When new research on hormone replacement therapies made headlines, I
had several people ask, "Why can't scientists get it right?"
Scientists are getting it right, purposely and methodically.
"Science" is not simply a body of knowledge. The most
valuable way to view science is as a structured process of learning about
the world.
The scientific process has specific steps: 1) make an observation
or ask a question; 2) develop a "hypothesis," a prediction or
question that can be tested; 3) make further, focused observation by
testing the hypothesis; 4) use that information to build or alter
theories.
A theory is an underlying construct built over time by testing many
related hypotheses. As theories are fine-tuned, improved—or even
thrown out—they produce new questions and predictions, as well as better
explain the world.
The ancient theory of four elements, that everything is composed of
some combination of earth, air, fire, and water, was replaced with the
theory that "atoms" were the tiniest fragment of matter.
That theory expanded to include subatomic particles, then developed
further to incorporate even smaller bits.
Other rules apply to the process. Observations must be empirical,
based on the senses. Observations (including setting up the
observation, the "experiment") must be reproducible—that is,
other people must be able to make the same observation, or run the same
experiment with the same results. (Your cousin in Topeka must be
able to replicate your experiment to turn lead into gold and get gold.)
Hypotheses and theories must be "falsifiable"—that is, the
questions or statements, even the broadest concepts, have the potential of
being proven false.
Experiments are controlled observations that usually involve some
set-up or manipulation. A typical experiment would compare two
groups or subjects, the test group with the manipulation and the control
group with no manipulation.
Question: Will ice set up in my freezer more quickly if the
water's hot? Hypothesis: Hot water freezes faster than cold
water. Experiment: Put two trays of water in the freezer; the
ice cube tray with the hot water is the "test subject," the ice
cube tray with the tap water is the "control." Precision
comes from measuring the same amount of water in each tray, using
identical trays, and using a timer each time; reproducibility comes from
doing the experiment several times (keeping records), with the two trays
in different parts of the freezer. Whatever answer you get, you've
added to your understanding of physics and of "old wives tales."
The critical importance of questioning makes the process distinctively
skeptical. The requirement of reproducibility and the weaving of
various data to build theories make science a community effort. Many
people adding their input to eventually reach consensus or majority
opinion.
Our image of a meticulous, well-educated scientist with lots of
equipment has some validity. Having solid knowledge in a particular
field makes it easier to ask good questions; technology greatly expands
the observations that generate and answer questions; keeping records fuels
more questions while documenting the process for others to follow or
scrutinize.
The key strength of the scientific method is that it does change
our understanding. Science—and knowledge—progresses as new
information tailors or supplants old.
Explanations of natural phenomena evolve as the science community
expands their observations and hones our grasp of the processes behind
those observations. "Good" theories fit well with other
information, ultimately building a harmonious framework for understanding
our world.
Anyone can be a "scientist" by making rigorous observations,
then asking
