Natural sciences

04

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 95 04/03/2014 13:55

 04 Natural sciences

On previous page –There

4.1
are still so many questions
that we can’t answer about Introduction to the natural sciences
the universe. Ordinary matter
– atoms, stars and galaxies –
accounts for less than 5% of
the universe. Astronomers
Maps and the natural sciences
believe that dark matter Our central metaphor for knowledge in this book is a map. In this chapter, we ask what
and dark energy make up it is that is mapped by the natural sciences and for what purposes. By many measures,
the other 95% but more is
the map produced by the natural sciences is supremely successful. It allows us to
unknown than known about
these hypotheses. understand the world around us, to predict what it will do in the future, and gives us
technology that allows us to change it.

The success of this map raises some important questions. What is it that makes this map
so powerful? Are the maps produced by other AOKs as successful in explaining and
predicting the world? Is the raw material of the natural sciences particularly suited to
systematic investigation? Are the methods of the natural sciences the key to their success?

In order to begin thinking about these issues, consider the statements about the natural
sciences and the human sciences in Table 4.1. To what extent do you agree with them?

Table 4.1 Comparing the

The natural sciences The human sciences
natural sciences and human
sciences • are concerned with the material world • are concerned with the world of humans
• aim to be able to make predictions • aim to achieve understanding
• use a systematic method based on • use a systematic method based on
observation observation
• are concerned with facts that are • are concerned with facts that are created
independent of human beings by human beings
• use quantitative methods • use qualitative methods
• are value free • are value rich
• produce knowledge that does not • produce knowledge that changes over
change over time time
• produce the only knowledge worth • are more concerned with speculation
knowing than knowledge

Exercise
1 Compare your answers with a friend. Do you agree with all the statements? Which statements
caused disagreement?

In this chapter, we investigate these claims further. We explore what problems the natural
sciences can solve and what problems remain outside their scope. We investigate the language
of the natural sciences and explore what special qualities are required to build the accurate
map of reality to which they aspire. We examine whether or not it is true that this map does not
change over time. Finally, we examine what scientific knowledge means to us as individuals.

Natural sciences and the knowledge framework

The structure for this chapter is the knowledge framework discussed in Chapter 3
(Figure 4.1). We examine each element of this framework with a view to identifying
knowledge questions and illustrating them with examples and case studies.

96

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 96 04/03/2014 13:55

 Links to personal knowledge Scope and applications

Knowledge
Language and concepts
framework

Historical development Methodology Figure 4.1 The TOK

knowledge framework.

The natural sciences are good examples of shared knowledge. They are the result of a
vast collaboration of people spread over great distances and over long time intervals.
Individuals have learned this shared knowledge and then gone on to contribute further
to it. Their contributions have been subjected to rigorous tests by others and eventually
accepted as part of this shared knowledge.

In this way, these huge systems of knowledge have evolved over time. They
have changed as new problems have emerged to motivate new investigations.
New problems have demanded new ways of thinking, which have spawned new
terminology and concepts. This in turn has led to advances in the methods used to
solve problems. Sometimes, the production of new technology to help solve a problem
has led to sudden advances in a field; for example, the technology of DNA sequencing
led to major advances in genetics.

Changes in these AOKs influence us as individuals. Having access to shared knowledge

has an impact on how we think about ourselves. Advances in the natural sciences,
in particular, challenge our ideas about what it means to be a person and the degree
to which we are free to make decisions over and above our biological makeup. Our
significance in the universe is challenged by a cosmology that puts the age of the
universe at 13.7 billion years, enough to make a human life seem like the blink of an
eye. Over the last 400 years or so, the natural sciences have had an enormous effect
on our view of ourselves. We have gone from living at the centre of the universe and
being first among God’s creations to being a speck in, to paraphrase Douglas Adams,
a rather unfashionable arm of a rather ordinary galaxy which is only one of 200 billion
or so and being just another animal – the result of a particular series of changes to an
ancestor we might have shared with some of the other primates.

Of course, other AOKs also have a lot to contribute in terms of how we think about
ourselves and may challenge or contradict the personal knowledge we take from the
natural sciences. Religion in particular might be relevant here.

4.2 Scope and applications

In this section, we answer two questions: what are the natural sciences and what
motivates the production of this knowledge. Before we start, try to answer the question
yourself: what do the words ‘natural science’ mean to you?
97

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 97 04/03/2014 13:55

 04 Natural sciences

Knowledge framework: Scope and applications –

What is the area of knowledge about?
The label ‘natural’ is a throwback to the time when all knowledge fell under the description
‘philosophy’. The study of the material world independent of the intentions and desires
of humans was called natural philosophy to distinguish it from moral philosophy, which
was the title given to the group of disciplines devoted to the study of human beings.

Definition of the natural sciences

One way to characterize the natural sciences is through their subject matter: the
objects of the natural world.

Exercises
2 This table shows some disciplines in the natural sciences. Spend a moment identifying the subject
matter of each.

Map Territory

physics the world of matter and energy

chemistry

biology

astronomy

geology

materials science

biochemistry

cosmology

3 The first three common natural science subjects focus on rather different subject matter. How
would you define each of physics, chemistry, and biology?

Physics explores the world of matter and energy in general – it is thought by some to
be the foundation of the natural sciences. Chemistry is the study of how the properties
of the atom and its electrons translate into the behaviour of substances at the
macroscopic level. Biology studies how the physical and chemical properties of matter
combine to give another material property we call ‘life’. Far from the old idea that
life was a special force – the élan vital – the modern conception of the living is purely
physical. The biologist tells us that a physical system is living if it possesses a number
of properties such as homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation,
In some languages, for response to stimuli, and reproduction.
example German, Dutch,
or Swedish, the word Each natural science discipline exists independently of the others but it is clear that
‘science’ (wissenschaft,
wetenschap, or vetenskap)
there are deep links between them. It is tempting to suggest a hierarchy: ideas in
simply means ‘all biology require an understanding of chemical properties of matter; chemistry seems to
systematic knowledge’. presuppose an understanding of the underlying physics. Therefore, there is a sense in
The term does not just which physics is the basis for the other natural sciences.
apply to the natural
sciences. Therefore, be Another way to think about the natural sciences is to look at their methods. Michael
careful how you use the
word ‘science’ in TOK.
Shermer of Skeptic magazine claims that science is a verb – it is a way of doing things
and that the natural sciences share, broadly speaking, a common method. If we accept
98

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 98 04/03/2014 13:55

 this idea, we might want to refer to this as the ‘scientific method’. Shermer states in a Is there a hierarchy of natural
TED talk that it is this method which distinguishes science from non-science. sciences?

Exercises
4 What does Michael Shermer mean when he claims that science is a verb?
5 What reasons does Shermer give for our tendency to believe unlikely claims?
6 What two advantages did Christian Huygens have over Galileo in trying to understand
observations of the rings of Saturn? To learn more about
Michel Shermer’s ideas,
7 According to Shermer, what mistakes do pseudosciences such as astrology or parapsychology
visit pearsonhotlinks.com,
make that prevent them from gaining knowledge?
enter the title or ISBN
8 How would you define the natural sciences in a TOK essay? of this book and select
9 Look again at the xkcd cartoon above. What do you think is meant by ‘purity’ in this context? weblink 4.1.

The scientific method is discussed in much more detail later in the section on
methodology. For now a broad sketch is sufficient. A starting point might be that
the scientific method is an attempt to link theory and observation: it is a way of
systematically making and organizing our observations of the world. It often uses
experiment to replicate, in an ideal manner, some aspect of the world in which we are
interested. The ideal nature of the experimental environment is intended to establish
precisely what causes produce what effects. It is designed to examine only one factor
at a time and eliminate all others. These experimental results can be used to support
theories that lead to general conclusions about how the world works (Figure 4.2).

Figure 4.2 The natural

Observation Theory sciences balance observation
and theory.

While there is some disagreement, most writers agree that something like the method
suggested above is characteristic of the natural sciences. This suggests two questions
for the TOK student to tackle.
• What is it about this method that produces the special reliability that is taken to be a
hallmark of natural scientific knowledge?
• Other AOKs also share this method – do they, therefore, give an equally reliable map
of reality?

99

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 99 04/03/2014 13:55

 04 Natural sciences

Can you think of other AOKs that use similar methods to the natural sciences?

Prescribed essay title 1: Is it a simple matter to distinguish a scientific

argument from a pseudo-scientific argument?
© International Baccalaureate, November 2002, May 2003

Knowledge framework: Scope and applications –

What practical problems can be solved through applying
this knowledge?
Recall our metaphor knowledge is a map of the world. The map is made in a particular way
to solve a particular set of problems.

Purpose of the natural sciences

Exercise
10 What problems do the natural sciences solve?

Let us suppose that you came up with two answers.

• Natural sciences satisfy our curiosity about what there is in the world and how it works.
• Natural sciences help us to live our everyday lives by enabling us to control our
environment and by giving us tools (technology) with which to do so.

We might call the first answer ‘pure science’ and the second ‘applied science’. Can you
think of examples of pure science that have produced useful applications? Table 4.2 has
some examples to get you started.

Table 4.2 Related topics in Pure science Applied science

pure and applied sciences.
optical qualities of materials in magnetic fields LCD display screens

mapping the human genome screening for genetic diseases

investigating the structure of carbon molecules carbon fibre materials for use in aircraft

So, pure science and applied science can be closely linked. Often the application of a
particular piece of pure science is not obvious at the beginning of the investigation.
So even if applications were the main reason for doing science, it still makes sense to
pursue pure science.

Nevertheless, much inquiry in the natural sciences belongs to the first category.
It is motivated by a set of ‘open questions’. These are big questions that are as yet
unanswered. They act as beacons that help navigate research. One way to understand
a subject is to find out what are the big unanswered questions toward which research
is progressing. It might be worthwhile asking your science teachers what are the big
open questions in their particular fields.

The making of predictions about the state of the world in the future is a feature both
of pure science and science applied to improving our everyday life. The method of
the natural sciences – the rigorous testing of theoretical models through observation
and experiment – lends itself to the sort of precise prediction that we have come to

100

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 100 04/03/2014 13:56

 associate with areas such as physics and chemistry and, to a lesser extent perhaps,
biology. Predictions of this sort have obvious real-world benefits.

Does all natural scientific knowledge produce predictions? Write down a list of fields
in the natural sciences that do not produce predictions. Here are two suggestions to get
you started:
• seismology (the study of earthquakes)
• geology.

