Question

TUTORIAL: Why do we do science?

Answer 1

Ten (wow, TEN) years ago, my teaching career began as a graduate student intern at Portsmouth High School. Since that time, I have had the good fortune to work with some excellent teachers and discovered my own strengths and preferences. Last week, I found a folder of old papers from that year. In rereading this work and the comments of my advisor, I realized that, as often happens, the naïve, pie-in-the-sky ideals of a starting teacher have become lost in the mundane daily schedule and administrative mandates. The time has come for a serious examination of my core beliefs, best practices, and what I truly believe are the real goals of science and science education. It is time to get back to fundamentals, to really drive home why I teach, and why I teach science.

Years ago, Richard Feynman equated the search for new laws in science to watching a great cosmic game and trying to determine the rules of the game solely by observing tiny corners of the game board at a time. In less than three minutes, he defines the aims and processes of science better than anyone I have ever heard. In science, we figure out the rules of the universe. That’s about it. This search for the rules is based on just a few key assumptions:

1) The universe operates by a set of rules
2) These rules are consistent and universal (they apply equally well everywhere)
3) These rules are observable, measureable, and predictable.

The first one should be obvious. If we are looking for a set of rules, we’d better believe that they are out there. The second is imperative in attempting to validate our assumed rules. If the rules of the universe changed based on our local geography, either on the surface of the planet, or within the greater cosmos, then no experiment done in two different places would yield similar results. Said simply, if the universe were random, if there were no rules, there would be no need for science. In his original COSMOS, Carl Sagan makes this very point, much more elegantly than I possibly could.

The third assumption is the basis of doing the science. By observing some act of nature, we become curious. What was that, why is it doing that, will it do that every time? By guessing the outcome of an event, we can then test this guess, observe the outcomes, and build models to support the explanation of the outcome. Quite often, especially in chemistry and physics, these models are mathematical in nature:

F = ma;
W = Fd;
Kw = [H+][OH-]

With these mathematical models, we can quickly predict the expected outcome, and compare to the results. And if that result disagrees with the predicted outcome, the theory that produced the prediction is wrong. There is no other alternative. If our perceived understanding of the universe is flawed, nature will tell us. This means science is always moving, always changing, always evolving. Science is running a race where the finish line is ever out of reach. Science is assembling a puzzle of an infinite number of pieces. And it is this method of self-correction that keeps science honest. We cannot ignore the empirical evidence that we create, if we are honestly looking for nature’s rules. When Johannes Keplers’ deeply-held beliefs were demonstrated to be contrary to the mathematical data coming from his observations of planetary motion, he had to recognize that his religious convictions were not in agreement with what the data told him, and so had to change.

The real aim of science education, therefore, should be to train the mind to think, to stretch, and grow; not simply to ingest and regurgitate. When it happens it is an awesome, and sometimes frightening, experience. But that’s why science is so great.

Answer 2

\[\huge \frak \color{red}{Great}~\color{Blue}{Tutorial}\]
I appreciate your tutorial...

We can conclude that:-
\[\huge \cal Without ~SCIENCE\]
\[\large \bf we~are~almost~become\]\(\huge \cal \color{purple}{SCIENCE}~\color{green}{of}~\color{magenta}{STUPID}\)

Answer 3

thanks for posting your nice tutorial

Answer 4

Thank you, I've been thinking about this for a few weeks, and had to get it down somewhere