Understanding and Identifying Science

The content of this website is adapted from Chapter 1 Understanding Science in An Introduction to Geology by Johnson et al. 2017 under the following Creative Commons license: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. by Crystal Huscroft.

What is Science?  Really.

Science is more than just a body of knowledge, science provides a means to evaluate and create new knowledge without bias [1]. Scientists use objective evidence over subjective evidence, to reach sound and logical conclusions.   An objective observation is without personal bias and is the same by all individuals. Humans are biased by nature, so they cannot be completely objective; the goal is to be as unbiased as possible. A subjective observation is based on a person’s feelings and beliefs and is unique to that individual.

Another way scientists avoid bias is by using quantitative over qualitative measurements whenever possible. A quantitative measurement is expressed with a specific numerical value. Qualitative observations are general or relative descriptions. For example, describing a rock as red or heavy is a qualitative observation. Determining a rock’s color by measuring wavelengths of reflected light or its density by measuring the proportions of minerals it contains is quantitative. Numerical values are more precise than general descriptions, and they can be analyzed using statistical calculations. This is why quantitative measurements are commonly more useful to scientists than qualitative observations.

Science is not infallible.  However, due to the scientific method, it is self-correcting.  Establishing truth in science is difficult because all scientific claims are falsifiable, which means any initial hypothesis may be tested and proven false. Only after exhaustively eliminating false results, competing ideas, and possible variations does a hypothesis become regarded as a reliable scientific theory. This meticulous scrutiny reveals weaknesses or flaws in a hypothesis and is the strength that supports all scientific ideas and procedures. In fact, proving current ideas are wrong has been the driving force behind many scientific careers.

Falsifiability

Falsifiability separates science from pseudoscience. Scientists are wary of explanations of natural phenomena that discourage or avoid falsifiability. An explanation that cannot be tested or does not meet other scientific standards (such as being evidence-based, repeatable, statistical significant) is not considered science, but pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is a collection of ideas that may appear scientific but does not use the scientific method. Astrology is an example of pseudoscience. It is a belief system that attributes the movement of celestial bodies to influencing human behavior. Astrologers rely on celestial observations, but their conclusions are not based on experimental evidence and their statements are not falsifiable. This is not to be confused with astronomy which is the scientific study of celestial bodies and the cosmos [2; 3].

Science is also a social process. Scientists share their ideas with peers at conferences, seeking guidance and feedback. Research papers and data submitted for publication are rigorously reviewed by qualified peers, scientists who are experts in the same field. The scientific review process aims to weed out misinformation, invalid research results, and unfounded speculation. Thus, it is slow, cautious, and conservative. Scientists tend to wait until a hypothesis is supported by overwhelming amount of evidence from many independent researchers before accepting it as scientific theory.

The Scientific Method

Modern science is based on the scientific method, a procedure that follows these steps:

• Formulate a question or observe a problem
• Apply objective experimentation and observation
• Analyze collected data and Interpret results
• Devise an evidence-based theory
• Submit findings to peer review and/or publication

This has a long history in human thought but was first fully formed by Ibn al-Haytham over 1,000 years ago. At the forefront of the scientific method are conclusions based on objective evidence, not opinion or hearsay  [4].

Step one: Observation, problem, or research question

The procedure begins with identifying a problem or research question, such as a phenomenon that is not well explained in the scientific community’s collective knowledge. This step usually involves reviewing the scientific literature to understand previous studies that may be related to the question.

Step two: Hypothesis

Once the problem or question is well defined, the scientist proposes a possible answer, a hypothesis, before conducting an experiment or field work. This hypothesis must be specific, falsifiable, and should be based on other scientific work. Earth System Scientists and physical geographers often develop multiple working hypotheses because they usually cannot impose strict experimental controls or have limited opportunities to visit a field location[5; 6; 7].

Step three: Experiment and hypothesis revision

The next step is developing an experiment that either supports or refutes the hypothesis. Many people mistakenly think experiments are only done in a lab; however, an experiment can consist of observing natural processes in the field. Regardless of what form an experiment takes, it always includes the systematic gathering of objective data. This data is interpreted to determine whether it contradicts or supports the hypothesis, which may be revised and tested again. When a hypothesis holds up under experimentation, it is ready to be shared with other experts in the field.

Step four: Peer review, publication, and replication

Scientists share the results of their research by publishing articles in scientific journals, such as Science and Nature. Reputable journals and publishing houses will not publish an experimental study until they have determined its methods are scientifically rigorous and the conclusions are supported by evidence. Before an article is published, it undergoes a rigorous peer review by scientific experts who scrutinize the methods, results, and discussion. Once an article is published, other scientists may attempt to replicate the results. This replication is necessary to confirm the reliability of the study’s reported results. A hypothesis that seemed compelling in one study might be proven false in studies conducted by other scientists. New technology can be applied to published studies, which can aid in confirming or rejecting once-accepted ideas and/or hypotheses.

