience” to see the long list. Some may surprise you.

Why do people make these claims?

Pseudoscience promoters are often very passionate about their beliefs. They may have a “hidden agenda” or particular worldview they want to spread. Or they have a “treatment” they want to sell. They want to convince others that it’s something they should also promote. They also know that science has a reputation as a powerful tool for “explaining the unknown.” Therefore, they may claim that “research” or “studies” support their product (or idea). (Were those scientific studies? If so where were they published?) They may even claim “scientific support” to make their ideas or products sound better. (Was it good science, or poor science?) They may do this even though little or no proper science was done on the subject.

There’s not necessarily anything wrong with supporting a pseudoscience (unless one’s health or job suffers as a result). It’s just that it hasn’t survived critical scientific study (even though some may say it has). So they really are not supported by science. That’s pseudoscience!

Comparison of Pseudoscience and SciencePseudoscience…... vs …..……Science

Ignores some or all rules of science…..Attempts to follow all rules of scienceTries to prove its own explanations…...Tries to disprove its own explanations

Includes supernatural explanations…..Excludes supernatural explanationsIgnores or denies unsupportive studies…..Considers all research studies on topic

Authority provides the main support…….Observed data provide main support

=====================================

If your teacher hasn’t done the How’s Your Horoscope lesson, be sure to ask about it. There may not be time to do this now, but perhaps it can be done later in the year. It’s a very interesting lesson that explores a product of astrology, a well-known pseudoscience. You might also enjoy doing the Therapeutic Touch lesson as another pseudoscience. But this might work better as a special project. If it sounds interesting, ask your teacher about it.

How Can We Tell If It’s Science or Pseudoscience?

Be sure to study the box (above): Comparison of Pseudoscience And Science. One of the more obvious clues for a pseudoscience “study” is that they claim to “prove” their ideas (rather than trying to test or “disprove” them). This is confirmation bias at work (see Appendix SA-4.1, Part A: Confirmation Bias in Science). In short, they fail to follow all the rules of good science. And they often get away with it, because most people don’t know the rules of science. But now you do!

Look for ads that claim a substance can cure several different health problems. If the claim also uses lots of “technical terms” to describe the research, be even more suspicious. For example, a certain pill we’ll call “B-Pill” was actually advertised to help the brain. It would “protect brain cells, bring clearer thinking and protect memory.” The ad claimed that in a “double-blind placebo-controlled study, B-Pill improved memory 29%.” A careful search by a medical information source (Goldman, 2011) found no published research on this. In addition all the supposed “studies” cited on the web site for “B-Pill” were not published. They could have been totally made-up! (See Appendix SA-1.1). The Science Checklist (Figure 4.4): is another good guide to critically check the validity of ads or articles claiming to be scientific. See how much money you can save?

Whenever we look closely at the “scientific studies” claimed by pseudoscience promoters, we find they didn’t follow all the rules of science. When scientists have tried to do proper scientific studies on a pseudoscience, those claims are never supported. This doesn’t mean that those ideas are wrong for everyone. Some people may indeed benefit from a pseudoscience claim. It could be just a personal reaction not shared by all. But that’s not science.

If one thinks a health treatment works, that belief alone seems to help some patients. Remember the “placebo effect?” In some cases, the treatment is thought to involve some sort of mystical force. For that reason alone, science cannot be used to support those beliefs as such. Why is that? If you are convinced by their claims, that’s fine; just don’t call it science! Then it’s just a belief, or a “pseudoscience.” It’s certainly not “science.”

Have you seen ads in magazines for “pain relief from magnets and copper” or “lose weight by wearing these natural stones?” How about wearing watches that emit “therapeutic healing ions?” Did you know that silver therapy draws blood to your foot and controls bacteria? Magnets are especially popular for relieving pain, but there is no science that supports that idea. These are all pseudoscience because they claim support from “studies.” How can they be allowed to say that?

Even though pseudoscientific claims do deceive people, they tend to be very popular (Figure 5.1, below). People not getting relief from their suffering and pain often try anything that might work. They always have hope, even for some magical cure. Many pseudoscience “solutions’ seem to satisfy that hope for some people. The message? “Beware! If it seems too good to be true, it probably is not true!” This means that it probably does not work for many people. It might even be harmful. So "Beware!"

Copyright permission from Sidney Harris at ScienceCartoonsPlus.com

Figure 5.1: Do This #5.1: Discuss this Sidney Harris cartoon. What does it suggest about pseudoscience vs. science? Why is it funny?

Pseudoscience In The Science Classroom

Sadly, the supporters of some pseudosciences have tried to push their ideas into the classroom. There, they can influence young minds. The usual science myths that come with this can easily mislead those who haven’t learned the nature of science. Surprisingly, they may even try to discredit certain well-established scientific theories. Examples include theories that are the basis for measuring the age of the Earth, and those that tell us the cause of global warming. Is this fair?

Pseudoscience supporters may be well-meaning but misinformed. With clever methods, they can persuade uncritical people to vote for laws that distort science education. Or, they can run for school boards where they can affect an entire district with their unscientific ideas. As a result, many students may get a poor understanding of science and scientific findings. They may come to doubt certain findings of science, or even doubt all of science.

This rejection of science can close doors to possible science-based jobs in the future. There is even a case where students had taken a college-prep science class that “did not teach critical thinking and were at odds with scientific findings.” As a result, a public university in that state did not accept student credit for that course, so those students could not enter that university. The university said that those students were not prepared for the university courses. This action was later supported by the courts (Sassaman 2010).

Science Rejection:

Confusion about science has led some people to distrust science. They become cynical about science. This is like a teacher blaming everyone in the classroom when only a few students are causing trouble. Even worse, many have come to believe that science really doesn’t work. They reject science. They point to examples of “poor science,” and errors in science. They see where science has reversed itself, and they hear the claims from pseudoscience promoters. They hear people saying that “it’s only a theory,” said by those who want to discredit some scientific concept. (What’s wrong with saying “it’s only a theory?)

It’s no wonder that many people are confused about science. This distrust and rejection has led to people speaking out against science-supported programs. Have you heard arguments against climate change? Have you heard from people opposed to vaccinations? Have you seen the scientific position on these issues?

If you read about such science-rejection issues, remember to be skeptical. Be sure to search the internet for information on both sides of the issue. Try different combinations of key words to use in your searches. Don’t just listen to the “science rejecters.” For example, see Appendices SA-5.1 and SA-5.2 to consider other aspects of the Climate Change issue.

Shots: Health News from PBR

Figure 5.2: Vaccination

Example 1. Vaccinations: A common vaccine (MMR) was brought into question by a study in 1998. The study suggested that MMR might be the cause of autism. It turns out that the main scientist who did that study had conflicts of interest and faked the data! His published paper was later removed from the journal. He was also prevented from ever practicing as a doctor or scientist. Several more recent studies have all shown no evidence that links the vaccine to autism. (DeStefano & Chen 2001; Mooney 2009; NEJM 2002).

Those studies also show that the vaccine’s benefits far outweigh its risks. But the damage has been done. There are still lots of people who distrust the science and spread the fear of vaccination. As a result, many children have not been vaccinated and are exposed to diseases. Nobody likes shots, but shots give us a good chance to avoid serious sickness, pain, even death. So it’s wise to get the shots. By the way, did you get your flu shot this year? If you learn to breathe deeply, and relax the muscle getting the shot, it hardly hurts at all! Much less than the flu!

Example 2. Climate Change: Did you know that the Sun and our climate are going in opposite directions? (Figure 5.3). Over the last few decades of climate change, the Sun has shown a slight cooling trend (a drop in solar energy output). That’s the blue line in the graph below. This has led a number of scientists to independently conclude that the Sun cannot be the cause of recent climate change. However, one of the most common and persistent climate myths is that the Sun (not people) is the cause of climate change. This myth “cherry-picks” the data. It shows certain past periods when Sun and climate moved together. But it ignores the last few decades when the two temperature lines have moved apart (as shown in the graph). (Cook & Lewandowsky 2011).

From Skeptical Science http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htmTSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007 (data). TSI from 1979 to 2009 from PMOD (see the PMOD index page for data updates).

Figure 5.3: Sun and climate going in opposite directions.Thick blue line traces the moving 11-year average of total solar energy output over 98 years.The thick red line traces the moving 11-year average of Earth’s global temperature changes.

The work of about 97% of climate scientists has shown clear evidence that human-caused climate change is real. And this comes from many independent studies in different areas of climate science. But there are still climate change rejecters (CCRs) who claim there are errors in that research. Those supposed errors have been clearly and publicly shown to be misrepresented, and are in fact not errors. But CCRs just ignore this! They continue to denounce the science. They also say that the subject is controversial. A closer look shows that it is politically controversial, but the science of climate change is not controversial!

