The Nature and Practice of Science

by Zomesh A.N. Maini, M.Sc.

Science is often taken merely as a comprehensive body of additive “facts.” This is only true to a certain
extent and does not do justice the complexity of Science both in theory and in practice. To understand
Science is to look at its history, its principles, and its intimate link to the natural world. Through
observation and experimentation, Science aims to learn about the encompassing structure and behavior
of the universe, one question at a time. To find value in Science, we must first understand the pillars of
thought and reason on which it is built upon and seek to see it as an inseparable and fundamental part of
human experience.

What is Science?

“Science is simply the word we use to describe a method of organizing our curiosity.”

— Tim Minchin

Nature has shaped our collective human experience since the beginning of recorded time. Questions
about the world are intrinsic to humanity, and have always been defining points in every history that we
would like to discuss. From when Antoni van Leeuwenhoek first viewed animalcules through his crude
microscope in the 17th century until the first description of the Higgs Boson in 2012, the gift of our
persistent curiosity has never ceased to define and direct human activity, and it was this necessity to
“know” that birthed Science. As a species, our inquisitiveness may be an evolutionary gift – through the
course of our lives we realize that our capacity to learn more about our surroundings increases the
likelihood of our survival. Science therefore, at its most basal level, is rooted in the insatiable desire to
comprehend our immediate world, the environment we thrive in. In this context, to provide a definition
of Science is to look at its inextricable relationship with Nature.

Almost two thousand years ago, Heraclitus gifted us with a phrase about Nature that has found varying
interpretation in literature and art through the ages - “Nature loves to hide” (Graham, 2003). What does
nature hide? This is a saying that confuses as much as it enlightens. Perhaps the most elegant metaphor to
illuminate the Nature being described by Heraclitus would be that of a female Nature wearing the veil of
Isis, popularized by the romantic movement two centuries ago (Hadot, 2006). One of the more
remarkable pieces born of this allegorical idea would be the Louis-Ernest Barrias’ sculpture “La Nature se
dévoilant à la Science” (Nature Unveiling Herself Before Science) found in the Musée d'Orsay, Paris, France.
In his piece, Nature is seen removing her veil of mystery for Science – a symbolic gesture of her
willingness to shed the inaccessibility of her secrets in the face of rational inquiry.

A focal point of this imagery is the act of “unveiling”. Unveiling presupposes the removal of an
obstruction to something that is already there. This shows that Science more than discovery, is a rediscovery;
we simply increase our ability to see and grasp what has been happening in Nature right under our noses.
This point is of vital importance on two fronts. First, it shows us the scope of Science – it deals with a
“physical” world, the realm wherein Nature exists. Anything in the physical universe that can be
observed, from the sensation of cold air pressing against the skin, to the bright LED screens on the
modern smartphone, to the burning gases that make up the stars – this is the physical universe that
Science exists in. Second, though Nature “showing” itself to Science in this unveiling may seem to denote
a certain passivity, Science is not just an onlooker but is actively involved in the process of removing the

Page 1 of 13
obstructions to the understanding of Nature. Science is the dynamic exercise of inquiring about what is
“Natural” or empirical: things that we can detect with our senses (Nickels, 1998). Ultimately, the Science
that we are familiar with exists simultaneously as reliable process that we use, a perspective that we adopt, an
endeavor we undertake, and an institution that we recognize, to comprehend and learn about the universe we
exist in (NASEM, 2016).

The Nature of Science: Knowledge, Fact, and Theory

“Science is but an image of the truth”.

— Francis Bacon

Since questioning the “world” is the backbone of the scientific enterprise, we cannot deny the
philosophical origins of Science. Even if Science and Philosophy are occasionally portrayed to be at odds
against one another, the first “scientists” were philosophers. If for the sake of clarity, we took a
reductionist approach and defined philosophy simply as a “way of thinking”, then Science could be
thought of as a “Natural” philosophy – a thinking that concerns nature and the world - prior to the
development of formal natural science (Hempel, 1966). This would make Aristotle the first “natural
philosopher” in a world where philosophia (love of wisdom), episteme (knowledge) and theoria
(contemplation, speculation) were concepts that were applied to Nature (Lloyd, 2012) In fact, even if
history is rife strict “scientists,” many names that we consider to be fundamental to the development of
Science over the years were considered philosophers first. Francis Bacon and his scientific method, Rene
Descartes and his deductions from first principles, Karl Popper and his empirical skepticism, Thomas
Kuhn and the idea of paradigm shifts, are all philosophers who influenced dramatic upheavals in the
understanding of Science in their age (Godfrey-Smith, 2009).