Step five: Theory development

In casual conversation, the word theory implies guesswork or speculation. In the language of science, an explanation or conclusion made in a theory carries much more weight because it is supported by experimental verification and widely accepted by the scientific community. After a hypothesis has been repeatedly tested for falsifiability through documented and independent studies, it eventually becomes accepted as a scientific theory.

While a hypothesis provides a tentative explanation before an experiment, a theory is the best explanation after being confirmed by multiple independent experiments. Confirmation of a theory may take years, or even longer. For example, the continental drift hypothesis first proposed by Alfred Wegener in 1912 was initially dismissed. After decades of additional evidence collection by other scientists using more advanced technology, Wegener’s hypothesis was accepted and revised as the theory of plate tectonics.

The theory of evolution by natural selection is another example. Originating from the work of Charles Darwin in the mid-19th century, the theory of evolution has withstood generations of scientific testing for falsifiability. While it has been updated and revised to accommodate knowledge gained by using modern technologies, the theory of evolution continues to be supported by the latest evidence.

Science Denial and Evaluating Sources

Introductory science courses usually deal with accepted scientific theory and may not include opposing ideas, even though alternate ideas may be credible. This makes it easier for students to understand the complex material. Advanced students will encounter more controversies as they continue to study their discipline.

Some groups of people argue that some established scientific theories are wrong, not based on their scientific merit but rather on the ideology of the group. This section focuses on how to identify evidence-based information and differentiate it from pseudoscience.

Science denial

Science denial happens when people argue that established scientific theories are wrong, not based on scientific merit but rather on subjective ideology—such as for social, political, or economic reasons. Organizations and people use science denial as a rhetorical argument against issues or ideas they oppose. Three examples of science denial versus science are: 1) teaching evolution in public schools, 2) linking tobacco smoke to cancer, and 3) linking human activity to climate change. Among these, denial of climate change is strongly connected with scientific understanding and evidence produced by earth system science. A climate denier specifically denies or doubts the objective conclusions of chemists, geologists, glaciologists, geomorphologists, and climate scientists.

Science denial generally uses three false arguments.

1. The science is unsettled:  The first argument tries to undermine the credibility of the scientific conclusion by claiming the research methods are flawed or the theory is not universally accepted—the science is unsettled. The notion that scientific ideas are not absolute creates doubt for non-scientists; however, a lack of universal truths should not be confused with scientific uncertainty. Because science is based on falsifiability, scientists avoid claiming universal truths and use language that conveys uncertainty. This allows scientific ideas to change and evolve as more evidence is uncovered.
2. The science is biased:  The second argument claims the researchers are not objective and motivated by an ideology or economic agenda. This is an ad hominem argument in which a person’s character is attacked instead of the merit of their argument. They claim results have been manipulated so researchers can justify asking for more funding. They claim that because the researchers are funded by a federal grant, they are using their results to lobby for expanded government regulation. Although rare cases of manipulating data have occurred, scientific knowledge is testable and therefore self-correcting.
3. Non-scientific views are scientifically valid:  The third argument is to demand a balanced view, equal time in media coverage and educational curricula, to engender the false illusion of two equally valid arguments. Science deniers frequently demand equal coverage of their proposals, even when there is little scientific evidence supporting their ideology. For example, science deniers might demand religious explanations be taught as an alternative to the well-established theory of evolution in a science class [39; 40]. Or that all possible causes of climate change be discussed as equally probable, regardless of the body of evidence. Conclusions derived using the scientific method should not be confused with those based on ideologies.

Furthermore, conclusions about nature derived from ideologies, can have valid and important messages for how we may wish to behave, but they have no place in scientific research and education. For example, it would be inappropriate to teach the flat earth model in a modern geology course because this idea has been disproved by the scientific method. Unfortunately, widespread scientific illiteracy allows these arguments to be used to suppress scientific knowledge and spread misinformation.

The formation of new conclusions based on the scientific method is the only way to change scientific conclusions. We wouldn’t teach Flat Earth geology along with plate tectonics because Flat Earthers don’t follow the scientific method. The fact that scientists avoid universal truths and change their ideas as more evidence is uncovered shouldn’t be seen as meaning that the science is unsettled. Because of widespread scientific illiteracy, these arguments are used by those who wish to suppress science and misinform the general public.

In a classic case of science denial, beginning in the 1960s and for the next three decades, the tobacco industry and their scientists used rhetorical arguments to deny a connection between tobacco usage and cancer. Once it became clear scientific studies overwhelmingly found that using tobacco dramatically increased a person’s likelihood of getting cancer, their next strategy was to create a sense of doubt about on the science. The tobacco industry suggested the results were not yet fully understood and more study was needed. They used this doubt to lobby for delaying legislative action that would warn consumers of the potential health hazards [39; 41]. This same tactic is currently being employed by those who deny the significance of human involvement in climate change.

