Lesson Three Lecture: The Scientific Method

The Mystery of Science
For many of us, “science” is a mysterious and arcane topic. We never really “got it” in eighth grade science class, never really caught on to high school biology, and barely passed chemistry. The science subjects were some of our least favorites, so “science” has become a distant unpleasant memory.

As a result, those who “do” science, those who have degrees related to science, and those who work in a science environment are also unfamiliar commodities to us. We think of “scientists” as somehow different, special, perhaps “wired” differently than we are.

It is exactly true that mastering the scientific disciplines takes a high level of conceptual and intellectual prowess. Those who really understand and practice the sciences have undoubtedly worked hard to hone their skills and build their knowledge bases.

However, our lack of common knowledge about science also causes us to hold scientists and scientific “experts” in particularly high esteem, not because of the quality of their work, but merely because they are “scientists.” In this respect, science and scientists are shrouded in a kind of mystery.

This mystique is a potentially dangerous thing, because it can place scientists and their scientific “works” beyond the reach of honest doubt. The danger is that the scientists’ words can become indisputable not because of the quality of their science, but merely because of their expert status.

Junk Science
This has led to a phenomenon known as “junk science,” in which “scientific” claims are made without real scientific proof by “experts” in various fields. The credibility of the claim lies not in their scrupulous science but in the mere status of the “expert.”

Certainly, junk science is not a new problem. There have been junk scientists at least since the alchemists made careers for themselves claiming they could turn lead into gold. Doctors bleeding patients with leeches and claims that the earth revolves around the sun could also be considered junk science.

Junk scientists, both past and present, sometimes come to their incorrect conclusions with the best of intentions. They are limited by the knowledge or technology available to them.

Other junk scientists, also both past and present, come to their incorrect conclusions because they are more devoted to their own personal, social, or political causes than to science. These junk scientists defame the reputation of science to further their own agendas.

Impact of the Scientific Method
A person devoted to the truth, whether a “scientist” or not, can use the Scientific Method to evaluate the claims of any scientist in any scientific field. Although some scientists, generally those with a political axe to grind, may defame the Scientific Method, it is the best available method for evaluating science.

To be valid, any scientific claim from any scientific or semi-scientific (such as environmental science) discipline must pass the tests of the Scientific Method. It must have the characteristics of:

Observation
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experimentation
Review
Adjust and Repeat
Replicate Results

If any “scientist” makes a claim that has not been tested thoroughly against the Scientific Method, no matter how believable it may sound, no matter how credible it may seem, and no matter how intimidating the “expert’s” credentials, it is not science. It is not scientific. And it is not valid.

The Scientific Method is about more than learning scientific disciplines or facts. It is about pursuing the truth.

Discussion Questions:
Please review the following questions and post your responses here by pressing “add a reply.”

1. Why is it so important to recognize and weed out “junk science”?

2. What makes the Scientific Method reliable as a means of evaluating science?