The climate change rejecters have even developed classroom materials that claim to make their case against human-caused climate change. They want students to look at the supposed “strengths and weaknesses” of the science that shows human-caused climate change. And they have introduced bills in some states to require those ideas be taught in schools (Leber 2013). This all sounds like fair and balanced critical thinking, but look closer. In their materials, they make their own claims about supposed “weaknesses in the science.” But those claims have all been shown to be untrue or distorted by nearly all climate scientists. The rejecters ignore the clear scientific evidence that discredits those very claims.

If teachers use this one-sided material without getting “the other side,” is this really fair? Students will likely come away with the false impression that climate science is not reliable. You need to know that, in reality, there are no such weaknesses in the science. And there is no such controversy among climate change scientists. Those few climate scientists who do not agree, typically just disagree with certain details. Some scientists who were opposed to human-caused climate change have studied further and have changed their minds, based on their science. See Appendix SA-5.2: “A Converted Climate-Change Skeptic.”

You also need to know that the work of climate change rejecters has apparently been heavily funded (over 100 million dollars). The money comes from a number of activist groups, including the oil industry (Goldenberg 2013; Pappas & LifeScience 2012). As you may know, human-caused climate change points to CO2 production from burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas). So the main solution to this would logically be to reduce the burning of fossil fuels. But anyone who has invested money in any fossil fuel companies might feel financially threatened. Do you remember what we call a situation that might lead a person to reject anything they see as a financial threat? Right! This is an example of a conflict of interest. And how should we treat this? That’s right, be very suspicious; be skeptical. Study the evidence and arguments from both sides.

The Last Words

We should not condemn all science just because some people do it poorly, some misuse it, and some distort it. It is still the most powerful tool we have for understanding the natural world. And it solves many of the problems that we meet. Surprise! The products of science are the materials that engineers and medical doctors actually use to address those problems. Without scientists, engineers and doctors can only do so much. You must do all you can to understand how science works: what it IS, and what it is NOT, what it can do, and what it can’t do. This is an important part of the nature of science. Also, be sure to share your new understanding with your friends and family.

Remember that science always involves a process of critical and analytical thinking. Surprise! All of us need to understand this. And we can all benefit from this. We also need to know that uncertainty is normal for science. And the accuracy of scientific knowledge increases from a low level to a much higher level as it is used and tested over time.

At the same time, we must also know that established scientific knowledge is generally very reliable. It is the most reliable kind of knowledge about the natural world that we have. With this knowledge, we can recognize propaganda and fuzzy thinking when we see it. This information is our most effective protection against the damage that could be done by those who would mislead us. Such deceptions could lead to medical mistakes, political abuse, environmental damage, or national crises. In this world, you must become a critical thinker. You deserve it. And those you care about deserve it.

As mentioned in Chapter 4, there’s one more benefit for being skeptical and thinking critically. When you go to college, most of the professors of most courses will ask you to read a number of articles and essays. Not just read them, but critically analyze them. And not just in science classes, but most other classes, too! You should practice this useful skill now, so you will be better prepared for college, and for life.

The Rest of This Course:

As you explore the many science topics during this course, look for examples of the nature of science. Point these out to your team and your teacher. Look for places in your life where critical and skeptical thinking can be helpful. Try it out! Practice, practice, practice! If you do these things, you will appreciate science more. And your chances for success and good health in life will also grow. By the way, being skeptical does not mean being negative or cynical. It just means "question unusual claims." Ask to see the evidence. It means “being careful.” Remember: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Surprise!

Do you want to know more about the nature of science? Try the excellent online resource website: Understanding Science – How Science Really Works

To see the consilience of climate science, see Appendix SA-4.4: Climate Change is Real, But...

For further discussion about the misuses of science, see…

Appendix SA-5.1: The Climate Change Issue

Appendix SA-5.2: A Converted Climate-Change Skeptic

What’s Next?

What’s The Future Of Science – And Your Place In That Future?

We know a great deal more about our universe than we did even ten years ago. But we’ve really only “scratched the surface.” Whenever science finds a workable explanation for one phenomenon, several new questions usually pop up. As a result, the number of unanswered questions continues to grow! Some current ones are listed below.

Ten Great Unanswered Questions For ScienceWhat will we eat?

How did life begin?Are we alone in the universe?

What will replace our failing antibiotics?What can replace cheap oil – and when?How can a skin cell become a nerve cell?

Can we selectively shut off immune responses?How are memories stored and retrieved?What are Dark Matter and Dark Energy?

How does Gravity do what it does?And there are many, many more

Every year, as these (and many other questions) are answered, there will always be new questions. And beyond that, there are infinitely more things that we don’t even know that we don’t know! This has been called deep ignorance. By logical extension, the sum total of our present knowledge is just a tiny fraction of all that we could know. Surprise! There will always be a place for science (and scientists) if we are to grow as human beings in our society. How exciting! You could spend a lifetime searching for answers to questions about nature, and get paid for it. Or, at least you could keep in touch with what new things scientists are learning about the world.

In addition to the many unanswered questions is this one: “How do we use that knowledge?” The answer to that may not come from science. We may need to turn to one of those other “ways of knowing” or “windows to knowledge” that were mentioned earlier (Chapter 1). Do you remember philosophy, and religion? Where are you in this picture?

Self Check E:

Without looking back, answer these 7 items briefly in your notebook. Then re-read the section, and make appropriate changes or additions (*TPS = be ready to discuss in class):

1. List three characteristics of well-done science.2. What are three typical features of a pseudoscience?3. Name three examples of pseudoscience that you have heard about before.*4. List two reasons why it’s important to recognize a pseudoscience.*5. Name 3 of those non-science “windows of knowledge” or “ways of knowing.” *6. List three ideas in this section that you found hard to understand.7. List three items in this section that were surprising to you.

RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary

In Science Surprises, we have taken a close look at the main features of how science works. Too many people still assume that science is nothing more than following a list of steps to solve any problem. Not true. A good understanding of science must include knowledge of its limits. You need to know what it cannot do, as well as what it can do. You need to know its rules. We call this the “Nature of Science.”

The main goal of science is to understand the natural world. Science is a powerful and reliable tool for answering questions about that world. In fact, science has become essential to our very survival. This includes our health, our comfort, and our jobs. It’s also essential to our global success and the security of our country. We all need to know that science is built upon certain assumptions and has its limits. Good science can be done in many ways. There is no one method. But there are several rules or traits that we do find in most scientific work. For example, all science is based on careful, critical observation. From those observations, patterns may appear, and questions may arise. Scientists may create possible answers to those questions.

Those possible answers must then be tested. This means that every effort is made to disprove those ideas. Testing is central to science. It gets rid of explanations that don't work, and supports explanations that do work. Eventually, we get the “best” explanations, the ones that work best. Some tests are done with experiments. Other tests are done by searching for clues that were predicted. If an answer survives many tests, it becomes a strong part of scientific knowledge. Answers are even stronger if their evidence comes from studies in different fields of science. Those answers often lead to more questions, further studies and possible applications.

As a result of these procedures, scientific findings are tentative, with some degree of uncertainty. But as this knowledge is tested and revised, uncertainty decreases, and confidence rises. In time, that scientific knowledge comes close enough to reality to be useful. It works! When a group of observations, and well-tested explanations help us to understand some big part of nature, we may call this a scientific theory. A theory is about as close to a major fact as an idea can be. It’s practical. It’s predictive. It’s durable. It works. This is how tiny bits of our vast ignorance about the natural world are gradually being replaced with scientific knowledge.

Another key rule of science is that scientific answers cannot be supernatural or mystical. This is because those kinds of forces can’t be properly tested or disproved. Many pseudosciences have this problem. That’s one reason they are not real science. Many people have never learned about this rule of science. That’s why they can be fooled to accept an idea as scientific when it really isn’t. You need to know, when an answer involves anything mystical, it cannot be science. You also need to know that scientific knowledge cannot be based on popular or personal views, or even authority. Scientific knowledge is always based on observed evidence that has been critically tested.

There are many myths about science. And there are many ways that science can be misused or done poorly. You need to be suspicious when you hear someone say that some new pill was “scientifically proven” to work. You need to know what to look for in propaganda, political statements, medical claims, and advertising. This is important for your own health and happiness. It’s even important for the survival of our nation. Science isn’t perfect, but it has been clearly shown to be more reliable than any other way of knowing about our natural world. It helps us to deal better with the problems we face in our natural world. Science has many applications, especially in health and agriculture, energy and engineering. It’s even important in business, law and politics, and many other fields. Whatever kind of life you may lead, science plays a role. If you’re wise, you’ll do all you can to understand the nature of science, use it properly, and share this understanding with others..