Evaluating Sources of Information

In the age of the internet and social media, information is plentiful. Anyone exploring scientific inquiry must discern valid sources of information from pseudoscience and misinformation. This evaluation is especially important in scientific research because scientific knowledge is respected for its reliability [42].  Before accepting information as being scientific, ask the following questions:

Is there evidence of the scientific method being applied?

At its roots, quality information comes from the scientific method [43]. The application of the scientific method helps produce unbiased results. A valid inference or interpretation is based on objective evidence or data. Credible data and inferences are clearly labeled, separated, and differentiated. Anyone looking over the data can understand how the author’s conclusion was derived or come to an alternative conclusion. Scientific procedures are clearly defined so the investigation can be replicated to confirm the original results or expanded further to produce new results. These measures make a scientific inquiry valid and its use as a source reputable. Of course, substandard work occasionally slips through and retractions are published from time to time. An infamous article linking the MMR vaccine to autism appeared in the highly reputable journal Lancet in 1998. Journalists discovered the author had multiple conflicts of interest and fabricated data, and the article was retracted in 2010.

Also, many documentaries and websites try to build arguments on anecdotes and not on controlled experiment or observation and statistically significant results.

Is/are the author/s (a) credible expert(s)?

In addition to methodology, data, and results, the authors of a study should be investigated [44].  An author’s credibility is based on multiple factors, such as having an advanced degree in a relevant topic or being funded from an unbiased source.  It can be useful to investigate the author’s professional affiliation to see if they have gained employment within a reputable institution, agency or organization.

Sometimes it can be tricky to identify the expertise of an author.  The integrity of data is best preserved by an unbiased expert in the field of study that has in intimate knowledge of the data gathering techniques used.  Many films and articles or videos on social media include so-called experts with the title of “Doctor”.  This title can refer to a medical doctor (MD) with training in a type of medicine or a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD).  Having a PhD or MD does not make someone an expert in the field about which they speak.  Even having a PhD in Earth System Science does not make an individual an expert in all areas of the discipline.  Area expertise can be established by  looking at their list of prior publications, often referred to as their publication record.

Is the knowledge published in a reputable publication?

If you read and article in the media about a science, you should investigate to make sure the original informations is from a reputable scientific publication.  Here are the criteria for a reputable scientific publication.

1. Citation.  A hallmark of scientific research is citation.  Citation in science is the attribution of any assumption or idea to the scientific research that supports the idea.  Citation is not only imperative to avoid plagiarism, but also allows readers to investigate an author’s line of thought and conclusions. When reading scientific works, it is important to confirm the citations are from reputable scientific research. Most often, scientific citations are used to reference paraphrasing rather than quotes. The number of times a work is cited is said to measure of the influence an investigation has within the scientific community, although this technique is inherently biased [46].
2. Peer review.  One of the hallmarks of scientific research is peer review.  Peer reviewed articles are articles which have been reviewed by experts in the field before publications.  The scientific reviewers will be listed either at the beginning or end of the article.  Not only should the research be transparent to peer review by the reviewers, but also to any future readers. This allows the scientific community to reproduce experimental results, correct and retract errors, and validate theories. This allows reproduction of experimental results, corrections of errors, and proper justification of the research to experts.
3. A reputable publisher:  Rigor should be applied to evaluating the publisher and reviewers, ensuring the results reported come from an unbiased process  [45]. The publisher should be easy to discover. Good publishers will show the latest papers in the journal and make their contact information and identification clear.  Reputable journals share their peer review process.  Some journals are predatory, where they charge large unexplained and unnecessary fees to submit and access journals and accept articles without proper review. Reputable journals have editorial boards with individuals from recognizable and reputable institutions. Often, a reliable journal will associate with a professional or academic association, or recognized open source initiative without funding from biased sources.

Summary

Science is a process, with no beginning and no end. Science is never finished because a full truth can never be known. However, science and the scientific method are the best way to understand the physical universe we live in. Scientists draw conclusions based on objective evidence; they consolidate these conclusions into unifying models. Physical geographers and Earth system scientists likewise understand studying the Earth is an ongoing process.  Despite overwhelming evidence for scientific theories, due to its cautious approach, science deniers are able to propagate misinformation if readers do not know how to identify the proper application of the scientific method.  Beyond evaluating the application of the scientific method, an informed public can distinguish science from misinformation, false claims, conspiracy theory and pseudoscience by investigating:

• The area of expertise of the author
• The reputation of the author’s affiliations
• The source of funding
• The peer review process
• The publisher
• The use of citation

From a larger viewpoint, exploring the science of  physical geography can teach individuals how to develop credible conclusions, as well as identify and stop misinformation.