Exercises
11 Copy the diagram on the right
and position the following
fields in the natural sciences: 1 classical physics
astronomy, genetics, cell 1 chemistry
biology, geology, X-ray
crystallography, medicine,
The purpose of scientific
nuclear physics, string theory, 2 neurobiology
fields.
Application

volcanology
2 quantum physics
12 How do you interpret the
different regions on the diagram
(1 = top right, 2 = middle shaded
band, 3 = bottom left)?
13 If you were a government minister
responsible for funding research
in the natural sciences, how would
you decide which projects to 2 cosmology
fund? Write down a short list of
the criteria you would use. What Pure knowledge
knowledge questions do you
encounter in making this choice?
14 Write down a short description of the three most important open questions in the natural science
subject you are studying in the IB Diploma Programme. What makes these questions important?

Prescribed essay title 2: ‘To know is to be able to predict.’ How accurate is

this claim in different systems of knowledge?
© International Baccalaureate, November 2000, May 2001

Knowledge framework: Scope and applications –

Are there ethical considerations that limit the scope of the inquiry?
If so, what are they?

Ethics in the natural sciences

Ethics sets limits on what we can do. Ethical thinking might lead to a conclusion that
‘I ought to do X’ or ‘we ought not to do Y’. Such conclusions are usually independent of
our particular goals and purposes. Ethical thinking might restrict scientific knowledge
in two ways:
• by limiting the sort of question we can investigate
• by limiting the sort of experiments we can carry out.

Can you think of some examples for each of these types?

Chapter 9 discusses in detail ethics as an AOK. However, it is useful here to think about
a number of knowledge questions centred on ethical issues in the natural sciences.
Here are some examples.
101

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 101 04/03/2014 13:56

 04 Natural sciences

Knowledge questions
1 Could the results of an investigation justify the means used to reach them?
2 How could we anticipate the results of an investigation and the uses to which they could be put
before the investigation is begun?
3 What sort of ethical principles should limit the type of experiment permitted in producing
knowledge?

While these questions are general and can apply to any AOK, they are particularly
relevant to some of the investigations in the natural sciences because of the powerful
way in which scientific knowledge can be used to change the world.

What about the nuclear bomb?

The ‘engineering’ project at

Los Alamos.

Here is Richard Feynman discussing how he got involved.

I was working in my room at Princeton one day when Bob Wilson came in and said
that he had been funded to do a job that was a secret, and he wasn’t supposed to tell
anybody, but he was going to tell me because he knew that as soon as I knew what
he was going to do, I’d see that I had to go along with it. So he told me about the
problem of separating the isotopes of uranium ultimately to make a bomb. He had
a process for separating the isotopes of uranium (different from the one that was

102

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 102 04/03/2014 13:56

 ultimately used) that he wanted to try to develop. He told me about it, and he said,
‘There’s a meeting …’
I said I didn’t want to do it.
He said, ‘All right, there’s a meeting at three o’clock. I’ll see you there.’
I said, ‘It’s all right that you told me the secret because I am not going to tell
anybody, but I’m not going to do it.’
So I went back to work on my thesis – for about three minutes. Then I began
to pace the floor and think about this thing. The Germans had Hitler and the
possibility of developing an atomic bomb was obvious, and the possibility that
they would develop it before we did was very much of a fright. So I decided to go to
the meeting at three o’clock.
By four o’clock I already had a desk in a room and was trying to calculate whether
this particular method was limited by the total amount of current that you get in an
ion beam, and so on. I won’t go into the details. But I had a desk, and I had paper,
and I was working as hard as I could and as fast as I could, so the fellas who were
building the apparatus could do the experiment right there.
It was like those moving pictures where you see a piece of equipment go bruuuup,
bruuuup, bruuuup. Every time I’d look up, the thing was getting bigger. What was
happening, of course, was that all the boys had decided to work on this and to
stop their research in science. All science stopped during the war except the little
bit that was done at Los Alamos. And that was not much science; it was mostly
engineering …
… It was ultimately decided that this project was not to be the one they were going
to use to separate uranium. We were told that we were going to stop, because in
Los Alamos, New Mexico, they would be starting the project that would actually
make the bomb. We would all go out there to make it. There would be experiments
that we would have to do, and theoretical work to do. I was in the theoretical work.
All the rest of the fellas were in experimental work.
Feynman, 1992

Knowledge questions
4 What principles should limit the sort of experiments or investigations that are permitted in
producing knowledge in the natural sciences?
5 Can the results of scientific research ever justify the means used to obtain them?
6 Should we judge whether or not research should be carried out based on its possible uses in the
future? If so, how can we know what these uses are?
7 Will some questions remain unanswered simply because the methods required to answer them
are unethical?

103

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 103 04/03/2014 13:56

 04 Natural sciences

Exercises
15 Find examples that illustrate each of the knowledge questions on the previous page.
16 Sketch outlines of arguments for each of the knowledge questions. Try to argue both sides.
17 Have a debate with a classmate on one of the knowledge questions. Take opposing sides to each
question and present your arguments in turn. Take 4 minutes per person. Try to summarize the
arguments at the end and come to a consensus.
18 Were the scientists at Los Alamos justified in the research that they were doing? How did Feynman
justify his involvement in the project?
19 Are such ethical questions matters of science alone or do they involve thinking from outside science?
20 What does Feynman’s account tell us about the role of theory in the search for knowledge in nuclear
physics?

What about racial biology?

In 1922, the Swedish Institute for Racial Biology was established and began to examine
To learn more about
the Swedish Institute the racial background of the 100 000 members of the Swedish population. The role
for Racial Biology, visit of the institute changed over the decades as it moved into genetic studies and, in the
pearsonhotlinks.com, 1950s, the institute was integrated into Uppsala University.
enter the title or ISBN
of this book and select Exercises
weblink 4.2.
21 What ethical problems can you identify with the work of the Swedish Institute for Racial Biology?
Are there any circumstances in which such work could be morally permitted?
22 ‘Pure research is neutral, it can never be unethical – it is what people do with it that is the
problem.’ To what extent do you agree with this view? Find some good examples of your own
taken from the natural sciences to illustrate your points.

4.3 Language and concepts

Scientific language is distinctive. It differs quite dramatically from everyday language.

Pick up a textbook from one of your group 4 subjects and compare it with the
language used in, say, a reality TV show. There is a special vocabulary and a rather
formal way of using it. Spend a moment or two thinking about the reason for this.

Knowledge framework: Language and concepts –

What role does language play in the accumulation of
knowledge in this area?
Formal language
The language in your group 4 textbook is both precise and formal. There are very
specific terms that are used in well-defined situations. For example, in biology, you
must distinguish between the different parts of a cell. One must not confuse the
mitochondria with the choloroplasts or the cytoplasm with the vacuole. Precise
language with a clear well-defined meaning is required to formulate precise ideas. The
ability to formulate precise ideas is important in the natural sciences. If we can define
causes and effects in a precise manner, it is easier to connect them.

Exercises
23 Write down another area of human activity that requires the precise use of language. Why is precision needed
in this case? How does it relate to the reasons you identified for precise language in the natural sciences?
24 Scientific terms do not just label physical objects or parts of physical objects, they also label other
things. Give some examples of scientific terms that do not label objects.

104

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 104 04/03/2014 13:56

 Knowledge framework: Language and concepts –
What are the roles of the key concepts and key terms that
provide the building blocks for knowledge in this area?
Concepts
Most specialist language in the natural sciences names concepts that are important in
understanding scientific ideas. These concepts form the bricks with which the main
results of the science are built – for example, scientific laws or big generalizations that
hold for a large class of things or situations. A good revision tool in any AOK is to
list the five big ideas in that area – that is, the five most important ‘slogans’, that are
accepted in that AOK. These ‘slogans’ are statements connecting important concepts
(Table 4.3).

Table 4.3 The five big ideas

Idea 1 The universe is expanding – this is revealed by spectroscopic analysis of distant
in cosmology (the study of
objects (they show a so-called ‘redshift’).
the whole universe and its
Idea 2 The further away an object is, the faster, typically, it is receding from us (this is origins).
called Hubble’s law).

Idea 3 This pattern of expansion is the typical signature of an explosion. This

explosion is called the Big Bang and by playing the film of the expansion
backward we can calculate that the explosion happened 13.7 billion years ago.

Idea 4 In physics, when things expand they get cooler (physics students will
recognize this as adiabatic cooling); therefore. the universe is getting cooler.
The temperature of the explosion that happened at the beginning of time is
now only 3 Kelvin.

Idea 5 Since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, the furthest we can
see in the universe is 13.7 billion light years.

These big ideas constitute the main branches of the tree of knowledge in this area.
They connect key concepts and usually suggest causal relationships – that is, relations
of cause and effect. A key concept is one on which other concepts depend.

Exercises
25 What are the key concepts in the cosmology example?
26 What are the causal connections in the cosmology example?
27 List five concepts from the current topic you are studying in your group 4 subject. Compare your
list with a friend taking the same subject.
28 Some subjects such as biology require the student to learn a fairly long list of terms. Is the
definition of a term a type of knowledge itself?
29 If you answered ‘yes’ to exercise 28, are the ideas which link concepts higher up in the hierarchy of
types of knowledge than this ‘definitional knowledge’?
30 It has been said that a good way to study a subject is to master the key concepts first.
Do you agree?

So, language both labels concepts and links them in the natural sciences.

Logical language in the natural sciences

We have seen that scientific knowledge often takes the form of general statements that
describe how the world works. These statements have a specific logical structure and
special language is used to make this logical structure particularly clear.
105

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 105 04/03/2014 13:56

 04 Natural sciences

Here are some of the more common types of scientific statement.

• If A happens, then it ’makes’ B happen (A causes B).
• If X is true, then Y is true.
• All Zs are Ws.
• X happens because of Y, Z, W.