See Appendix SA-5.3: Search for Understanding. This diagram summarizes the main elements of this booklet. Can you explain it to your friends? Your family? Your teacher? Your pet?

RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

Note to Teachers

This little text supplement is intended for use by students in any science class, grades 7-10. Science Surprises is part of an intensive introductory unit on the nature of science (NOS). It addresses many of the common misconceptions about science. It deals with what science can and cannot do, and why it is so effective in what it does. It includes examples of the different processes of science (there really is no single "scientific method"). It also focuses on techniques and tools for critical and skeptical thinking. These features, which should be central in any science class, are seldom treated adequately (or accurately) in most secondary science textbooks.

Science Surprises is also available in a printed version. These are available in a Print-on-Demand basis. The cost will vary depending on the quantity ordered. Currently, the cost per book, including tax, packaging and shipping, should be about $10-15 for 150-200 copies. They are being sold at little more than cost to print and deliver. Please request (from the author) a quote with information about the quantity desired and when you want delivery.

In-context references to sources are kept minimal in this booklet to avoid excess distraction. Additional references to fact-checked sources are listed in the Teaching Science Surprises guide.

If you think the unit would work well with your students, please contact the author. He can send you the Teaching Science Surprises guide that provides details about how to use this booklet. It includes URLs for the free lessons intended for use with Science Surprises. It contains worksheets and additional interactive lessons you can use. It also shows how these lessons meet virtually all of the new NOS science standards (found in NGSS and Common Core), along with several suggested unit plan schedules from which to choose. If you are interested, email the author using your school e-mail address. Describe your interest in doing the Science Surprises unit in your classes, and request the Teaching Guide. Include in your request which version of the student text you would like to use in your classes: the e-book version, or the printed version. If you plan to use the e-book version, how would you make it available to your students (for use on tablets, e-book readers and computers)?

Science Surprises: References

All internet sites last accessed 1 March 2014

DeStefano, F. and RT Chen. 2001. Autism and measles-mumps-rubella vaccination: controversy laid to rest? CNS Drugs, 15(11):831-7.

Felberbaum, Michael. 2014. Tobacco Companies Will Publish Ads Saying They Lied About Smoking Dangers, According To Deal. HuffPost Healthy Living.com, January 10, 2014.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/10/tobacco-companies-publish-ads-lied-smoking-dnagers_n_4577689.html

Firestein, Stuart. 2012. Ignorance: How it Drives Science. Oxford University Press.

Goldenberg, Suzanne. 2013. How Donors Trust Distributed Millions To Anti-Climate Groups. The Guardian, 14 Feb. 2013.

Goldman, Michael. 2011. UC Berkeley Wellness Letter, Personal correspondence about “Memory Aid” Prevagen.

Kaufman, Lloyd and James H. Kaufman. 1999. Explaining the moon illusion. Proceedings National Academy of Sciences 97(1): 500-505.

Leber, Rebecca. 2013. Kansas Bill Would Require Teachers To Misinform Students About Climate Change. Think Progress, Feb. l9, 2013. Scroll down to Feb. 19, 2013 posting by Leber.

Lenzer, Jeanne. 2009. The Super Cell. Discover Magazine . November 2009, pp. 31-36. Available online. Go to part 4, second paragraph for the quotation used.

Mooney, Chris. 2009. Why Does the Vaccine/Autism Controversy Live On? Discover Magazine , June 2009.

Morrison, David. 2005. Only a Theory. Skeptical Inquirer . Vol. 29(6) November/December, 2005, pp. 37-41.

NEJM (New England Journal of Medicine). 2002. NAAR-funded Study on MMR & Autism Reports No Association Between Controversial Vaccine and Autism. NEJM, Nov. 7, 2002. On Autism Speaks website.

NRC (National Research Council). 1995. National Science Education Standards, Grades 9-12 Content Standard G, Nature of Scientific Knowledge, page 201. National Academy Press.

Pappas, Stephanie and LifeScience. 2012. Leaked: Conservative Group Plans Anti-Climate Education Program. Scientific American.com. February 15, 2012.http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/leaked-conservative-group/

Poland, G P, and R Johnson. 2011. The Age-Old Struggle against the Antivaccinationists. New England Journal of Medicine. 364:97-99, 1/13/11. Two Mayo Clinic doctors assert: “Ultimately, society must recognize that science is not a democracy in which the side with the most votes or the loudest voices gets to decide what is right." From http://skeweddistribution.com/2011/09/09/science-is-not-a-democracy/

Rifkin, Lawrence. 2013. Recent Miracles You May Have Missed: The Ten Plagues. Skeptical Inquirer, May/June, 2013, page 56.

Sassaman, Trudy. 2010. Ruling allows UC to reject admissions credit for Creationist courses. Examiner.com, February 6, 2010. http://www.examiner.com/article/ruling-allows-uc-to-reject-admissions-credit-for-creationist-courses

RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

Science Surprises: Credits for Figures UsedFig. 1.1 Our Earth really is round! Earth from Moon: From NASA.Gov as “bluemarble_apollo17_big.jpg" as shown at

http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2009/07/17/17jul_discoveringearth_resources/bluemarble_apollo17_big.jpg

Fig. 1.2 Atomic Theory: Selected from the Astronoo website at http://www.astronoo.com/en/articles/atom.html Image credit: GNU Free Document. License.

Fig. 1.3 Our Planetary Orbits: Modified version of NASA.Gov image: solar-system-210.en.png from http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/ice-dwarf/en/

Fig. 1.4 No Magic Allowed Here: Magician And Floating Lady clip art free vector http://4vector.com/free-vector/magician-and-floating-lady-clip-art-119895

Fig. 1.5 Curiosity: “What’s this?” (3 girls): Photo by the author

Fig. 1.6 Game Rules?: Photo by author of chess pieces playing baseball. Baseball diamond: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wrigley_field_720.jpg> under license of Creative Commons: <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en>

Fig. 1.7 Solar System Models: Courtesy of Hubblesite.org (OPO Copyright <copyright@stsci.edu>)

Fig. 2.1 Why sunset so beautiful: Photo by the author

Fig. 2.2 Continental Drift: Adapted from US Geological Survey <http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/historical.html>

Fig. 2.3 Ballot Box: Image by the author

Fig. 2.4 Car Crash Test: Copyright permission from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Arlington, Virginia USA. www.iihs.org. <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/19/automobiles/19auto.html?fta=y&_r=0>

Fig. 2.5 Cartoon: "Then a miracle occurs": Copyright permission from Sidney Harris at ScienceCartoonsPlus.com

Fig. 2.6 Lightning: Figure courtesy Harald Edens NOAA site

Fig. 3.1 AND COVER: Ouchi Illusion: Courtesy of Akiyoshi Kitaoka, Ritsumeikan University

Fig. 3.2 Big Moon Illusion: Kind permission of the authors of the article and PNAS: Kaufman, Lloyd and James H. Kaufman. 1999. Explaining the moon illusion. Proceedings National Academy of Sciences 97(1): 500-505. Copyright (1999) National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.

Fig. 3.3 Checks Lab Check: ENSI lesson: The Checks Lab

Fig. 3.4a Early Model of Atom: Planetary diagram by the author

Fig. 3.4b Electron Cloud Model: Permission of Chris Skilbeck at http://cronodon.com/Atomic/AtomTech4.html

Fig. 4.1 Clinically Tested, Scientifically Proven: From Heavy Metal Detox http://www.detoxmetals.com/

Fig. 4.2 NOW…Scientific Evidence…Smoking: From Euro-Cig.com: 1953 Arthur Godfrey Chesterfield Cigarette Milder Ad http://www.euro-cig.com/gallery.php?id_cap=23

Fig. 4.3 Homeopathic Medicine: Permission to use this cartoon kindly granted by Edwin Tan

Fig. 4.4 Science Checklist: Understanding Science (Berkeley website: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_03

Fig. 4.5 Climate Change is Real: Permission to use these data and this graphic by Dr. James Powell: http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html

Fig. 5.1 Bookstore cartoon: Copyright permission from Sidney Harris at ScienceCartoonsPlus.com

Fig. 5.2 Vaccination: Shots: Health News from PBR: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/01/18/169516511/schedule-of-childhood-vaccines-declared-safe

Fig. 5.3 Sun & climate change: opposite trend: From Skeptical Science http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

