Defining Science

The definition of science and the consequences of that definition must be understood before one can truly begin to study any of the subjects known as the sciences. The following is the typical view of science:

"Science began in the distant past, long before human history was being recorded. Its mother was tribal magic. The same mother also gave birth to religion, and probably even earlier, to art. Thus science, religion, and art have always been blood brothers. Their methods differ, but their aim is the same: to understand and interpret the universe and its working and, from this, to promote the material and spiritual welfare of man where possible" (Weisz 2).

The Desire that Drives Science

The bond between belief and science will become more evident as a fuller definition of science is gained. Science is really nothing more than the desire to satisfy man’s curiosity.

“This desire (curiosity) finds its first expression in answers to the practical needs of human life: how best to plant and cultivate crops, how best to fashion bows and arrows, how best to weave clothing – in short, the “applied arts.” But after these comparatively limited skills have been mastered, or the practical needs fulfilled, what then? Inevitably the desire to know leads to less limited and more complex activities” (Asimov 5).

From this it is noted that curiosity is prompted on by necessity. This is the essence of science, but science has not yet truly been defined. The definition generally given for science is expressed in the following terms. “Knowledge of the world comes to us either directly or indirectly through our five senses. Man has systemized that knowledge in order to gain an understanding of nature; the exercises is called science and the motivation is usefulness” (Taylor XV).

“To discover what is, to apprehend the truth about the reality to which we must conform or which we hope to mold to our purposes, is much more than ‘knowing the facts.’ The ‘real world’ is encountered not merely is sense experience; it is encountered and grappled with by the mind and will (Auer 80). Science has moved from the use of the five senses in a passive pursuit of knowledge (observing natural phenomena) to an active pursuit of knowledge (observing experiments). Through science man organizes and “… has gradually and systematically recorded the information which results from observation, experiments, and discoveries in the physical world” (Boylan 2 – 3). “The entire history of science is a progression of exploded fallacies, not achievements" (Rand 318).

The Results of Science

Over the centuries, man has fine tuned the use of his senses and developed a very specific system for observation. Science seeks “… to reduce the observable world to comprehensible terms…” (Williams 1178). These “comprehensible terms” are called fact or the truth (Burke 307). The experts question anyone who dares to simply state facts (Yockey 197). Science then is observing the physical world is a systematic manner resulting in the scientist best guess of the truth. At first glance, this would appear to be a rather simple task. This systematic manner of observing the natural world even has its own built-in guidelines for what is acceptable as fact.

The Scientific Method

This systematic manner provides a solid framework in which the scientist can do his work. The framework used by scientist is called the scientific method. The scientific method is presented to all levels of science students. “In grossly simplified terms, we may describe the scientific method in three steps: (1) observation, (2) generalization from the observed facts, and (3) checking generalizations by further observations. Thus observations of the material world are the beginning and end of scientific reasoning” (Krauskoph 87 – 88). The crucial point is that science is based on observation. Observation, therefore, is what must be understood in order to grasp the nature of science. Observation is not just based on looking at something or some event. Observation also includes the element of perspective. This is demonstrated by what psychologist have discovered about how images are perceived. “… orientation is therefore a major factor in the shape that is finally perceived” (Rock 72 – 73). By science alone, one can never reach absolute truth. “No amount of inductive testing can render a generalization completely and absolutely valid. Even though billions of observations tend to bear out a generalization, a single observation that contradicts or is inconsistent with it must force modification” (Asimov 13). Often, observers see things in evidence, which are not really there, just because of the way they look at the evidence.

The Case Study: Queen vs. Alice

The truth of this concept is masterfully illustrated in the trial of Alice from Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking-Glass. A poem is to be used as evidence in court to prove that Alice stole tarts from the Queen.

The White Rabbit put on his spectacles. “Where shall I begin, please your Majesty?” he asked.

“Begin at the beginning,” the king said, very gravely, “and go till you come to the end: then stop.” There was dead silence in the court, whilst the White Rabbit read out these verses: --

“They told me you had been to her, And mentioned me to him: She gave me good character, But said I could not swim. He sent them word I had not gone (We know it to be true): If she should push the matter on, What would become of you?

I gave her one, they gave him two, You gave us three or more; They all returned from him to you, Though they were mine before.

If I or she should chance to be Involved in this affair, He trusted you to set them free, Exactly as we were.

My notion was that you had been (Before she had this fit) An obstacle that came between Him, and ourselves, and it.

Don’t let this him know she liked them best, For this must ever be A secret, kept from all the rest, Between yourself and me.”