Causation is a difficult idea to express and thinkers are still divided about its nature.
It does not just mean that events A and B occur together but rather A happening
Causation seems, on the
surface, to be the same makes B happen. In the technical language of TOK, A is a sufficient condition for B.
as implication. But the Intuitively, we expect that A and B are physically connected in some way, and that A
two are quite different. A happening somehow forces B to happen (see the discussion on causation in history in
causing B to happen is a
Chapter 7).
physical phenomenon.
X implying Y is a logical
The second statement seems similar to the first but there is quite a different idea here
one. If x = 2 then x2 = 4
is a matter of pure logic, (be aware). If X implies Y, then it is a contradiction to suppose that X is true and Y is
x = 2 does not cause x2 to false. In other words, the idea of Y is somehow built into X. If Fred is a bachelor, then
be 4. It is just built into Fred is unmarried. Being unmarried is built into the definition of being a bachelor.
the definition of 2. This
must be true in every The third statement makes a link between two properties. It is useful for classifying
universe where these
types of thing. It is useful for showing what types of property always fit together, for
symbols are defined
and have their standard example, fir trees are evergreens. This helps us characterize fir trees – to understand
meanings. It is called their essential nature.
a necessary truth. If
x2 were not 4, then we Explanation seems to be very similar to causation. But it is the most general type on
would have a logical offer here because Y, Z, W might be quite different sorts of thing to X. X might be
contradiction. It would
observable (say acceleration) while Y, Z, W might be something more theoretical
be like saying that there
is a bachelor who is – they might be charge or energy – things that cannot be observed directly. So an
married. But, to take a explanation relates an observed phenomenon to some sort of general theory. We take
causal example, if we this further in the section on methodology.
heat water to 100 °C, that
causes the water to boil. This list is not complete; there are many types of scientific statement that derive from
That is a specific feature
these basic forms. Consider a simple statement that expresses the existence of something
of our universe – pure
water boils at 100 °C with particular properties: there is an X that has property P – there is a mammal that
(at standard pressure, lays eggs, for example. This is related to the third statement, characterization. (Can you
of course). But it is not think of a mammal that does lay eggs? There are three.) In this example, we cannot use the
a logical contradiction
absence of egg-laying to characterize being a mammal because of the counter examples
to say that water has a
temperature of 100 °C (the duck-billed platypus, and the long-and short-beaked echidnas).
and does not boil. This
just contradicts the These statements generally do not allow exceptions. It is not the case that positively
particular facts in our charged particles repel each other most of the time – they do it all the time and if there
universe. There may be is an exception, it is front-page news. Scientific statements are strong and we have seen
universes in which this
that their strength comes from the fact that language defines precise states of affairs.
could be true. It just isn’t
true in ours. Deviations from these narrowly defined possibilities indicate that there is a problem
with the underlying theory. We see in Chapter 5 that this is quite different from the
situation in the human sciences.

Language as a means of sharing knowledge in the

natural sciences
We saw previously that language names the important concepts in science and then
connects them logically. Language is also important, because it is a means of collecting

106

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 106 04/03/2014 13:56

 together scientific knowledge to make it available to everyone in the field both at the
time and in the future. Until recently this was done mainly through the publishing of
printed articles in scientific journals. When a group of scientists wanted to publish
their contribution to knowledge in a field, they submitted an article to a journal widely
read by others in the field. The article would then be read by a small team of experts
in the field who would check that it was of a good enough standard to be accepted as
knowledge. This process is known as peer review.

Most journals are now available online and many publishers have discontinued the print
versions. Access is often strictly controlled by a subscription system. But peer review is
still an important feature of the process by which scientific knowledge is produced.

Exercises
31 What are the advantages and disadvantages of peer review?
32 Discuss the impact of the internet in the accumulation and transmission of knowledge. What are the
implications of the fact that anyone can post items on the internet in general without peer review?
33 What are the implications of moving scientific journals online? Does it matter who controls access
to this information?

Knowledge framework: Language and concepts –

What metaphors are appropriate to this area of knowledge?
Metaphor
As discussed in Chapter 3, language does more than just name and connect concepts.
It allows us to picture what is going on in a particular way. One way of doing this is
through metaphor.

Remind yourself how metaphors help us understand and describe complex situations.
Notice in particular how metaphors can lead us towards intuitions.

Metaphors have their dangers too. What do you think are the dangers of using
metaphors in the production of knowledge? The intuitions and understanding they
yield come at a price. It is tempting to forget that a metaphor is just that: a picture. For
example, students of physics have to struggle with two conflicting metaphors applied
to electrons: particles and waves. The term ‘wave’ brings to mind the sea breaking on
the shore – it seems very distant from the idea of particle or ball or planet. The pictures
produced by these different metaphors are different and difficult to reconcile. At this
point it is important to realize that the electron is neither a particle nor a wave. To use
the terminology of Chapter 3, these are source concepts. We should not confuse the
target with the source. But nevertheless, it is useful to think of the electron as having
some wave-like and some particle-like properties. The danger is that we take the
metaphor too far – we may think that because some aspects of it are helpful then all
are – in the words of Chapter 3, we expand the ground to fill the whole target.

Exercises
34 Biology tends to use metaphors taken from engineering when describing organisms. Words such
as purpose, design, and function enter the vocabulary. The popular press even go so far as to
use personification as in statements such as ‘evolution does not like wastefulness’. Write a short
paragraph on the dangers of using such metaphors.
35 Identify metaphors in a group 4 subject that you study. What intuitions do they suggest? Are there
ways in which they hinder the production of knowledge?
36 Is there a sense in which all knowledge is metaphorical?

107

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 107 04/03/2014 13:56

 04 Natural sciences

Knowledge framework: Language and concepts –

What is the role of convention in this area?
Convention
Convention is an agreement that we make in order to allow certain social activities to
take place smoothly. It is conventional in Sweden to drive on the right-hand side of the
road. This is does not have to be so, it is just a decision that has been made, a social fact
(and it was made comparatively recently).

Exercises
37 Can you think of any conventions that are used in the natural sciences?
38 What is the purpose of such conventions?

There are many conventions observed in the

natural sciences in order that science can take
place as a shared social activity. The units that
we use are an important example of such a
convention. The Système International designates
the units metre (m), second (s), and kilogram
(kg) as standard units. This means that scientists
working in different parts of the world can
work together because they have the same
understandings of how we should measure these
various aspects of the physical world. Without
these conventions, we would not have standard
ways of comparing and communicating the
science that we do all around the world.

Changing convention: There are also important conventions regarding how specific experimental procedures
On 3 September 1967 at are to be carried out. Each of these conventions ensures that scientific knowledge
04:50 Sweden changed the
convention from driving on is sharable because we use the same units and have the same ideas about what
the left to driving on the right. constitutes legitimate ways of gathering data and coming to conclusions.

Convention in electrical circuits

We spoke in Chapter 3 about Benjamin Franklin and the conventional charge on the
electron. In an electrical circuit the convention is that current flows out of the positive
terminal, through the circuit and into the negative terminal of the source. This was
I the convention chosen during the discovery of electricity (Figure 4.3). Unfortunately,
+ circuits don’t work that way.
V R
– Electron flow is what actually happens and electrons flow out of the negative terminal,
through the circuit and into the positive terminal of the source. Both conventional
current and electron flow are used by industry. Many textbooks are available in both
electron flow and conventional current formats. In fact, it makes no difference which
Figure 4.3 Conventional
electrical circuit diagram. way current is flowing as long it is shown consistently. The direction of current flow
does not affect what the current does.

In general, two-year technical programmes and high-school physics use electron flow.
But three-year technician and university engineering programmes still use conventional
current. Certain symbols (e.g. diodes and transistors) and rules (e.g. right-hand rules for

108

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 108 04/03/2014 13:56

 electromagnets) were created using conventional current. Changing from conventional
current to electron flow would cause a degree of confusion for old and new students
and errors would occur, so conventional current was kept.

Exercises
39 Identify three conventions used in your group 4 subject.
40 How do these conventions allow knowledge to be produced and shared in this subject?
41 Can you identify conventions that apply to methods or procedure rather than, say, units or
terminology?

Classification systems
Carl von Linné (1707–78).
So far, we have discussed the use of specialist scientific terms to name important
concepts from which scientific ideas can be built. We have discussed examples of these
ideas such as scientific laws and generalizations. We have discussed the use of causal
and logical language in the natural sciences and the use of language for explaining
scientific phenomena. We have discussed metaphor to allow us to build simplified
pictures of the complex world and the establishment of conventions to help us share
this knowledge. But perhaps the most important use of language in the natural
sciences is in the classification or sorting of the phenomena of the natural world into
different types.

Classification systems are used extensively in nearly all the sciences. Since the
natural sciences are interested in describing and explaining the natural world,
it is clear that a first step might be to order natural phenomena into different
types. We might want to group them together according to features that they
share. Then we might want to see if there are any general statements we can
make that apply to every member of a particular group. If our classification
system is a good one, it can further our understanding by revealing
patterns that we had not previously noticed.

This method is used often in biology. There are different types of cell,
different types of microorganism and, most striking of all, an impressive
system of classification of plants and animals that group them together
according to important common features.

Carl von Linné

Carl von Linné is often referred to by the Latinized version of his name,
Linneaus. He was a Swedish botanist who introduced the system of binomial
names for plants in his Species Plantarum of 1753. The idea is that the name of
each plant has two parts: a genus followed by a species name. For example,
he named the wild perennial Lupin, Lupinus perenis. This system of naming is
designed to aid the classification or taxonomy of plants. Botanists are quick to
point out that the system of names is not the same as a classification system;
the genus is intended to be a guide as to which plants should be grouped
together based on certain characteristics that they have in common.

Linné’s binomial system allowed botanists to adopt standard names for

species. Even within a single language, there were (and still are) many different
common names for the same species depending on local custom or tradition. The perennial lupin
The rigorous standardization of names made it possible for local botanical knowledge to (Lupinus perenis).
109

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 109 04/03/2014 13:56

 04 Natural sciences

be shared globally. Moreover, the system helped scientists decide which species were
related.

The genus and species are at the low end of the hierarchy of the classification. Above
the genus, a plant also belongs to a tribe which belongs to a family which belongs to an
order which belongs to a kingdom. So: Lupinus perenis belongs to the tribe Genisteae, the
family Fabacae, the order Fabales and the kingdom Plantae.

The botanical taxonomist has two main problems to solve. The first is to decide which
plants belong to a particular species. The second is which species belong to a particular
genus. How different (and in what ways) should two plants be to belong to different
species? How different (and in what ways) should two species be to belong to different
genera? Indeed cladistics in modern botany is an attempt to differentiate between those
characteristics that derive from a common genetic ancestor and those that result from
convergence of different species.
The front page of Linné’s
Systema Natura of 1758. Linné tried to solve a more basic problem in his work: how we define a plant. Although
this might sound straightforward, biologists tell us that the sheer variety of life forms
sharing some characteristics with plants makes such a definition problematic.

Knowledge question
8 Can a classification system itself be considered knowledge?