SA-4.4 SA Fig. 1 Climate Change is Real: Permission to use these data and this graphic by Dr. James Powell: http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html

SA-5.1 SA Fig. 2 The Climate Change Issue: Permission to use this graphic kindly granted by J. L. Cook http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=19

SA-5.3 SA Fig. 3 Search for Understanding: Diagram by the author

RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

Science Surprises: Student Appendices Index

SA-1.1 Methods of Science

SA-3.1 Examples of Explanations

SA-3.2 Some Old Theories Replaced

SA-3.3 Hypothesis Explained

SA-3.4 More Problems With the Words of Science

SA-4.1 Part A: Confirmation Bias in Science – Examples

SA-4.2 Part B: Confirmation Bias in Science – Avoiding It

SA-4.3 Activity: Good Science vs Poor Science

SA-4.4 Climate Change is Real, But

SA-4.5 The GMO Controversy

SA-5.1 The Climate Change Issue

SA-5.2 A Converted Global-Warming Skeptic

SA-5.3 Our Search for Understanding (Diagram)

RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

Science Surprises: Student Appendices

SA-1.1: Methods Of Science

You may wonder why there has been little mention of “THE Scientific Method.” In reality, there is no one, single "scientific method." Rather, there are many ways to do good science. "The Scientific Method" is taught in many textbooks and classrooms. It generally describes single-variable controlled experiments. Or it describes what the research report might look like at the end of the study. But it does not capture the many variations that make up the way real science is done in different fields.

1. How science inquiry is generally done:

If you did the Oat Seed Lab, the Pendulum Lab, or the T-Illusion Lab, you were doing a controlled experiment. After observing or hearing about some curious object or event in nature, a scientist would first search the literature. The goal here is to find out what other scientists have done on that topic. This helps to narrow the search for questions not fully answered. The scientist might even find possible explanations and possible ways to test them. The scientist would select a particular question to ask. She or he would then select or develop a possible answer or explanation (a hypothesis) to that problem. This is one of the more creative parts of science.

Then, the scientist finds or designs a good way to test that hypothesis. This is the most important part of any inquiry. It’s a way to challenge or disprove it (not "prove" it). If it survives the test, it’s probably a good explanation. If it doesn’t, it may be modified or discarded. The test could be an experiment, or it could be searching in a special place for predicted clues of some past event. In any case, designing a test is another creative part of science. The scientist then predicts the outcome of the test if the hypothesis is correct. A different outcome is predicted if it’s wrong. This is called a "Fair Test.”

After predicting what’s expected, the test is performed. Data are recorded and analyzed. From that analysis, the scientist concludes whether the hypothesis is supported or not. If the study is useful, a report is prepared and sent to a science journal publisher. The publisher sends it out to a few selected scientists (usually specialists in that field) for peer-review. If the peer-reviewers (other scientists) approve, sometimes with suggested changes, the paper may be published. Now it is available for other scientists to review and possibly challenge.

Most science is done these days by teams of scientists rather than just one working alone. So team skills are very important. Team members are often specialists for different aspects of the study. Collaboration also reduces the chance that personal biases will distort the study. For most published studies, you will see at least two, often three or more, authors listed.

2. Other Scientific Studies:

We learn from other kinds of scientific study as well. Some are descriptive studies. Objects, organisms or processes are observed and described in detail. Scientists may look for clues or patterns that could help them learn more about the subject of interest. This is common in fields like astronomy, geology and biology (especially in the growing field of taxonomy). Behavioral studies describe behavior of organisms in detail and also look for helpful patterns.

3. Historical Sciences:

Here we look for clues to figure out how events in the past may have happened. Forensic science, paleontology, geology, and astronomy are fields where this is done. We try to predict the kinds of clues those processes might have left. Then we check those ideas by searching in likely places for those predicted clues. If you did the Checks Lab, the Crime Scene Lab, the Laetoli Trackway Puzzle, or the Great Fossil Find, you were using the methods of historical science.

4. Clever and Creative Science:

There are also clever and creative ways for scientists to see the invisible and inaccessible. These are objects smaller than we can see in a microscope, such as the structure of an atom. Then there are objects too far to see details with a telescope, like a distant planet in our galaxy. Nobody has really seen the inside structure of our earth. And how can we know what was happening before there were people leaving records? We look for clues and patterns, indirect evidence that can give us answers we can test further.

5. Controlled experiment:

This is one where we try to test only one variable at a time. This requires at least two setups. One is the control, with the variable condition as it normally exists. The other is the experimental, where the variable of interest is adjusted to different levels. This purposely-changed variable is sometimes called the independent variable. The resulting effect at each level is called the dependent variable because it depends on the purposely-changed variable. The Oat Seed Lab is a model of a controlled experiment. Also, if you tried to figure out why a T-illusion is an illusion, and you did it properly, you did a controlled experiment.

If you can actually do a controlled experiment, the process is easier, and the design can be simple. But usually, there are so many complex variables that you cannot do that. Then the logic and the controls of the study have to be designed more carefully. This usually gives us results that are more complex and treated statistically. You often see this in biological, medical and environmental research. We also see this in particle physics, where physicists work with particle accelerators that crash particles together to see the new particles that are produced.

An important variation on controlled experiments is the randomized double-blind experiment. This is usually done when working with people to find out whether a certain treatment works or not. It’s done this way so those doing the study won’t know which group is the control and which is the experimental group. And the people being studied don’t know this either. Codes are used that hide that information from everyone, and are revealed only at the end of the study. They do this because some people feel better if they even think they’re getting the medicine when they really aren’t. This is called the placebo effect. Also, if scientists know which is the control group, the test patients can sometimes sense that. It’s also important that the patients who go into each group are determined randomly to avoid the influence of bias in their selection.

6. Common Features of Scientific Inquiry:

All of these forms of inquiry do have some common features. Most inquiry, at some point, involves asking questions and forming hypotheses (explanations). Then each hypothesis must be tested. [Testing could be either experimental, or observational.] Testing is probably the most important part of any scientific inquiry. Observations are made and data are recorded. Those data must then be analyzed, often by using math and graphs to see patterns better. The data could either support or weaken a hypothesis. Whenever possible, the “fair test” should be used. This is where the results could go either way, depending on whether the hypothesis is correct, or not.

Self Check: Appendix 1.11. Why is there no “one Scientific Method?”2. List three different kinds of scientific study.3. Briefly, what is a controlled experiment?4. What is the placebo effect?5. List five features that most scientific studies have in common?6. What feature of scientific inquiry is most important?7. Mention one thing learned here that was new to you.8. Is there anything about this section you still don't understand? If so, what is it?

RETURN TO APPENDIX INDEX

SA-3.1: Examples Of Explanations

Some Good Hypotheses For “Why” Or “How” Questions:

Gravity might operate through a particle called a graviton.

Chocolate may cause pimples due to the butterfat in chocolate.

Skin cancer could be caused by the ultra-violet energy in sunlight.

Dogs might detect early earth vibrations before an earthquake.

The sky is blue possibly because of blue particles in our atmosphere.

Salt water might pull water out of seeds due to osmosis.

Our eyes might exaggerate horizontal lines over vertical lines.

A long pendulum bob travels further than a short pendulum bob.

Some Hypotheses For “What” Questions:

The pH indicator BTB will turn yellow.

The “T-illusion” is weaker if the T is on its side.

If the pendulum is made longer, it will swing slower.

Oat seeds in 0.1% salt water will grow slower than those in tap water.

Some Major Laws:

Newton’s 2nd Law of Motion: Force on a body = mass x acceleration: F = ma

Newton’s law of Universal Gravitation: The force (F) between two massive bodies is directly proportional to the product of the two masses (m1m2) and inversely proportional to the square

of the distance (r2) between the masses: F = G (m1m2/r2)

Ohm’s Law: V = I x R (voltage of current = flow in amps x resistance in ohms).

Boyle’s Law: For a fixed mass of ideal gas at fixed temperature (K), the pressure (P) and volume (V) are inversely proportional. (V = K/P)

Conservation of Mass: Mass of a closed system remains constant over time.

Kepler’s First Law of Planetary Motion: The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at a focus.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: essentially, in a closed system [like our Solar System], overall disorder (entropy) will increase over time. [NOTE: This does not prevent increasing order within the

system, as in the formation of life on Earth with the input of energy from the Sun].

Some Major Theories:

Atomic Theory: All matter is composed of particles called atoms.

Germ Theory of Disease: Microorganisms are the cause of many diseases.

Theory of Natural Selection: Evolution occurs primarily by natural selection

Big Bang: Our universe came from the rapid expansion of a tiny dense point.

Cell Theory: The cell: the basic unit of structure and function in all living things.