“That’s the most important piece of evidence we’ve heard yet,” said the King, rubbing his hands; “so now let the jury—“ “If any one of them can explain it,” said Alice, “I’ll give him sixpence. I don’t believe there’s an atom of meaning in it.” The jury all wrote down, on their slates, “She doesn’t believe there’s an atom of meaning in it,” but none of them attempted to explain the paper. “If there’s no meaning in it,” said the king, “That saves a world of trouble, you know, as we needn’t try to find any. And yet I don’t know,” he went on, spreading out the verse on his knee, and looking at them with one eye; I seem to see some meaning in them after all. ‘—said I could not swim—‘ you can’t swim, can you?” he added, turning to the Knave. The Knave shook his head sadly. “Do I like it?” he said….” “All right, so far, “said the king; and he went on muttering over the verse to himself: “’We know it to be true’—that’s the jury, of course—‘ If she should push the matter one’—that must be the Queen—

‘What would become of you?’ –What indeed!-- ‘I gave her one, they gave him two’—why that must be what he did with the tarts, you know—“

“But it goes on ‘they all returned from him to you,’” said Alice. “Why, there they are!” said the King triumphantly, pointing to the tarts on the table. “Nothing can be clearer than that. Then again – ‘before she had this fit’—you never had fits, my dear, I think?” he said to the queen. “Never!” said the Queen, furiously, throwing an inkstand at the Lizard as she spoke…. “Then the word’s don’t fit you,” said the King looking around the court with a smile. There was dead silence. “It’s a pun!” the king added in an angry tone, and everybody laughed. “Let the jury consider the verdict,” the King said, for about the twentieth time that day (133 – 136).

The King was biased by his view of the case to consider the poem as legitimate evidence. Though it never mentioned tarts, Alice, the jury, or the Queen he read all these elements into the poem. He made the evidence say what he thought it ought to say. Even science is not exempt to this factor or orientation and perspective.

The “Truth” of Science

“Science knows no contextual limitations. It merely seeks truth. But which truth? At different times in the past, reality was observed differently. Different societies coexisting in the modern world have different structures of reality” (Burke 307). Burke states “… reality was observed differently.” It would appear as though reality should be an absolute. Truth and reality are absolutes, but one’s interpretation of reality is not absolute. Depending on the orientation or perspective of the observer, his interpretation will change. “The scientist enters into a study with preconceived notions and interprets the results of his study with the same preconceived notions. True objectivity simply does not exist in the scientific world” (Calbreath 10).

The Meaning of Observations

“Objects, people, situations, and events do not possess their own meaning; rather meaning is conferred on them (Bogdan 25). One would expect that if a person experiences an event, then that event is a reality, but C. S. Lewis said, “Experience by itself proves nothing” (Macaulay 45). The events may very well be reality, but the question is not if something happened, but what happened. Depending on the perspective of the observer, an event can be perceived in different ways. The lack of true objectivity in science is often ignored when the scientific method is presented. Science is presented as a sort of priesthood capable of proclaiming the scientific “truth” Ex Cathedra. “The scientific ‘experts’ are supposed to be the only valid source of scientific opinions. Having pronounced the common-sense belief of the ordinary person to be fundamentally wrong, the ‘experts’ are in the position of a ‘priesthood’ to which all must go for help” (Henry 223).

Conclusion

Obviously, the lack of objectivity in science must be considered in any study of the scientific method. If the scientist is truly not capable of being objective, then the scientist’s perspective must be considered when his interpretations are examined. It is equally as important to distinguish the observations, from the interpretations imposed upon them by the observer. Conclusion

The orientation, which a scientist or any other person uses in interpreting what they see, is called a worldview. Science is not actually just an observation of the physical world resulting in the statement of truth or fact, but science is instead the interpretation of what observers sees, based on their worldviews. The worldview of a scientist affects far more than just interpretation of what the scientist observes. “The direction in which science will move is set by the philosophical world view of scientist” (Schaeffer 20). The worldview of scientists set the tone for the development of the body of knowledge we know as science.

Asimov, I.., (1984), Asimov’s New Guide to Science, Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, New York

Auer, J., Hartt, J., (1981), humanism versus THEISM, The Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa

Bogdan, R., Biklen, S., (1998), Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods, Allyn Bacon, Boston

Boylan, P., (1962), Elements of Chemistry, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston

Burke, J., (1985), The Day the Universe Changed, Little, Brown and Company, Boston

Calbreath, D., (1980) The Challenge of Creationism: Another point of View”, American Laboratory, vol. 12, November

Carroll, L., (1968), Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking-Glass, Lancer Books, New York

Henry, J., (1990), Principles of Astronomy Syllabus, Tennessee Temple University, Chattanooga, Tennessee

Krauskoph, K. (1953), Fundamentals of Physical Science, McGraw Hill Book Company, New York.

Macaulay, S. (1982), How to be your own selfish pig: and other ways you’ve been brainwashed, David C. Cook Publishing Co., Elgin, Illinois

Rand, A., (1985), Atlas Shrugged, Penguin Books, New York

Rocks, I., (1974), “The Perception of Disoriented Figures”, Image, Object, and Illusion, W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco

Schaeffer, F., (1976), How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture, Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois

Taylor, I. (1987), In The Minds of Men: Darwin and The New World Order, TFE Publishing, Toronto, Canada

Weisz, P. (1961), Elements of Biology, McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., New York

Williams, L. (1967), “History of Science”, The Comprehensive Encyclopedia: The Volume Library, Cowles Educational Books Inc., New York

Yockey, F. (1962, third paperback printing 1991), Imperium, The Noontide Press, Costa Mesa, California