Exercises
42 Pick ten objects randomly from your immediate surroundings. Now try to sort these objects into
four categories. None of the categories can be called ‘miscellaneous’.
a What criteria did you use to produce your classification system?
b What difficulties did you encounter while trying to perform your classification?
c Compare the system you used with that of a classmate. Can one classification system be
better than another? If so, how could you decide?
43 How does a system of classification help produce knowledge?
Drawings of shapes of 44 What classification systems can you identify in the other natural sciences?
leaves from Linné’s Hortus 45 Find a classification system in the human sciences and in the arts.
Cliffortianus of 1737.

Ideal knower: Brian Marsden

Brian Marsden is the astronomer who played a central role in Pluto’s downgrading to
dwarf-planet status.

The British-born astronomer Brian Marsden, Emeritus Director of the Minor

Planet Centre (MPC), once famously – but wrongly – warned of an asteroid
collision with Earth. He also helped demote Pluto to ‘dwarf planet’ status and
accurately predicted the return of Comet Swift–Tuttle.
Once described by the New York Times as a ‘Cheery Herald of Fear,’ Marsden
specialised in tracking asteroids and comets and computing their orbits. He was
once described as the ‘sentinel protecting Earth’, and his work was crucial in
helping to track potentially Earth-threatening objects. Marsden was perhaps best
known for his 1998 announcement that an asteroid, known as 1997 XF11, might

110

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 110 04/03/2014 13:56

 strike the Earth in 2028, causing catastrophic damage. Charles Alcock, Director of
the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, said that ‘Marsden was one of
the most influential comet investigators of the 20th century and definitely one of
the most colourful, with an equally pleasant demeanour.’
… Marsden … played a pivotal role in the ‘demotion’ of Pluto from full-planet
to dwarf-planet status. He was interested in the discovery of what he called
‘transneptunian objects’, although colleagues referred to them as objects in the
Kuiper Belt, the region extending from the orbit of Neptune to edge of the solar
system.
When what seemed the first of these transneptunian objects was discovered in
1992, Marsden argued that they were not the first, because Pluto, discovered in
1930 and somewhat larger, had to be the first. More specifically, he was the first to
suggest, correctly, that three further transneptunian objects discovered in 1993
were exactly like Pluto, in the sense that for every two of their solar orbits Neptune
orbits the Sun three times. So he became a firm advocate of ‘demoting’ Pluto.
With the discovery of Eris, another object comparable to Pluto, in 2005, the 2006
International Astronomical Union (IAU) created a new category of ‘dwarf planets’.
This now includes both Pluto and Eris, together with two further transneptunian
objects known as Makemake and Haumea, as well as the largest asteroid, Ceres.
Pluto was designated minor planet 134340, though this decision remains
controversial.
It was also at the IAU meeting in Prague that Marsden stepped down as MPC
director after 28 years; he was entertained by the thought that both he and Pluto
had been retired on the same day. He remained working at the MPC (and the CBAT,
the Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams) in an emeritus capacity.
The Independent, 25 November 2010

Exercises
46 Why was Pluto reclassified as a dwarf planet?
47 Is a classification purely conventional?
48 Is there knowledge involved in reclassifying Pluto?
49 Does it matter whether Pluto is a dwarf planet or a ‘regular’ planet?
50 What role did prediction play in the research that Brian Marsden did on comets?
51 Marsden’s work involved very careful measurements and painstaking calculations. How does this
research differ from research such as Albert Einstein’s work on special relativity? Is one type of
research more important than the other?

Prescribed essay title 3: In areas of knowledge such as the arts and the sciences,
do we learn more from work that follows or breaks with accepted conventions?
© International Baccalaureate, November 2007, May 2008

111

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 111 04/03/2014 13:56

 04 Natural sciences

4.4 Methodology

We have argued that the key to the success of the natural sciences lies in the method
they use to produce knowledge. This method is so important, so the argument goes,
that it merits a special title: the scientific method. We examine two questions here.
• Is there just one scientific method?
• What it is about this method that guarantees the reliability of scientific knowledge?

Knowledge framework: Methodology –

What are the methods or procedures used in this area and
what is it about these methods that generates knowledge?
Exercise
52 Try to draw a flowchart that describes the scientific method and includes the words: hypothesis,
analysis of experimental results, observation, design experiment, modify hypothesis, carry
out experiment, question, form conclusion.

Hypothetico–deductive method
The mantra for this book is that knowledge is a map that is produced to answer a specific
question. This is true as much in the natural sciences as in any other AOK. The starting
point of scientific inquiry is a question. So while it is often claimed that all science
rests on observation, it does not occur in a vacuum. It is not a question of innocently
observing the world and writing down our observations. Observation is driven from the
beginning by a question that needs to be answered. This question is often posed in the
form of a hypothesis. We produce a statement about how we think the world works.
We then devise an experiment to test whether the hypothesis is true. We observe the
results of the experiment, collect data, and analyse it often using the methods of
mathematics. We draw a conclusion based on this analysis and modify the
hypothesis accordingly. Thus begins a new cycle of testing (Figure 4.4).

Theory The whole procedure has a number of feedback loops built into
it. That the hypothesis is modified on the basis of the analysis
of experimental results means that it can be corrected if the
results deviate from what is expected.
Conclusion Prediction Moreover, the natural sciences are shared knowledge.
This means that an experiment done by one group of people
might be repeated by another group elsewhere. The second
group try to replicate the results of the first.

What is the point of trying to replicate scientific results?

If a second group cannot replicate the results of the first, the
Results Experiment validity of the results might be called into question. Further
investigation would be needed to understand why the two
groups obtained different results. Such feedback mechanisms
make the natural sciences self-correcting.
Figure 4.4 Testing a
hypothesis.
112

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 112 04/03/2014 13:56

 The whole system is called the hypothetico–deductive method Test
because the hypothesis (which is derived from theory) can temperature
be used to deduce a prediction which can be tested against of water
observations.
yes

Feedback mechanisms in the scientific

method Is water temperature OK?

Figure 4.5 is a flowchart for the simple task of correcting the

temperature of the water in a shower. If the shower water is too no
hot, the regulator is moved towards ‘cold’. If the water is too cold,
the regulator is moved towards ‘hot’. Further corrections are
made until the water temperature is correct. If the corrections are
no Is water too hot? yes
small enough and the time taken for the change in temperature
is short, the system should settle down to its ‘steady state’ fairly
rapidly. This is why the system is said to be a balanced feedback
system. If the corrections are large and they take a relatively long
time to come into effect, the system might end up in a state where Move regulator Move regulator
towards ‘hot’ towards the ‘cold’
the temperature oscillates between hot and cold.

Exercises Figure 4.5 Correcting the

53 What would happen in the system in Figure 4.5 if the shower were incorrectly installed with the temperature of the water in
labels hot and cold transposed? a shower.
54 Where else can you find feedback loops in the natural sciences?
55 What is the significance of feedback loops in the production of knowledge?
56 Connect feedback loops to the idea that the natural sciences are self-correcting. What does this
term mean?
57 Do other AOKs use feedback loops to for correction purposes?

Scientific results are provisional

The diagram for the hypothetico–deductive method is a circular flowchart. It never
seems to end. What are the implications of this for scientific results?

One conclusion we might draw is that the results of the natural sciences are always
provisional. They are always open to modification in the future. Let us go back the idea
of knowledge as a map. We can always improve the map of the natural sciences. It is
not even a question of truth or untruth. Newton’s laws work perfectly well in most
situations. Einstein proposed a modification to deal with extreme velocity or mass.
It is not that Newton is plain wrong, it is just that his theory is a first approximation,
Einstein’s is a better approximation. Einstein’s map is more accurate but we can get by
with Newton’s map in the majority of terrestrial situations. The Newtonian map got
human beings to the Moon, after all.

Exercises
58 Write down a hypothesis you have tested in a lab in your group 4 subject. Explain the different
stages of the lab test that correspond to the method above.
59 Did you follow the method strictly?
60 What feedback loops can you identify in your method?
61 What is it about the method that makes it reliable?
62 Reflect on what you could have done to improve your experiment to make it more reliable.

113

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 113 04/03/2014 13:56

 04 Natural sciences

Prescribed essay title 4: What separates science from all other human activities is
its belief in the provisional nature of all conclusions. (Michael Shermer) Critically
evaluate this way of distinguishing the sciences from other areas of knowledge.
© International Baccalaureate, November 2009, May 2010

Exercises
All of these are floops:

There are two meanings None of these are floops:

for the word ‘theory’.
A system of
interdependent, well
established scientific
laws is called a theory. It
is what we usually mean Which of these are floops?
when we talk about
scientific knowledge. For
example, the theory of
molecular chemistry tells
us that water is H2O. The
discussions in this chapter
tell us that this knowledge
is not completely immune
from being shown to be
wrong. It could happen 63 What strategies did you use for deciding what characteristics a floop has? What is the defining
but in the case of the characteristic of a floop?
chemical constituents of 64 How does this relate to the hypothetico-deductive method discussed above?
water, this is very unlikely.
Scientific theory is usually
very well established. In
this sense, theory is often Theory in the natural sciences
taken to be the facts of The description of the scientific method raises a number of questions.
science.
• In order to measure something in an experiment, we need to know what to measure.
Unfortunately, there is
Let us say that we decide to measure the mass of something . How do we know that it
another use of the word.
Theory is sometimes is mass that we should measure?
taken to mean something • In order to measure something, we already need to have the concept of the variable
for which there is little we are measuring. So in order to measure mass, we already need to have the concept
or no evidence: ‘That
is just theory – there is
of mass. Where do these concepts come from?
absolutely no evidence to
back it up’. The answer to both these questions is that theory tells us what to measure. It tells us
Sometimes these two
which variables are relevant and it provides the concepts to help us do the measuring.
meanings get confused in The concept of mass does not exist outside Newton’s (and later Einstein’s) theory of
a discussion. For example, motion. It would have been impossible to measure mass before Newton as the concept
the Theory of Evolution simply did not exist.
is a very substantially
verified body of
So, measurements are always made against the background of a scientific theory that,
knowledge. Unfortunately,
some of its detractors as we saw earlier, connects together key concepts. In the natural sciences, the core of the
latch on to the word theory is a law of nature that proposes a relationship between key concepts in the theory.
‘theory’ and claim ‘but it’s
only a theory’.

114

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 114 04/03/2014 13:56

 Let us take an example from classical physics. We have the key concepts of mass,
acceleration, and force. One of the laws of nature discovered by Newton was that force
is related to mass and acceleration by the equation:

force = mass × acceleration

We could devise an experiment to measure the force exerted by the gravitational attraction
of the Earth. This is effectively what we are doing when we weigh something. The point
here is that the results of an experiment do not mean anything outside a particular theory. We
need to have a theory that ties together the relevant concepts before we can interpret
experimental results. Without a theory, experimental results are just meaningless numbers
– theory and its embedded concepts provide meaning. The startling implication is that a
different theory might produce a different interpretation of experimental results. We say
that the interpretation of experimental results is theory laden.