Plate Tectonic Theory: Tectonic plates of Earth’s crust are in constant slow motion, driven by the slow, heat-caused convectional flow of the fluid rock mantle. (Plate interactions are the cause of earthquakes, volcanoes, mountain uplift, and rifting that can lead to plate separations and collisions.)

RETURN TO APPENDIX INDEX

SA-3.2: Some Old Theories Replaced

Spontaneous Generation Theory (life today can come from non-life) was replaced by… Biogenesis Theory: life today can only come from life (shown by Pasteur). The origin of first life is a different idea.

Miasma Theory of Disease (caused by “bad air”} replaced by… Germ Theory of Disease.

Phlogiston Theory (a fire-like element – phlogiston – contained within combustible bodies and released during combustion) replaced by demonstration that combustion involves a rapid combining with oxygen.

Atomic Theory:

Rutherford Model (solid nucleus in center, surrounded by electrons)Bohr Model (electrons travel in orbits around nucleus)Electron Cloud Model (orbits not fixed; can only predict most likely regions of electrons)Atomic Orbital Models (based on quantum mechanics; electrons in sub-cloud orbitals)

Newtonian Physics replaced by…Quantum Physics (for fine details, very high speeds.)

Geocentric Universe (Earth at center of universe) made obsolete by Copernicus’ Heliocentric system. Heliocentric system (sun-centered universe) made obsolete by discovery of Milky Way structure of our galaxy and discovery of many very distant galaxies.

Steady State Theory (universe had no beginning, expanding in a steady state) replaced by theBig Bang model.

Static Continents idea replaced by Continental Drift.

Expanding Earth Theory replaced by Plate Tectonics.

Catastrophism (Earth’s features due to sudden, brief, violent events in the past) replaced by Uniformitarianism (Earth’s features due mostly to gradual, slow changes through time)

RETURN TO APPENDIX INDEX

SA-3.3: Hypothesis Explained

When scientists use the word “hypothesis” in a formal way, it usually refers to a tentative, testable answer to a problem (or question) about some relationship in the natural world. This is often in the form of a natural world explanation to answer a “how,” “when, ” or “why” type question. It can also be in the form of an expectation or prediction that answers a “what” question about a natural world relationship.

Unfortunately, many textbooks (and teachers) define a hypothesis as “an educated guess.” This could be about anything. It’s much too vague. All of this leads to confusion, especially as students enter high school and college science classes. There, they will learn that it’s not just “an educated guess.” It’s a “tentative, testable explanation.” That’s a much more accurate definition.

This confusion needs to be cleared up. We can’t change all the textbooks. But each of us can learn and change what we do. From now on, make every effort to use the word properly, and also encourage others to do the same. This is also a good time to see that even textbooks can be wrong! Don’t ever be afraid to ask about what seems to be a mistake in your textbook.

In science, technical terms usually have precise meanings. Let’s define each term:

Hypothesis: Is a tentative, testable explanation (or answer) to a problem (or question) about some relationship in the natural world. "Hypotheses" means more than one hypothesis.

Test: Something you can do (experiment or observe) to see if that hypothesis is correct. Does it work?

Prediction: This is the result expected from doing the test, if the hypothesis is correct. For a hypothesis that answers a “what” question, the hypothesis serves as a kind of prediction.

Does this all make sense? Read on.

A good hypothesis must be testable to see if it really does explain the problem or predict a result, or not. At the same time, it must be open to being disproved (if it does not work). If a hypothesis isn’t testable, it’s not useful.

The best test is one that gives one result if the hypothesis is right, and a different result if it’s wrong. So there should be two predictions for any test: one if the hypothesis is correct, and a different one if the hypothesis is wrong. It could go either way. This is also called a “fair-test.” If it’s wrong, the result could just be not the result expected if it were correct.

Next we need to see how these terms should be used in practice. Since a hypothesis is an explanation, it requires some question or problem to answer or explain. Here are some examples of problems:

1. Why can’t I hit the baseball?

2. How does a greenhouse work?

3. What causes thunder?

4. Why do I catch a cold every winter?

Notice that these questions are not like “What are we having for dinner tonight?” or “What color is the sky?” or “How many fingers are on my hand?” These are all questions with fairly obvious answers. Most questions in science are “Why” questions that seek to understand a particular problem or situation in nature. For example, “Why is the sky blue?” Sometimes we ask “When,” as “When did the dinosaurs go extinct?”—or “What,” as “What causes the seasons?”

Possible hypotheses for those first four sample questions 1-4:

1. You’re probably not keeping your eye on the ball.

2. Since greenhouses are warm, maybe the glass (or plastic) holds in the heat.

3. Since lightning comes just before thunder, possibly the lightning causes it.

4. Perhaps it comes from touching things just touched by others with colds.

Did you notice the words showing uncertainty (“probably,” “maybe,” “possibly,” “perhaps”)?

Did you also notice that each hypothesis does offer some kind of reasonable explanation?

Did you see that there is no “if…then” statement? A hypothesis doesn’t have to be in this form. This is especially true for the more common “explanatory” hypothesis.

Now lets see a possible test for each hypothesis (there could be others, too):

1. Try keeping your eye on the ball.

2. Place a heat source (light bulb) on the outside of a little glass house, and measure temperatures inside and outside the glass house.

3. Observe carefully and keep a time record of every lightning strike you see and every thunderclap you hear.

4. Avoid touching things touched by others, and use a hand-cleaning agent when you do.

And, for each test, an appropriate prediction of the results expected if the hypothesis is correct:

1. You should hit more balls.

2. The temperature should be higher inside the greenhouse.

3. You should find that thunder follows every lightning flash.

4. You will probably not catch a cold, or at least not as many colds.

Problem: “If…then” Statements

I could ask you to “Give me an example of a hypothesis.” Based on many textbooks, you might answer by saying: “If you keep your eye on the ball, then you will probably hit it.” This doesn’t explain anything. Notice that this “if… then…” hypothesis statement is also both a test (“… keep your eye on the ball…”) and a prediction (“… you will probably hit it.”) This can be confusing.

However, if your hypothesis provides a good answer to the question about a natural situation, then it would probably be acceptable. A hypothesis can provide an explanation, or it can suggest a test and its predicted result. In this case, the actual explanation may only be implied. It depends on the question. Generally, you should try to avoid “if… then…” hypotheses. They often do not explain anything. If a hypothesis doesn’t explain anything, it’s really not a hypothesis.

Here’s another confusing form of hypothesis: “If…, and…, then…” For example, “IF you’re not keeping your eye on the ball (hypothesis implied), AND you try to keep your eye on the ball (test), THEN you should hit more balls (prediction). Again, try to avoid using “if… and… then…” hypotheses. But if standards in your state insist on using any if… then… form, be sure to use it correctly. It should contain a possible explanation. It might also include a test of that explanation. If so, it should also include the predicted result IF the hypothesis is correct.

A common variation of this form of hypothesis is the “if… then… because…” For example, “IF you try to keep you eye on the ball (test), THEN you should hit more balls (prediction), BECAUSE you haven't been keeping your eye on the ball (hypothesis).”

Now that you’ve read through this, check your understanding by doing the Hypothesis Practice Sheet 1. Compare and discuss your answers with your team members, then with the entire class.

Check with your teacher for the Hypothesis Practice Sheets to use with this.

RETURN TO APPENDIX INDEX

SA-3.4: More Problems With The Words Of Science

Like many words in any language, they can have different meanings, depending on how they’re used. Here are some of the ways that the key “words of science” can be confused or misused. As you read them, try to think of times when you may have heard or read those words used as described. Ask your teacher about some of these “problems—or discuss them in your class.

1. Hypothesis is not an “Educated Guess”:

You may have heard hypothesis defined as “an educated guess.” However, this is far too hazy. What’s the guess about? Does it answer a question or problem about nature? Guessing what you might have for dinner tonight is not a hypothesis—why not? (What does a hypothesis do?) A guess is a guess—it’s whatever you might think about anything, with or without evidence. A hypothesis should explain something, or suggest a certain relationship. It must be based on observations. It’s a tentative answer to questions like “What causes this to happen?” “How did it come to be that way?” “Why is the sky blue?” An “educated guess” is not a good definition for hypothesis!

2. “Just a Theory?” "Only a Theory?":

Whatever you do, never talk about any well-supported scientific explanation as being “just a theory” or "only a theory." This gives a mixed message. It may tell your listeners that you don’t know the scientific meaning of “theory.” Or, it may show that you think there’s not much support for the idea when there really is. Or both. What should an explanation be called when there’s not much support for it yet? (It’s not “a theory.” “Just a theory” is an oxymoron: It’s a mixed message that wrongly implies that a theory is weak or has little support. That’s the opposite of what a scientific theory really is.) How about calling it a “model” or a “hypothesis.”