Prescribed essay title 5: What is it about theories in the human sciences and
the natural sciences that makes them convincing?
© International Baccalaureate, November 2011, May 2012

Simulating methods in the natural sciences

A good illustration of the hypothetico–deductive method is the following game, which
can be played in TOK class.

Group mastermind
This game is based on a popular family board game. It can be played between the
teacher and the rest of the class. The teacher should choose one student to be the
chairperson. Once the game is underway, the teacher communicates only with the
chairperson. The game consists of six coloured dots which can be drawn on the white
board or their initial letters can be used instead. The colours are: red (R), yellow (Y),
green (G), purple (P), blue (B), and orange (O).

The teacher writes down a code (a list of four colours which can include
repeats, and which he or she keeps secret. The aim of the game is for
the class (through the chairperson) to discover the code by asking
questions. Each question consists of four coloured dots (or initials) with
or without repeats. The teacher responds to these questions as follows. 1
• For each coloured dot or initial that is the right colour in the right
position, a black circle is drawn.
2
• For each coloured dot or initial that is the right colour in the wrong
position, a white circle is drawn.
3
The order of the black and white circles does not correspond to the
order of the correct pegs (Figure 4.6). 4
The chairperson has the job of chairing the debate as to what colours
to try. After an interval of time determined by the teacher, he or she 5
makes a choice based on the class discussion.

Students are advised to play the game with a great deal of TOK awareness. Be aware Figure 4.6 An example
of your own thoughts. What strategies are you using? What feelings do you have game.
115

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 115 04/03/2014 13:56

 04 Natural sciences

when playing? Also be aware of others. How are they behaving? How does the group
respond to the challenge?

Figure 4.6 shows an example game. The hidden code is contained in the box at the top.
The questions are the coloured dots on the left-hand side and the responses from the
teacher are on the right-hand side.

There was much argument how to proceed. Some students wanted to try one colour
at a time. There was a feeling that this gave no positional information but there was
also a feeling that the first row should be random. What the class came up with was
moderately successful with one colour right and in the right place. The second row
appears completely unsuccessful but actually gives a lot of information. Neither
orange nor purple can be in the code. This illustrates that negative results can give a
lot of information in science. Since only one colour out of four was correct in the first
row there must be a repeated colour in the code. The class chanced that green was
that colour, hence row 3. But the response of only two white circles indicates that it is
either three reds and one green, or no greens and red and yellow. The class after much
argument went for the latter possibility. Row 4 involved much discussion about which
colour was doubled and the class went for blue. But two black circles and one white
circle means their guess was wrong. Suppose red were right in row 4. We now know
blue is right, reinterpreting row 1 after row 3. So this accounts for the two black circles
in row 4. But this would mean that yellow was in the wrong place. But yellow cannot be
in position 2 because of row 3, so there is nowhere else for yellow to go. This leads to a
contradiction, so red cannot be in the right place in row 4. So there must be two yellows
(there cannot be two blues because there would be more right in row 4 and there is no
position left for a second red to go) and one must be in position 1. So the only place red
could be is position 2, which means that the second yellow has to be in position 4.

Exercises
65 If the teacher is ‘mother nature’, which group of people do the students represent in the game?
66 What does the teacher’s (mother nature’s) hidden code represent?
67 What does each sequence of four colours or letters represent?
68 What do the black-and-white-circle responses to each line of four colours or letters represent?
69 What is the role of hypothesis in the game?
70 What is the role of theory in the game?
71 In what sense is the meaning of the black and white circles theory-dependent?
72 What did you notice about the social interactions of the students during the game? In what sense
is this realistic?
73 What WOKs were in involved in playing the game? Were you using imagination or emotion to
guide your play?
74 Were there any moments when you felt you were using your intuition to guide your play?
75 In what way did the game illustrate the fact that scientific research is a group effort?
76 What aspects of the game are unrealistic? How could you make them more realistic?

Einstein’s mistake
Recently my partner and I were lucky enough to be shown pages from the actual
notebook in which Einstein invented general relativity, while it was being prepared
for publication by a group of historians working in Berlin. As working physicists it
was clear to us right away that the man was confused and lost – very lost. But he was

116

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 116 04/03/2014 13:56

 also a very good physicist. In that notebook we could see a very good physicist
exercising the same skills and strategies, the mastery of which made Richard
Feynman such a great physicist. Einstein knew what to do when he was lost: open his
notebook and attempt some calculation that might shed some light on the problem.
So we turned the pages with anticipation. But still he gets nowhere. What does
a good physicist do then? He talks with his friends. All of a sudden a name is
scrawled on a page: ‘Grossmann!!!’ It seems that his friend had told Einstein
something about the curvature tensor. This is the mathematical structure that
Einstein had been seeking, and is now seen to be the key to relativity theory.
Actually I was rather pleased to see that Einstein had not been able to invent
the curvature tensor on his own. Some of the books from which I had learned
relativity had seemed to imply that any competent student should be able to derive
the curvature tensor given the principles Einstein was working with. At the time I
had had my doubts, and it was reassuring to see that the only person who had ever
actually faced the problem without being able to look up the answer had not been
able to solve it. Einstein had to ask a friend who knew the right mathematics.
The textbooks go on to say that once one understands the curvature tensor one is very
This is a blackboard Einstein
close to Einstein’s theory of gravity. The questions Einstein is asking should lead him
used during his second
to invent the theory in half a page. There are only two steps to take, and one can see Rhodes Memorial Lecture
in 1931, on the theory of
from this notebook that Einstein has all the ingredients. But could he do it? Apparently
relativity. Here he shows
not. He starts out promisingly, then he makes a mistake. To explain why his mistake an equation proving the
expansion of the universe,
is not a mistake he invents a very clever argument. With failing hearts we, reading and estimates the universe to
his notebook, recognize the argument as one that was held up to us as an example of be 10 billion years old, close
to the modern estimate of
how not to think about the problem. As good students of the subject we know that 15 billion. From looking at
the argument being used by Einstein is not only wrong but absurd, but no one told us these neat workings, would
you guess how difficult it was
it was Einstein himself who invented it. By the end of the notebook he has convinced to reach these conclusions?
himself of the truth of a theory that we, with
more experience of this kind of stuff than he
or anyone could have had at the time, can
see is not even mathematically consistent.
Still, he convinced himself and several others
of its promise and for the next two years
they pursued this wrong theory. Actually
the right equation was written down, almost
accidentally, on one page of the notebook
we looked at. But Einstein failed to recognise
it for what it was and only after following a
false trail for two years did he find his way

117

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 117 04/03/2014 13:56

 04 Natural sciences

back to it. When he did it was questions his good friends asked him that finally made
him see where he had gone wrong.
Nothing in this notebook leads us to doubt Einstein’s greatness – quite the contrary,
for in this notebook we can see the trail followed by a great human being whose
courage and judgement are strong enough to pull him through a thicket of
confusion from which few others could have emerged. Rather the lesson is that
trying to invent new laws of physics is hard. Really hard. No one knew better than
Einstein that it requires not only intelligence and hard work but equal helpings of
insight, stubbornness, patience and character. This is why all scientists work in
communities. And that makes the history of science a human story. There can be no
triumph without an equal amount of foolishness.
Smolin, 2000

The particle game

This game is an interesting way to explore the scientific method. You can play it with
a classmate. The rules are simple. The board consists of an 8 × 8 grid which represents
a physics experiment. The red blobs represent atoms and the lines with arrows
represent particles that are fired into the grid. Particles are repelled by atoms and behave
according to the following rules (Figure 4.7).
• If a particle is fired directly towards an atom, it bounces straight back
(e.g. particle X is fired in at 3 and comes out again at 3).
• A particle is deflected 90 degrees away from an atom
(e.g. particle Y enters the grid at 2 and leaves the grid at C; particle Z is deflected
twice, entering the grid at F and leaving at E′).
• A particle cannot enter of the grid immediately beside an atom
(e.g. particle W at B′; the same would apply to a particle attempting to enter at A′ or
8 or 7).

Here is how to play the game.

Make an 8 × 8 grid and place two A B C D E F G H
atoms somewhere on it but do 1
Z 1'
not let your partner see where
2 Y 2'
they are. Your partner must try
to find out where the atoms are X
3 3'
by firing particles into the grid.
So they might say: Particle enters 4 4'
at F′. You look at your grid and
tell your partner at what point 5 5'
the particle leaves the grid. In the
6 6'
game shown in Figure 4.7 above
you would say: Particle leaves at 6. 7 7'
Your partner might surmise that
there is an atom in column G–G′ 8 W 8'
and suggest: Particle enters at H′. You A' B' C' D' E' F' G' H'
would answer: Particle leaves at 6′.
Figure 4.7 An example particle game.
118

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 118 04/03/2014 13:56

 Your partner keeps on bombarding A B C D E F G H
the grid with particles until he or she 1 1'
has discovered the positions of your
two atoms. 2 2'

In the game shown in Figure 4.8, you 3 3'

could be lucky and find the atom
4 4'
with your first particle by observing Figure 4.8 If there’s only
a 90-degree deflection which locates 5 5' one atom ....
the atom exactly. But this is only
sufficient if you know there is only 6 6'
one atom in the grid.
7 7'

8 8'

A' B' C' D' E' F' G' H'

Exercises
77 Try the particle game with your partner using two atoms. When you get good at it, try increasing
the number of atoms.
78 a What theory can you make about the arrangement of two atoms if you had the following
experimental data:
particle enters at 4, leaves at C; particle enters at D′, leaves at D′; particle enters at G, leaves at
E’; particle enters at H, leaves at H; particle enters at 6, leaves at C′; particle cannot enter at 8′.
b Is this enough information for your theory to be unique given that you know that there are
only two atoms?
c What if you did not know how many atoms there were?
79 This is slightly more difficult. There are three atoms.
particle enters at 4, leaves at B; particle enters at E, leaves at 1; particle enters at F, leaves at F;
particle enters at D, leaves at 3; particle enters at 3′, leaves at 4′; particle enters at 6, leaves at B′;
particle enters at C′, leaves at C′; particle enters at D′, leaves at E′; particle enters at F′, leaves at F′;
particle enters at G′, leaves at 6′.
80 Are the particle paths always symmetrical (i.e. if enter at G, leave at 6 is a path, is enter at 6, leave at
G also a path? In other words, are there any laws you can derive about the observed entry and exit
points of particle?
81 Is it possible for a particle to get stuck (i.e. enter and never leave)?
82 Try the game again but using slightly different deflection rules. Can your partner work out the new
rules just by observing the entries and exits from the grid?

83 What can you say about the atom labelled X in the arrangement below? Is it possible to make a
similar arrangement with only three atoms?
A B C D E F G H
1 1'

2 2'

3 3'

4 4'

5 5'

6 6'

7 7'

8 8'
A' B' C' D' E' F' G' H'
119

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 119 04/03/2014 13:56

 04 Natural sciences

Exercises
84 a How realistic do you think the particle game is in simulating the basic methods of
experimentation in particle physics?
b Which aspects do you think are realistic and which aspects are not?
c What could be added to make the game more realistic?

Ways of knowing in the natural sciences

I believe in intuition and inspiration. … At times I feel certain I am right while not
knowing the reason. When the eclipse of 1919 confirmed my intuition, I was not in
the least surprised. In fact I would have been astonished had it turned out
otherwise. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is
limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress,
giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research.
Einstein, 1931

Before we go on, you might like to think about what WOKs are employed by the
hypothetico–deductive method.

Here are some of the possibilities.

• Language plays central role in naming key concepts in the production of theory and
hypothesis as we have seen.
• Sense perception is important because it is the basis for observation and
measurement. Many of the sensitive instruments that are employed in the natural
sciences are, in some sense, extensions of the human sensory apparatus. Microscopes
and telescopes improve on our vision, for example. But are all scientific instruments
that make measurements just extensions of our senses?
• Reason seems to be at the heart of the hypothetico–deductive method. After all,
we are testing deductions from the background theory. Theory gives us predictions
that we test. If the predictions are wrong, something about the theory is wrong. This
CHALLENGE is straightforward classical reasoning – modus tollens. The form of the argument is
YOURSELF straightforward:
There are other ways in which theory → prediction
classical logic underlies the
not prediction
natural sciences. We want all
our theories to be consistent therefore not theory
[that P and (not P) cannot be
• Imagination and creativity are involved in coming up with possible hypotheses
derivable from the statements
of the theory]. This is a logical to explain the observed experimental results (as we saw in the mastermind game).
condition based on what Reason on its own cannot generate hypotheses. It is tempting to speculate, as
we can accept as part of our Einstein does in the above quotation, that imagination is more important to the
theory. We also want current
natural scientist than pure reason.
theory to be consistent
with all previously accepted • Intuition might be used by scientists to produce plausible hypotheses to test.
observations. What this For example, the chemist Kerkulé is said to have had a dream about a snake biting
means in practice is that the its own tail which led him to the discovering of the ring structure of the benzene
interpretations of all previous
observations relative to the
molecule.
current theory are consistent • Emotion might play a part in inspiring individual scientists to pursue their
with it. inquiries. Interest, fascination, and curiosity might be important in motivating

120

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 120 04/03/2014 13:56

 them. But emotion might also form the basis for evaluation and hence be part of
the reasoning process. Students are often quick to claim that emotion gets in the
way of scientific research because it prevents scientists from being truly objective
in the consideration of their results. Much contemporary thinking (Haidt, Damasio,
Thaler, etc.) regards this view as profoundly mistaken because it rests on the
assumption that emotion and reason are somehow opposites, or that emotion and
objectivity are enemies. The evidence from neuroscience shows that emotions are
essential for good reasoning.
• Faith traditionally seems far removed from the processes of scientific inquiry. Faith
seems to mean belief without sufficient evidence while scientific inquiry seems to
require belief only with sufficient evidence. So, at first sight, the two appear to be
opposites. Nevertheless there might be a case for stating that the evidence in science
is never completely sufficient for the sort of conclusions that are drawn. Consider the
process called induction. Induction means inferring generalized statements from
particular ones:
X1 has property P
X2 has property P
X3 has property P
…
Xn has property P
Therefore all X have property P

Induction is problematic because it does not matter how many positive examples we
find of an X having property P, there is still a possibility that the next X we find does
not have property P. There is no cast-iron guarantee that all Xs have this property. But
that is exactly what we are concluding. Therefore, the conclusion is not completely
warranted by the evidence. Hence, we might be justified in stating that we have used
faith to bridge the gap between the evidence and the conclusion when we are making
scientific generalizations.

Knowledge framework: Methodology –

What role do models play in this area of knowledge?
Models are a central idea in the natural sciences. In fact, they are also important in
many other AOKs. Here, the aim is to discuss models purely in the context of the
methods used by the natural sciences.

Models in the natural sciences

Let us start again with knowledge as a map. We discussed how a map is not the same
as the territory it depicts and that there is much about a map that is left out. We argued
that a map derives its usefulness from the fact that it is a simplified version of reality.
Because it is simpler than the reality, it can be used to solve practical problems.

Imagine now a map that can change with time. It is dynamic. That is what we mean
by a model in the natural sciences: a simplified representation of reality that can
evolve in time.

A model is constructed to solve a particular problem in the natural sciences. Quite

often, scientific models use the language of mathematics. This is because many of the
measurements we make in science are numerical. It seems the physical world lends
itself to description in mathematical terms.
121

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 121 04/03/2014 13:56

 04 Natural sciences

Figure 4.9 is a simple diagram of a model in the natural sciences. The question we
want to answer is, does the real-life Spitfire plane fit through the doors of the real-life
hangar? We make measurements of the length and wingspan (and other necessary
dimensions) of the Spitfire, and of the doors of the hangar. Then we build scale models
of the aeroplane and the hangar. Now we can check whether or not the model spitfire
fits through the doors of the model hangar. If it does, we can be sure that the real-life
spitfire fits through the doors of the real-life hangar.

In the figure, the blue background separates the real-world situation (on the left) and
the beige background represents the world of the model (on the right). More generally,
the model can be represented as in Figure 4.10.

Scientific models can be used to make predictions about the future state of the real world
but they can also help us to understand the mechanisms that produce changes in the real
world. It is possible to use a model that is very poor at prediction to give us understanding.

Each of the arrows in Figures 4.9 and 4.10 gives rise to a specific set of knowledge
questions. The first arrow concerns the extraction of information from the real world.
It requires us to do some observation, experiment or measurement. This of course
begs the question: what should we measure? It is clear that this decision depends on
the concepts employed by the theory and the model being used. What quantities to
measure seems to presuppose that we know the relevant variables already – that we
already know the solution to the problem. The second arrow concerns what we should
do to the model in order to manipulate it to provide a useful answer to our research
question. The third arrow projects the idealised world of the model back into the real
world. In most cases the model is mathematical and yields numerical results which
need to be interpreted in the non-numerical real world.

Real world Model

measure spitfire
and hangar

Will the spitfire fit Construct models of

in the hangar? spitfire and hangar.

Figure 4.9 Modelling

spitfire and hangar.

Real spitfire fits manipulate

in real hangar. models

interpret
Model spitfire fits
conclusions
in model hangar.

122

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 122 04/03/2014 13:56

 Real world Model

Construct models of
Real-world problem. extract information real objects.
from real world by
observation and
measurement
Figure 4.10 General
modelling.

manipulate
Solution to problem –
models
understanding.

interpret Conclusions drawn

conclusions from model.

Knowledge questions
9 How can we know what to measure (what factors are relevant) before we know the solution to the problem?
10 How do we know which model is appropriate?
11 How do we know what assumptions to make in constructing the model?
12 If different models give different solutions to the problem, how can we decide which one is best?
13 How do we know how we should we manipulate the model to get an answer?
14 How should we interpret the model answer in the real world (often this means interpreting a number)?

Prescribed essay title 6: A model is a simplified representation of some

aspect of the world. In what ways may models help or hinder the search
for knowledge?
© International Baccalaureate, November 2010, May 2011

Modelling – electron shells

Figure 4.11 is one that most of us recognize from chemistry lessons in lower school.
The nucleus in the centre and the electrons orbit the nucleus like planets orbiting the
Sun. This metaphor helps us understand the structure of the atom. But it is more than
a metaphor. By understanding this picture, we can understand how elements bond
together chemically. Na

Representations like this predict the chemical properties of elements. For example,
the outer electron shell for the inert or noble elements He, Ne, Ar is full with electrons.
This means, broadly speaking, that they have no electrons free to make bonds with
Na (11) 2, 8, 1
other elements. But high-school chemistry classes debunk this picture completely.
This is not at all how electrons are in relation to the nucleus. Electrons are smeared- Figure 4.11 Model of a
out probability waves satisfying Schrödinger’s equation. We need to remember sodium atom.
123

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 123 04/03/2014 13:56

 04 Natural sciences

that our simple picture is a model (and so is the Schrödinger equation – just a more
sophisticated one). It does a good job in the limited area in which it operates. It allows
us to build and understand the Periodic Table and do basic chemistry.

To watch the computer Exercises

simulation of two 85 Why do you think astronomers have to use computer simulations when investigating phenomena
galaxies colliding, visit such as the collision of two galaxies?
pearsonhotlinks.com, 86 Is there a difference between a simulation and a model?
enter the title or ISBN
87 What are the strengths and weaknesses of simulations like this?
of this book and select
weblink 4.3. 88 List three models that you have studied in your group 4 subject. What simplifying assumptions
does each model make? What are the consequences of making such assumptions?
89 Place each of your models on the realism–understanding diagram below.
Function of scientific models

Realism

Understanding
90 Does it matter that simplifying assumptions make a model inaccurate?
91 What other functions might a model have apart from accuracy or predictive power?
92 Can an inaccurate model still give us knowledge?

Sir Karl Popper

Karl Popper was born in Vienna but spent much of his professional life in London. He
was one of the leading philosophers of science of his generation as well as being an
influential political philosopher. His Logic of Scientific Discovery (published in German in
1934, translated into English in 1954) was hailed by the scientist Sir Peter Medawar as
‘one of the most important documents of the twentieth century’. In it, Popper suggests an answer
to the problem of induction. Because we can never prove a universal statement like
‘all swans are white’, this cannot be the aim of scientific inquiry. We can disprove such
universal statements by finding a counter-example, such as a black swan. Therefore,
Popper says, the energies of science should be devoted to disproving universal
statements rather than proving them. For Popper, science consists of statements that
haven’t yet been disproved. This idea is known as falsificationism and has influenced
many working scientists in their approach to investigation. The scientist should aim
to disprove his or her pet theory, rather than prove it. As long as a theory remains not
disproved, it is in good health.