3. Theory is not a Hypothesis:

The word “theory” is often misused, even by scientists! In casual speech, we might say “I’ve got a theory about that.” This usually means that you’ve just got an idea about it—nothing solid, just a hunch. But did you notice? That’s very different from a scientific theory. A scientific theory is a well-tested, well-supported, highly probable explanation. This is usually about some major process in nature. Could it be that some people say “theory” when they mean “hypothesis” because it’s just easier to say? Why not say “I’ve got an idea about that,” or “That sounds like a good model.” You might want to work out a system with your class (and teacher) to point out when someone misuses “theory.” How about a special hand signal, like forming a T with both hands, like they do in a football or basketball game for a “Time Out” (or “Theory” in this case). Then the speaker can back up and use “model” or “idea” instead.

4. Theory is not a Fact:

Sometimes even a scientist may refer to a particular theory as a "fact.” This seems like a contradiction. Why is this? Well, scientists are also human, and they may do this for one of two reasons:1) The evidence may be so strong that it seems to be a reality (or very close to it). Calling it a "fact" shows that high level of confidence. Some might call this an “inferred fact.” 2) A theory is technically the best well-supported explanation for a natural event or process. This is about as close to a “fact” as an idea can get. But scientists also realize that most people think of a “theory” as “just a hunch.” Therefore, when talking to the public, a scientist might use the word “fact” for what is really a theory. This is just to give the correct impression that this explanation is highly supported by the evidence.

5. Absolutely Certain?

When you ask a nuclear physicist if she is absolutely certain that the new nuclear power plant is totally safe, she may say “probably.” If a biologist is asked if genetically changed corn is completely safe to eat, he may also say “probably.” These answers bother most people, because they expect absolute “yes-or-no” answers from scientists. But science doesn’t work that way. Scientists work in a realistic world where no concept is absolutely certain. Every finding has some level of uncertainty. You may be certain that you’ll see the sun rise tomorrow (if there are no clouds). But to a scientist, no idea is absolutely certain. She might say “Well, it’s extremely likely that you will see the sun rise tomorrow, but something just might prevent that.” Scientists try to be precisely honest. They know that nothing is certain. They always think in terms of probabilities, not certainties. There might be exceptions!

It’s hard for non-scientists to get used to this, but get used to it! That’s what makes them scientists. Let’s say you are a non-scientist and you marry a scientist. You may say to your spouse “I think your mother is mad at me.” But your spouse (a scientist, remember) might say “Well, there could be another explanation.” Just try to understand! Your spouse is not arguing with you. Scientists are always looking for better or different explanations, and no idea is absolutely certain. Please be patient with your scientist (or science teacher) spouse!

6. A Suggestion:

Your teacher may offer the following suggestion. It’s a possible solution to the confusion that surrounds the mixed uses of the word “theory.” Why not just omit the word “theory” from those well-known models of systems in science. So “Cell Theory” could be renamed “The Cell Rule,” and Atomic Theory” could be called “The Atomic Principle.” The “Plate-Tectonic Theory” could just be called “Plate Tectonics.” These are all well-established scientific theories, fully studied, tested, and confirmed to reflect the real world. There’s really nothing wrong with calling them “theories.” But when we hear or use the word “theory,” many people tend to think “uncertain” and “just a hunch.” This is very misleading and makes scientific theories seem like just a bunch of hunches. So, if your teacher wants to avoid using “theory” when talking about these concepts, you should understand why (Morrison 2005).

7. How These Types of Explanation are NOT Related:

Many people think that the words hypothesis, theory, law and fact are stages in a sequence. They think that when a hypothesis survives lots of testing, it becomes a “matured” theory. Then, when a theory becomes better established, we call it a law. Eventually, it becomes a fact. This is not the way it happens. A good hypothesis seldom becomes a theory by itself. A theory is usually formed from several facts, laws, models, inferences, and tested hypotheses combined. Read the definition of a theory again. In addition, a good theory usually explains many different questions about the same natural process. A law is just a more precise way to describe a certain relationship in nature. And a model is just a general term that can be used for a hypothesis, a theory, or a law.

Self Check: Appendix 3.41. Why is “educated guess” a poor definition for hypothesis?2. What’s the difference between a hypothesis and a prediction?3. Why should you avoid using the “If-Then” style for a hypothesis?4. Why might a scientist call a theory a fact?5. Why is it totally wrong to say “just a theory?”6. Why isn’t a scientific theory just a “mature” hypothesis?7. Show by diagram how hypothesis, theory, fact, law and model are related to each other.8. List three ideas or words in this section that are still hard to understand.9. List three things that were surprises to you.

RETURN TO APPENDIX INDEX

SA-4.1: Confirmation Bias in Science: Part A. Examples

Confirmation bias in science: how to avoid it:

An essay by physicist Chris Lee, July 13, 2010, in Ars Technica. Reprinted here, with edits to focus on key points, with the kind permission of the author, Chris Lee. For unfamiliar terms, see the GLOSSARY on the third page. For part B of the essay, see SA-4.2.

One of the most common arguments against a scientific finding is confirmation bias. [This means that] the scientists only look for data that confirms [agrees with] a desired conclusion. Confirmation bias is very common. It is used by psychics, mediums, mentalists, and homeopaths, just to name a few. As you may guess from such a list, deliberate use of confirmation bias is held in low esteem by scientists. Allowing confirmation bias to get the better of your results is regarded as a very sad form of incompetence.

Yet, whenever science meets some ideological barrier, scientists are accused of, at best, self-deception, and, at worst, deliberate fraud. Examples of this are scattered across the Internet. Consider evolution, gun control, sex education, and, of course, global warming. Let's take a look at [two] cases. [In these cases: N-rays and homeopathy], scientists were certainly duped by confirmation bias. I will then follow that up with a story from my own research, which shows how everyday scientific practice is designed to avoid falling into the trap of confirmation bias.

The amazing case of N-Rays:

To understand how N-rays came about, we need to go back to the late 18th century and consider the cultural [context] of the time. The major European nations had their chests puffed out with pride: they were great and they knew it. Each was so great that they were convinced that they were greater than any of the others. National pride itself was even something to take pride in and polish up on Sundays like some classic car.

Scientists were a part of this, and national pride provided a significant motivation for their work. The UK was very happy with the likes of Faraday, Maxwell, and others. The Germans had Hertz, Plank, and Roentgen, who had just discovered X-rays. The French may have felt a little left out in all of this. Although they were making major contributions [by Pasteur and others], they hadn't made as big of a splash as, for instance, Roentgen and his X-rays.

That is, they hadn't until [the French scientist,] Prosper-René Blondlot, announced his discovery of N-rays. He was immediately famous in France. And very shortly afterwards, researchers from around the world confirmed that they too had seen N-rays. N-rays were an ephemeral thing. They were observed only as a corona around an electric discharge from certain crystals. They were only observed by the human eye, making them difficult to quantify.

But not everyone was convinced. Many researchers outside of France were suspicious of the number of claims coming from French labs for the properties of N-rays. In the end, an American scientist Robert Wood visited the lab of Blondlot to see it for himself. During one of the experiments he surreptitiously removed the crystal that supposedly generated the N-rays, after which Blondlot failed to notice the absence of N-rays. The N-rays failed to vanish when their source was removed!

You might think that the story ends there, but it doesn't. National pride was such that some French researchers continued to publish research on N-rays in French journals for a number of years. If we look back, we can see how the N-ray fiasco developed. The French needed something stranger and more useful than X-rays. But we can also see why it collapsed. The experiments were readily repeatable. And there was a large, diverse, and active scientific community ready to “put their oars in” [and try to repeat it]. In the end, only a small fraction of physicists studying in the area of radiation were taken in, and only for a short time.

Water memories:

One of the most prominent examples of confirmation bias involved another French researcher, named Jacques Benveniste. He spent a great deal of time and effort studying the effect of histamines. Naturally, a histamine causes [in people] an anti-histamine reaction in certain tests. However, what Benveniste reported in [the science journal] Nature was that the reaction got stronger as the histamine solution was diluted. This was even when it was highly improbable that there was any histamine left in the solution. Water, in effect, had a “memory” of the histamine. [This is the core of belief for homeopathic remedies.]

His research was published in spite of the fact that the reviewers expressed disbelief in the results. They couldn't see an obvious flaw in the methods. Normally, the results would have been left to stand until independent researchers had either confirmed the finding or found the flaw in the methods. In this case, however, the editors of Nature felt that the results had to be corroborated [confirmed] as quickly as possible. To achieve this, they sent a group of observers to examine the experiment in more detail.