Popper was impressed by the fact that Einstein’s theory of relativity was put to a
Sir Karl Popper (1902–94) severe test by the solar eclipse of 1919. The theory predicted that light from a star
obscured by the eclipsed Sun would still be visible because it would be bent by the
Sun’s gravitational field. If the star were not visible, then the theory was disproved

124

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 124 04/03/2014 13:56

 and that was that. It turned out that the star was visible, so Einstein’s theory survived
this test. He noted that theories in the social sciences, notably Marxism and Freud’s
psychoanalysis, could not be subjected to such severe testing and were therefore less
‘scientific’ (and in Popper’s mind not really knowledge).

Exercise
93 Einstein was asked what his reaction would have been if general relativity had been disproved by
the observations of Eddington and Dyson in the 1919 solar eclipse. He is supposed to have said,
‘Then I would feel sorry for the dear Lord. The theory is correct anyway.’ To what extent do scientists
really follow Popper’s principle of falsification in practice? Is there really no attempt to protect their
theories from falsification?

What colour might

the next swan be?

Are all ravens black?

CHALLENGE YOURSELF
Carl Gustav Hempel was a distinguished German philosopher of
science who spent the latter part of his academic life at Princeton
University in the US. He was particularly interested in the problem
of induction – the idea that a universal statement might be more
secure the more positive observations support it. His example used
ravens instead of swans but the idea is the same. Suppose one has
only observed black ravens. One might be tempted to think that
the more black ravens one observes, the more secure the statement
‘all ravens are black’ is – let us call this the induction hypothesis. But
Hempel pointed out that the statement is logically equivalent to
‘all non-black things are non-ravens’. But then, by the induction
hypothesis, good evidence for the statement that all ravens are
black would be to observe a large number of non-black objects
and check that they are non-ravens. This is clearly absurd and Carl Gustav
demolishes the induction hypothesis as a basis for scientific inquiry. Hempel (1905–97).
This is called Hempel’s Raven Paradox.

125

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 125 04/03/2014 13:57

 04 Natural sciences

Knowledge framework: Methodology –

What are the assumptions underlying these methods?
Assumptions underlying the scientific method
The scientific method as described here rests on a number of assumptions.
• Comprehensibility
– There are laws that govern the natural world.
– They are discoverable using methods available to human beings.
• Continuity
– The laws that operate today will also operate tomorrow.
• Uniformity
– The laws that operate in laboratories on Earth also operate in the far reaches of
the universe.

Since the natural sciences devote their energies to discovering general principles or
scientific laws, they naturally make the assumption that such laws exist. They assume
there is some sort of order in the universe rather than randomness, and that every
event has a cause. Up to a point, they assume that if the cause is the same, the effect
produced by it will be the same. This assumption is necessary because of the way in
which the scientific method attempts to isolate causes from other irrelevant factors.
We say ‘up to a point’ because modern quantum physics challenges some of these
fundamental assumptions about nature.

There is a further assumption acknowledged by many fields in the natural sciences

that these laws of nature are simple enough for human beings to understand and are
expressible relatively simply in the language of mathematics. The comprehensibility
of the universe propelled pre-Socratic Greek thought along the path of trying to find
out what the world was like. We did not require interventions from the Gods – human
reason was sufficient for us to discover the secrets of the universe. This was a dramatic
shift in thinking and ushered in the golden age of Greek thought. It was later reversed
Correlation is not the with the arrival of Christianity and a closing of the door on free inquiry. Both Newton
same as causation. and Einstein were impressed by the apparent simplicity of the laws of nature when
Popular newspapers often
scare the public with
expressed in mathematical form.
headlines like ‘Drinking
coffee gives you cancer’. It is assumed that the laws of nature do not change from one day to the next because
These headlines, if they it is essential for us to use past observations to establish predictions about the future.
have any evidential Such predictions would not be possible in a universe where the laws of nature changed
support at all, might be rapidly over time. It would be like playing a sport where the rules changed during the
based on a study showing
that there is a significantly
course of a game.
higher rate of cancer
in patients who are big Similarly, we assume that there is nothing special about our own position in the
coffee drinkers. But universe – that Earth is a small planet orbiting a fairly ordinary yellow star in a typical
concluding the two are galaxy. This assumption is necessary for us to be able to generalize the conclusions we
causally linked has to be reach about nature, as we see it from our local position, to the universe as a whole.
approached with extreme
caution. Correlation on
It is difficult to see how there can be any evidence for these assumptions since any
its own will not do. In
particular, it is important analysis of evidence presupposes them. Take the problem of causation. It is possible to
to produce a mechanism observe that whenever A happens, then B happens. But it is not possible to observe that
to show (within existing A causes B. This has to remain an inference – an act of faith perhaps. Whether or not
theory) how the two every event has a cause is a question that is one step further removed from observation.
phenomena are linked.
If the fact of A causing B has to be inferred from observations of them occurring
126

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 126 04/03/2014 13:57

 together, what observation would we make to establish that every event had a cause?
We have to take these assumptions on trust. They are required for the methods of the
natural sciences to work. They are preconditions for doing science in the first place.

Exercise
94 The polar bear and fish puzzle
One day a scientist was flying over the frozen polar wastes. He looked down and saw an extraordinary
pattern in the ice. This is what he saw:

‘Aha’, he said to himself, ‘two watering holes, ten polar bears and nine fish.’
Later on he looked out of the window again and saw a different pattern:

‘What a strange pattern!’ he cried. ‘But I can see clearly that there are two watering holes, six polar
bears and thirteen fish.’
A little later on he looked down again:

‘Well that’s extraordinary: one watering hole, ten polar bears and ten fish.’
He was intrigued and it was not long before he looked again:

‘I can easily see that there is only one watering hole and just four bears but sixteen fish.’
Before lunch was served on the flight he looked down one more time: This was the scene:

What exactly did he see?

The watering holes and the polar bears you will find soon enough. The fish require lateral thinking.
How does this puzzle relate to the work you have done in this chapter on the natural sciences?

4.5 Historical development

We might be forgiven for thinking that the natural sciences just map what is out there and
that there is little room for questions about their history. After all, how much of a science
textbook is devoted to the history of science? But a crucial part of the knowledge framework
is concerned with how our AOKs depend on their historical development.

Knowledge framework: Historical development –

What is the significance of the key points in the historical
development of this area of knowledge?

127

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 127 04/03/2014 13:57

 04 Natural sciences

The current form of the natural sciences depends on

their historical development
There are two parts to this.
• How the current shape of a discipline depends on its past.
• How progress is made over time in the discipline.

Exercises
95 Are there any events in the history of your group 4 subject that were crucial to its development?
96 What aspects of your group 4 subject in its current form were shaped by those developments?

A good place to start is with the units we use to measure the quantities that are
important in the natural sciences. It is easy to see that they depend on historical
circumstances. The metre (m) has a history that goes back to the 18th century and the
division of the distance between the equator and the pole into 10 million pieces. (This
makes the Earth’s circumference about 40 000 km). But its precise definition is a good
deal more complicated than this.

Exercise
97 Why is the establishment of standard units important in the natural sciences? (Hint: see page 108).

The concepts which we employ in the natural sciences are also historically situated.
Because they are strung together into more elaborate scientific theories, they are
clearly very important in the formation of scientific knowledge. It is useful to trace the
history of the individual scientific disciplines to establish points at which important
conceptual advances took place.

There are more fundamental developments in the history of the natural sciences,
however. These are points where the methodology itself changed or developed. Let us
examine two major developments in the approach to scientific methodology.
• An initial attempt to answer the question: How should we conduct inquiry in the
sciences in order to produce knowledge that is reliable?
• A 20th-century view of how scientific progress is made.

Francis Bacon and an early view of the scientific method

Our discussion so far has focused on the hypothetico–deductive method: the use
of hypothesis and experiment to conduct scientific research. We have assumed that
there is only one scientific method and that this is it. This assumption might be open
to question. It is possible that there are other methods which might qualify as suitable
forms of scientific inquiry. Indeed there may have been other methods that were
considered the essence of science in the past. One of the first people to try to set down
exactly what was required in a scientific investigation was Francis Bacon. His scientific
method is quite different from the modern conception.

Bacon’s method, as described in his book De Novum Organum, starts with the making
of observations – lots of them. The job of the scientist is to try to find patterns in
these observations. Bacon’s method is empirical in that it is based on observation
but it differs from the hypothetico–deductive method because experiments are not
conducted to test hypotheses. Instead, it relies on induction to justify generalizations
Francis Bacon (1561–1626). made by science.

128

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 128 04/03/2014 13:57

 Exercises To learn about
98 Identify a field in the natural sciences that uses Baconian methods (collecting data first and then homeopathy and the
looking for patterns). nature of modern
clinical trials, visit
99 What are the strengths and weaknesses of Bacon’s method?
pearsonhotlinks.com,
100 What were the major historical developments in the group 4 subject that you study? enter the title or ISBN
101 How did these shape the current form of the subject? of this book and select
102 Is there a tension between Bacon’s method and the statement earlier that all observation is theory weblink 4.4.
laden?

To learn more about

Thomas Kuhn and how changes occur over time in the homeopathy, visit
pearsonhotlinks.com,
natural sciences enter the title or ISBN
of this book and select
Now we look at a more recent development in thinking about the way scientific
weblink 4.5.
knowledge is produced. Thomas Kuhn was an American historian of science who argued
in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) that progress in the natural sciences
was not smooth but was jagged – that science advanced through a series of revolutions
(Figure 3.16). Kuhn’s theory sees scientific knowledge as something dynamic – something CHALLENGE
constantly changing. Kuhn is deeply indebted to the work of Michael Polyani in this respect. YOURSELF
1 Describe briefly the method
Kuhn’s theory is elegant and can be expressed simply. What he calls normal science is of double blind trials
the everyday operation of scientific inquiry within a paradigm. For Kuhn, a paradigm is explained in the Goldacre
very much like what we call a knowledge framework in TOK. It is the system of concepts, article about homeopathy
and clinical trials.
language, assumptions, methods, values, and interests that define scientific research.
2 What is the point of
It can be thought of as the whole system of scientific knowledge, expressed through neither the patient nor the
scientific theory along with the underlying foundations: concepts, language, convention, experimenter knowing which
assumptions, and so on. A neat summary here would be: treatment is being offered?
3 What is the placebo effect?
paradigm = theory + foundations 4 What is meant by
publication bias?
In Kuhn’s research in the history of science, he noticed that paradigms rarely existed 5 What ethical issues
without being challenged. Quite often, it was new observations that challenged the surround the prescription
current paradigm. The hypothetico–deductive method suggests that as soon as of homeopathic remedies?

the result of an experiment challenges the hypothesis that is itself derived from a 6 After watching the
Horizon programme, what
theoretical framework, the framework itself should be revised. further tests would you
perform to establish the
In practice, Kuhn noted, the science community was reluctant to relinquish its effectiveness or otherwise
cherished paradigm. After all, it had served well up to now and was only being of homeopathic methods?
challenged by one result. There is always the nagging doubt that the experiment
itself had not been conducted properly. If the deviant result is confirmed and other
anomalies observed that also challenge the paradigm, there comes a time when the
current paradigm – the current system of understanding – is no longer sustainable.
At this point, we have what Kuhn described as revolutionary (abnormal) science.
The old paradigm is broken and as yet there is nothing to replace it.