They found that the positive result was due to inadequate blinding. The anti-histamine reaction had to be assessed by examining a reaction. In other words, there was a strong element of human judgment involved. And the researchers performing the analysis knew which samples should give a positive result. When the experiment was performed with complete blinding, the positive result disappeared. [They made it a double-blind experiment, where neither the scientist nor the subjects knew (during the test) which samples were highly diluted and which were just plain water. This was to avoid the placebo effect. See GLOSSARY, below. Also, see SA-1.1].

The result of this was that the researchers involved in the Benveniste's work effectively withdrew from the scientific community. To this day, they still perform follow-up research on that original null result. And they make increasingly fantastic claims about homeopathic remedies. They, along with other homeopathic researchers, form a community apart. The community, as far as I can tell, has very little internal debate over findings, being neither critical nor receiving criticism. [Homeopathy remains today a good example of a pseudoscience: lots of “scientific” claims, but little or no good science.]

The key point in these two stories is that confirmation bias was found rather quickly. Those scientists who refused to acknowledge it were quickly isolated from their peers.

Check with your teacher for Discussion Questions 1-9 to use with this part. For Part B of this essay, see SA-4.2

Chris Lee / Dr. Lee writes for the Ars Technica's science section . A physicist by day and science writer by night, he specializes in quantum physics and optics. He lives and works in Eindhoven, the Netherlands. Dr. Lee kindly gave his permission to use this article here (modified and in two parts).

GLOSSARYBlinding: when experimenters and/or their human subjects do not know whether the subjects are

getting the experimental material of interest or just a placebo – a neutral substance – for the control.

Confirms: supports or agrees with…Corona: circle of lightEphemeral: fleeting, short-livedFiasco: humiliating failureHistamine: a normal chemical released in our body. It can cause the normal allergic reaction:

runny nose and watery, itchy eyes.Homeopathy: (home-ee-ah'-pa-thee) an “alternative” medical practice that typically treats

patients with extremely diluted amounts of materials that, when given in much higher concentrations, produce symptoms like some of those of the disease being treated.

Parameter: limiting factorPlacebo effect: when a person feels better after taking a pill, even though the pill was an inactive

substance (a placebo pill). If we think a treatment is going to work, sometimes that assumption makes us feel better.

Quantify: measure, or treat mathematicallySpurious: false, fake, wrongSurreptitiously: secretly

RETURN TO APPENDIX INDEX

SA-4.2: Confirmation Bias in Science: Part B. Avoiding It--A working scientist at work

Confirmation bias in science: how to avoid it An essay by Chris Lee, physicist, July 13 2010, in Ars Technica. Reprinted here, with edits to focus on key points, with the kind permission of the author, Chris Lee. For part A of this essay, see SA-4.1. For unfamiliar terms, see the GLOSSARY on the third page.

The practice of avoiding confirmation bias:

One of my areas of research interest is the development of new microscope imaging techniques. In particular, we want to do an end-run around the laws of physics to be able to see features in cells and other objects that would otherwise be physically impossible to see. Now, our approach to the problem was not to run into the lab and try a bunch of different ideas. Instead, we built a [theoretical] model of the physical process of light emission for the particular class of microscope imaging we were interested in, and then we began to play [with it]. In the end, we found not one, but two different ways [what’s the other word for “ways” as used here?] to attain our goal.

That short paragraph describes about two years of work. But [what was] the total amount of time coding the model [into a computer program]? Maybe 24 hours. OK, call it 36 hours with some debugging. [How long] running the code to get results? Maybe a minute per parameter set, so let's call it a month.

So that's 32 days from around 730 total. What was all the rest of that time devoted to? Trying to anticipate [guess] every possible objection to our approach. Checking if those objections were valid. Trying to find examples of physically realistic parameters to test our model with; Seeing if the code was actually modeling what we thought it was; Making sure that our assumptions were valid. In summary, we were trying to prove ourselves wrong [emphasis added].

This is always the first step in the scientific [testing] process. I have an idea, I discuss it with my colleagues, and we try to destroy it. The better the idea sounds, the harder we try [to destroy it]. Scientists are very wary of the "too good to be true" syndrome. Moving on from that, when [new] data turns up, we try to destroy that too. Is that noise? Is the numerical routine unstable? Are we seeing the accumulation of rounding errors? Maybe the signal is not a signal?

In the end, we couldn't destroy our idea or the results, and the work got sent off to be published. This is the first time that a complete stranger gets to see the work, but it's only a few people, and they may not be all that interested in our particular bit of work. So this is a rather low hurdle that we've jumped.

Risk and its rewards:

Now, we could just stop there and concentrate solely on doing the experiment suggested by our modeling results. But, just a few weeks ago, I was at a conference presenting these results to our peers. We don't get much in the way of bonus points for doing this: the university barely recognizes conferences as scientific output. And trumpeting your results to the world gives everyone else a chance to beat you—an experimental demonstration beats a theory paper any day of the week. Still, I was there. Why?

The answer is simple. Our science becomes stronger as more scientists interact with it. Before, we had faced a few objections from a total of four to six people (the referees for the papers). Now, I was facing a room full of experts who had, before the meeting, expressed great interest in our results. If there was a hole in the model, this would be the occasion for me to fall into it. Was there a hole?

The question session was fast and lively. And, yes, after the session, a senior scientist approached me and told me in no uncertain terms why our idea would not work—that sound you heard was me falling down the hole in our model. He was, and still is, right.

What was my reaction to that? First, I had to understand his objection. Then, I had to consider if it was a fundamental problem. In short, I discussed it with him and my colleagues. I did not—as homeopaths or global warming skeptics do—ignore the objection and continue onwards. Nor did I react as if I had been personally attacked—despite having put my heart and soul into this work, and really, really wanting it to succeed.

Thankfully, the story doesn't end there. Although he was right, it turns out that we can beat his objection as well. However, it certainly changes how we plan to do the experiment. Some of the choices that we had thought were relatively free are rather restricted. If we had not exposed our ideas to more criticism, we would never have known, and it is likely that our planned experiments would never have succeeded.

The key point is that everyone at the conference wants us to succeed. They want us to find a way to make this particular improvement. But they are also skeptical that we can make their microscopes see smaller objects. Their skepticism is what helps us get to our goal faster. And this is true of every field of science. Every criticism hurts like hell, but after the bruises have healed, we find that our results are more accurate.

Science as a contact sport:

This is the difference between doing science from the inside and observing it from the outside. We attack each other's ideas mercilessly, and those attacks are not ignored. Sometimes, it turns out that the objection was the result of a misunderstanding. Once the misunderstanding is cleared up, the objection goes away. Objections that are relevant result in ideas being discarded or modified. And the key to this is that the existence of confirmation bias is both acknowledged and actively fought against.

You will note that in the two clear cases of confirmation bias (SA-4.1), once it was confirmed, scientists stopped pursuing the claim. Those that continued to try and publish were quickly isolated.

This is why I have been using the term "rejecters." If you carefully examine the debate in the climate science community, you will find that objections are considered carefully and seriously [by climate scientists]. This is true even for those that come from the likes of McIntyre and McKitrick [outspoken climate-change rejecters]. However, once a problem is addressed to the point where another problem is bigger, scientists move on.

Rejecters, however, do not move on. Even if the objection is shown to be completely spurious. For instance, [climate change rejecters often claim that what we’re seeing are “natural variations” caused primarily by variations in solar output]. Rejecters do not give them up [even though solar output is decreasing!]. In effect, this means that anything you say and do to help them understand your work is ignored completely. This is why some [people] in the climate debate end up in the rejecter camp and outside the science camp.

Check with your teacher for Discussion Questions 10-24 to use with this part.

For Part A of this Essay, see SA-4.1 Part A

Chris Lee / Dr. Lee writes for the Ars Technica's science section . A physicist by day and science writer by night, he specializes in quantum physics and optics. He lives and works in Eindhoven, the Netherlands. Dr. Lee kindly gave his permission to use this article here (modified and in two parts).

GLOSSARYBlinding: when experimenters and/or their human subjects do not know whether the subjects are

getting the experimental material of interest or just a placebo – a neutral substance – for the control.

Confirms: supports or agrees with…Corona: circle of lightEphemeral: fleeting, short-livedFiasco: humiliating failureHistamine: a normal chemical released in our body. It can cause the normal allergic reaction:

runny nose and watery, itchy eyes.Homeopathy: (home-ee-ah'-pa-thee) an “alternative” medical practice that typically treats

patients with extremely diluted amounts of materials that, when given in much higher concentrations, produce symptoms like some of those of the disease being treated.

Parameter: limiting factorPlacebo effect: when a person feels better after taking a pill, even though the pill was an inactive

substance (a placebo pill). If we think a treatment is going to work, sometimes that assumption makes us feel better.

Quantify: measure, or treat mathematicallySpurious: false, fake, wrongSurreptitiously: secretly

RETURN TO APPENDIX INDEX

SA-4.3: Activity: Good Science Vs. Poor Science

1. For this activity, first read this list of Guidelines of Good Science:

Some Guidelines of Good Science

Controlled Experiment: Only one variable at a time is tested.

Repeatable: Different scientists should be able to repeat the procedures, and get the same results.

Sample Size: Sufficient number of organisms or trials should be used to assure that the data are statistically significant.

Dose-Effect: Does one action cause another action to happen? If so, a change in one should result in a proportional change in the other.

Species-Specific: Experiments with one species of plant or animal may not give the same results with other species.

References: All earlier studies of the problem should be considered and related to the present study.

Published: Research should be printed in peer-review journals where they can be studied and repeated by other scientists. Reference to unpublished reports should be considered less reliable than peer-reviewed reports.

===========================================

2. Some years ago, an artificial sweetener called “cyclamate” (sold as “Sucaryl” in the U.S.) was legally banned. This came as a result of certain research results. Some of the highlights of that research are listed below (numbered 1-5).

A. In your notebook, on a page titled: Good Science versus Poor Science, number the lines from 1-5. For each item below, indicate whether it’s an example of GOOD science or POOR science. For each “POOR” science item, add the key word from the Guidelines list (above) that best describes why it’s a poor science.

1. Mixtures of cyclamate and saccharin (another artificial sweetener) were fed to 240 rats for their entire lifetimes. Tumors were found in 7 of 20 males and 1 of 30 females. It was concluded that cyclamate was responsible for the tumors.

2. Different amounts of the mixtures were used, but only the rats receiving the highest dosage level developed tumors. The amount was equivalent to a person drinking 350 bottles of diet drink per day!

3. According to some unpublished results of another study, chick embryos developed abnormally when given cyclamate.

4. None of the several published studies on the effects of cyclamate on mammals has shown any abnormal development.

5. From the above observations, the scientists concluded that cyclamate could be harmful to humans.

B. Also (in your notebook), answer the following 4 questions:

1. Was the cyclamate ban justified? Why/Why not?

2. What industry might be hurt if cyclamates were found to be harmless?

3. Who might have paid the scientists that did this research?

4. Why do you suppose the scientists concluded that cyclamates should be banned?

C. Be prepared to discuss these items in class.

RETURN TO APPENDIX INDEX

SA-4.4: Climate Change is Real, But...

CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL, BUT ARE HUMANS CAUSING IT?

Out of 13,950 peer-reviewed climate-study papers, published in science journals from 1991-2012...

Permission to use these data and this graphic by Dr. James Powell

Graphic adapted from original with kind permission of Dr. James Powell.

Click here for Details of Dr. Powell’s study.

Analyzing studies for clues to possible biases:

You might wonder:

1) Why the authors of those 24 papers said “no,” and 2) what their evidence was.

3) If you could look at their papers, what clues to answer those questions might you find? Discuss this with your partners, and together, make a list of those possible clues in your notebook. Keep in mind the discussion of bias, confirmation bias, and conflict of interest in your Science Surprises text. Consider who might be affected if there is drastic reduction in the use of fossil fuels to cut CO2 emissions. What companies, states, politicians might be affected? If you need help, ask your teacher.

4) Here’s where you can access those 24 papers. Your teacher may ask you to study one or more of those papers. For each one you do, give its title, name(s) of author(s), year published, name of journal, brief summary of the abstract. Read through each paper and look for clues that might have influenced the authors to reject human activity as a significant cause of climate change. A quick way to do this is to just read the abstract, maybe the introduction, then skip to their discussion at the end. You might also want to glance through their procedures and results.

RETURN TO APPENDIX INDEX

SA-4.5: The GMO Controversy

Why do so many chemical companies like Monsanto, DuPont, and others keep insisting that their genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are safe for eating? They claim that their scientific studies show these products are perfectly safe. Meanwhile, there is a growing collection of other studies and incidents that indicate otherwise. This has all the elements of the tobacco industry’s insistence that tobacco was safe while independent studies were telling us the opposite. There were growing indications that the tobacco companies simply lied just to protect their business (Felberbaum 2014). [Today, you might want to examine the similar claims for the safety of e-cigarettes vs their potential hazards. Start by searching online for “e-cigarette safety.”]

If GMOs are indeed hazardous to our health, you would be wise to look into the studies showing that. Look at both sides of the controversy critically and skeptically. Take a look at the Non-GMO Shopping Guide. Look for the reasons why anti-GMO groups say we should avoid GMOs.

Click here to see Monsanto’s positions on the safety and benefits of their products.

Do a web search for “Monsanto GMO” and look for the evidence supporting both positions. Do you see anything about the claims of both sides that might be misleading or wrong? What biases could exist, on both sides? Keep in mind that there might be an economic bias on the part of Monsanto’s scientific reports. Be skeptical.

Be aware that your health and the health of your family (not to mention the nation) may be at risk here. Discuss your findings with your classmates. Is there enough evidence against GMOs that people should support or even join anti-GMO activist groups? What could that involve? How important is this to you? Is it more important than the climate change issue?

RETURN TO APPENDIX INDEX

SA-5.1: The Climate Change Issue

Permission to use this graphic kindly granted by J. L. Cook

SA-Figure 5.1*: Several independent surveys find that about 97% of climate scientists who are actively publishing peer-reviewed climate research agree that humans are causing climate change.

In addition, National Academies of Science from all over the world endorse the consensus view of human-caused climate change. And this was also expressed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

However, certain groups that reject a scientific consensus have always sought to cast doubt on the fact that a consensus exists. One technique is the use of fake experts. They cite scientists who have little or no expertise in the particular field of science. For example, the OISM Petition Project claims 31,000 scientists disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change. But what are the specialty fields of those 31,000 scientists?

OISM doesn't tell you that 99.9% of the scientists listed in their Petition Project are not climate scientists. The petition is open to anyone with a Bachelor of Science or higher degree and includes medical doctors, mechanical engineers and computer scientists!

*Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S. (2011). The Debunking Handbook. St. Lucia, Australia: University of Queensland. November 5. ISBN 978-0-646-56812-6. Page 6. Permission to use this figure was kindly given by co-author John Cook.

Check with your teacher for the Discussion Questions to use with this page.

RETURN TO APPENDIX INDEX

SA-5.2: A Converted Global-Warming Skeptic

A climate scientist who once doubted climate change now describes himself as “a converted skeptic.” Richard Muller, a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and cofounder of the Berkeley Earth project, wrote a column in The New York Times (July 28, 2012): “Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of climate change. But last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real. …The prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause” [emphasis added].

Muller's about-face was based on the project's analysis of “a collection of 14.4 million land temperature observations from 44,455 sites across the world dating back to 1753,” according to the Guardian (July 29, 2012). Muller wrote in the NY Times, “Our results show that the average temperature of the earth's land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years. [This includes] an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.” The analysis from the project has not yet been published [as of 2012]. [It] is presently undergoing peer review at the Journal of Geophysical Research.

Michael Mann of Penn State University told the Guardian that he welcomed the Berkeley Earth project's results. They demonstrate “once again what scientists have known with some degree of certainty for nearly two decades.” He added, “I applaud Muller and his colleagues for acting as any good scientists would. [They followed] where their analyses led them, without regard for the possible political repercussions. They are certain to be attacked by the professional climate change rejection crowd for their findings.” A minor irony is that the project is partly funded by the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. [This group] is connected to various efforts to promote climate change rejection.)

This Summary article by Glenn Branch, Deputy Director NCSE (National Center for Science Education. August 2012): <http://ncse.com/news/2012/08/converted-skeptic-007507>.

Slightly edited by author L. Flammer.

Check with your teacher for the Discussion Questions to use with this page.

Also see:

Muller's column in The New York Times.

Click here for information about the Berkeley Earth project.

Click here for the article in the Guardian.

RETURN TO APPENDIX INDEX

SA-5.3: Our Search For Understanding

Figure 5.3: This diagram summarizes some of the main topics and their relationships as presented in this booklet. Study it carefully to see how they are related. Also, note where EXAMPLES of fields of study fit, and where PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS are listed. Does it match what you learned in this unit? Discuss this with your class.