During this period, Kuhn believed that a number of rival explanations emerge; each,
perhaps, with its own system of concepts and methods. There is, as yet, no uniform
rational means of validating one or other of them because there is no overarching
paradigm to which appeals can be made. These new theories must explain the new
observations, but they must also explain all previous observations explained by the old
paradigm. This corresponds loosely to political revolutions in history, when there is a
period where there is no stable government and there are many rival groups making

129

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 129 04/03/2014 13:57

 04 Natural sciences

bids for power (think of the factions in the French Revolution, for example). Eventually,
one of these new theories becomes dominant (just as, after a revolution, one political
group becomes dominant). What we mean by ‘dominant’ in this context is that the new
theory is accepted by the establishment, or by enough of those with influence, to become
the new orthodoxy. Eventually, this dominant theory and its underlying foundations
become the new paradigm and we get back to a new period of normal science (Table 4.4).

Table 4.4 Evolution of

Normal Current Anomalies are observed. Gradually the set of
scientific knowledge and
science paradigm anomalies becomes too big or significant for the
paradigms.
operates. current paradigm to continue to hold.
Thomas Kuhn (1922–96).
Revolutionary No paradigm Many rival theories compete for acceptance – each with
science operates. its own foundations. Gradually one of them becomes
dominant and is accepted as the new paradigm.

Normal New paradigm After a while new anomalies are observed …

science operates.

Kuhn’s theory suggests that progress in the natural sciences is truly revolutionary and
that the cycle never stops.

Exercise
103 Can you think of examples of paradigm shifts in other AOKs?

It is interesting to discuss the selection of the dominant theory in the revolutionary

phase of Kuhn’s cycle. There is an almost Darwinian process of natural selection where
the ‘fittest’ theory wins the competition to become the new paradigm. Kuhn mentions
five characteristics that might contribute to ‘fitness’ of a theory (Table 4.5).

Table 4.5 Characteristics Accuracy The theory describes the observations accurately and serves to predict
that can help a theory
future observations.
become a paradigm.
Consistency The theory is itself free of contradictions but is also consistent with
other theories.

Broadness of The theory can explain many phenomena – perhaps more than the
Scope original observations on which it was based.

Simplicity The theory ‘invents the least and explains the most’. Occam’s razor
applies in a general sense.

Fruitfulness The theory allows the discovery of hidden relationships between

phenomena in addition to those it was intended to explain.

Paradigm shift? Faster-than-light neutrinos

Researchers have found a flaw in the experiment that startled the science world last year
by appearing to show particles travelling faster than light. The glitch may have affected
measurements that clocked subatomic neutrino particles breaking what Albert Einstein
considered the ultimate speed barrier.

130

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 130 04/03/2014 13:57

 Two separate issues were identified with the GPS system that was used to time
the arrival of neutrinos at an underground lab in Italy, according to James Gillies,
spokesman for the European Organization for Nuclear Research, or CERN. One
could have caused the speed to be overestimated, the other could have caused
it to be underestimated, he said. ‘The bottom line is that we will not know until
more measurements are done later this year,’ he added.
The results of the experiment were received with great scepticism by scientists
when they were published last September because they seemed to contradict
Einstein’s theory that nothing can travel faster than light. That rule is
fundamental to modern physics and breaking it is seen as a step into the realms
of time travel. Even researchers involved in the experiment cautioned at the
time that the measurements would need to be independently verified by other
scientists before a genuine finding could be declared.
The experiment involved neutrinos being fired from CERN’s site on the
Swiss–French border to a vast underground laboratory … 730 km away at
Gran Sasso in Italy.
The Independent, 23 February 2012

The experiment that was supposed to have proved Albert Einstein wrong by showing
that sub-atomic particles can travel faster than the speed of light is more than likely
to have been an error, scientists said yesterday.
Fellow scientists at the European Nuclear Research Organization (CERN) in
Geneva announced that they had failed to replicate the findings of the rival Opera
experiment last year when neutrinos were detected travelling fractions of a second
faster than light speed on their journey to an underground laboratory at Gran
Sasso, in Italy. Researchers involved in a similar experiment, named Icarus, said
that the time it took for the neutrinos to travel … from Geneva to Gran Sasso did
not suggest that they were capable of travelling faster than light, which would break
Einstein’s special theory of relativity – a fundamental pillar of theoretical physics.
‘The evidence is beginning to point towards the Opera result being an artefact of the
measurement,’ said Sergio Bertolucci, the research director of CERN. The Icarus
experiment uses an independent timing mechanism from that used on Opera. It
measured seven neutrinos in the beam from CERN last year and these all arrived in a
time consistent with them travelling no faster than the speed of light, Dr Bertolucci
said. One suggestion is that the Opera experiment was marred by a loose cable in the
delicate equipment used to measure the arrival times of the neutrinos sent from
Geneva.
The Independent, 17 March 2012

131

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 131 04/03/2014 13:57

 04 Natural sciences

The scientist who headed a European research team that last year measured
particles travelling faster than light has resigned, weeks after a rival team cast doubt
on the accuracy of those readings. Italy’s National Institute of Nuclear Physics said
today that Antonio Ereditato had stepped down from the leadership of the Opera
experiment, whose measurements on the speed of neutrinos were widely
questioned when they were announced in September. Mr Ereditato confirmed his
resignation in an email but declined to comment further.
The Opera team itself had cautioned in September that the measurements needed
to be checked by independent researchers because they appeared to go against a
key tenet of modern physics – that nothing can travel faster than light. Breaking
that rule, which underlies Albert Einstein’s famous special theory of relativity,
could have opened the door to a new kind of physics in which time travel and warp
speeds might be possible.
In February, the Opera team acknowledged that it had found a flaw in the technical
set-up of its experiment that could have affected the measurements, but held off
on calling them wrong. Then, earlier this month, a rival team called Icarus clocked
neutrino speeds using a different experiment and found they behaved just as
expected. They travelled at, but no faster than, light speed.
Opera, Icarus and two other teams will try to settle the issue once and for all by
conducting further tests at the European Organization for Nuclear Research, or
CERN, in May.
The Independent, 31 March 2012

Exercises
104 What was the anomalous observation in the articles above?
105 What was the paradigm that was challenged by this observation?
106 How was the science community trying to resolve this situation?
107 Do the articles suggest that we are about to witness a paradigm shift at the heart of physics?

Knowledge questions
15 Does Kuhn’s idea that science changes through a series of paradigm shifts undermine the
possibility of objective truth in the natural sciences?
16 Is progress possible in the natural sciences?

4.6 Links to personal knowledge

Previous sections have dealt with the way in which individuals can contribute to
the scientific project. Through their own personalities, character, interests, and
perspectives scientists can lend individual and personal insights to what is essentially a
collective endeavour.
132

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 132 04/03/2014 13:57

 Knowledge framework: Links with personal knowledge –
What is the nature of the contribution of individuals to this area?
We have seen how the personal circumstances of individuals might make them able
to solve problems impenetrable for the group. These individuals can show the way
forward. Their ideas still have to go through thorough processes of validation, such
as peer review and replication of experiments, but if they can satisfy the requirements
established by pervious elements of the knowledge framework such as history and
methodology, then their contributions will become knowledge.

Knowledge framework: Links with personal knowledge –

Why is this area significant to the individual?
The influence between the individual and science flows in two directions. Scientific
knowledge certainly has a big impact on us as individuals. Our lives are interlinked by
information and computing technology, for example. It creates the very structure of
our social lives in many cases. Technology also seems to shape the sort of experiences
available to us in the work place and during leisure time. Information technology
creates new ways of doing things and even new things to do.

The natural sciences impact on our personal sphere at a deeper level as well. Advances in
medicine mean that we are living longer. We have a clearer understanding of the nature of
our illnesses than ever before. Perhaps medical science gives us a view of being human –
this vast complex of interacting systems – that is strangely at odds with the view we have
of ourselves from a first-person perspective. How do we square the view of ourselves as
material beings following deterministic laws, with our inner emotional life – our view of
ourselves as possessing desires and dreams and, most problematic of all, being free?

Physics gives us a view of our place in the universe that is perplexing in many ways.
The universe is vast and largely mechanistic. It has been around a long time. We are
miniscule in comparison and our timelines are but a dot in the whole scheme of
things. These are humbling thoughts. Yet there is a need to create a synthesis of our
view of ourselves as important and highly valued with a physical understanding that
emphatically contradicts this.

Taken on their own, perhaps, the natural sciences cannot tell the whole story but they
nevertheless give us the physical background to other investigations we must do if we
are to understand who we are.

Exercises
108 What impact have the natural sciences had on the way you understand yourself?
109 How has technology affected the form and content of your personal knowledge?
110 To what extent do you agree with the thesis of Nicholas Carr that information technology is
changing the way we think?
111 How has your study of your group 4 subject affected the knowledge you employ in your day-to-
day dealings with the world?
112 How does your personal perspective affect the knowledge that you produce as part of a team in
the natural sciences?

133

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 133 04/03/2014 13:57

 04 Natural sciences

Knowledge questions
17 How can we know how our personal perspective affects the knowledge that we produce as part of
a group in the natural sciences?
18 How do we reconcile our personal experiences with the shared knowledge of natural science? If
there is a conflict between the two, which side should yield?
19 Are the natural sciences free of personal perspectives because they are a group effort rather than
being the work of one person?
20 What role does interpersonal politics play in the production of knowledge in the natural sciences?

Prescribed essay title 7: As an IB student, how has your learning of literature

and science contributed to your knowledge of individuals and societies?
© International Baccalaureate, November 2011, May 2012

134

M04_TOK_SB_IBDIP_4157_U04.indd 134 04/03/2014 13:57