Despite a considerable magnitude of the development of Science credited to “natural philosophers,” we

must not be mistaken in thinking that Science is merely the sum of the creativity of revolutionary minds.
To say that Science is a body of knowledge is not entirely correct, even if in its infancy, the nature of
Science was true to its Latin etymology, Scientia (to know). Due to the gradual growth of Science, there is
immense danger in thinking that it is merely a means of gaining and organizing human knowledge about
Nature. Truly, the aim of modern Science has become a learning about the universe through the testing of
ideas with and against evidence gathered from Nature. This kind of learning approach requires logic, a
certain way of thinking with correct reasoning (Dowden, 1993). Adherence to reason is such a
fundamental principle of Science because human ideas about Nature can be rooted in knowledge that
comes from two sources: (1) belief, and (2) research.

Belief knowledge is a knowledge attained from individual revelation through one’s own experience,
making it inherent and unique to each person in the world. One might say that this kind of knowledge is
personal, much like individual preference for food. One cannot argue whether belief knowledge is true or
not, because it is not open to observation, testing and quantification. Those who agree on the same kind
of belief knowledge may have had a similar set of experiences or comparable logic, and can easily come to
an understanding without much reservation. Stating for example that one’s sibling is the “best in the
world” is a form of belief knowledge, where the standard of certainty of the truth is oneself – it is
unquestionable, and therefore, lies beyond the scope of Science.

Research knowledge is the kind of knowledge is attained through established and rigorously tested and
repeatable methodologies, made known to everyone. This kind of knowledge is universal, being open to

Page 2 of 13
scrutiny, testing, and rebuttal. Individuals who agree on some form research knowledge can do so because
they understand the protocol necessary for the generation of the knowledge, and recognize the principles
behind the procedure and interpretation of results used to obtain the knowledge. Before one can say that
“one’s sibling is the best” is research knowledge, several things are considered: what does “best” mean?
Can we assign characters to define “best”? Can we quantify these? How many other siblings, and what
demographics do we have to consider before we can conclude who “best” sibling is? We can see
immediately, that the standard of certainty of truth is non-arbitrary; it goes through a series of questions
to verify and ascertain the validity of the claim. Research knowledge is the domain of Science.

Both belief and research knowledge can be thought of as “facts” since they both present a version of
reality, regardless of the logic used to make their claims. The major difference is the root of the objective
reality each presents. The belief knowledge fact is derived from the spirit of the individual who believes in
it, and is not subject to fallibility. The research knowledge fact on the other-hand, comes from the strength
of the methodology of observation used in its derivation, allowing one to choose a fact over another
based on empirical evidence. Another point of divergence between the two types of knowledge is that in
truth, research knowledge cannot and will not claim fact. It can only provide logical circumstantial
explanations in the light of the phenomena being observed at the current time. While the belief
knowledge fact is indisputable under any circumstance, the research knowledge fact is never infallible, it is
only deemed satisfactory temporarily, while it is supported by evidence. New findings, better tools, or a
change in the circumstances surrounding the phenomena can change the research knowledge “fact” over
time.

Facts based in research knowledge change because they are tested using hypotheses. A hypothesis is
essentially a simple, probabilistic explanation for the pattern created by facts, proposing an explanation
that can be empirically tested. If research knowledge facts are not indisputable, then by nature the
proposed explanations and relationships cannot be true or false as well. Instead, a hypothesis is accepted as
probable under certain conditions, or rejected because of inconsistencies with the results of an empirical
inquiry. Only hypotheses that have consistently withstood the test of time and the examination of several
observers, without failing, can be considered “scientific fact.” When scientific facts in turn are drawn
together, superimposed on one another, and integrated to develop a larger scientific idea to explain the
causality of related natural phenomena, a theory is born. Many of these theories have withstood the test of
time. The cell theory, continental drift theory, and theory of relativity are all examples of theories that are
still currently accepted and are considered common knowledge, for there is no evidence that suggests
otherwise.

Since theories are based in scientific facts, they are also far from being irrefutable. In fact, the widely
known professor and philosopher Karl Popper argues that no number of experiments can adequately
prove a theory to be true, and that the hallmark of proper empirical theory is falsifiability (Popper, 2005).
This is called empirical skepticism. A theory (or hypothesis) may be replaced when (1) new data is found
that contradicts data that previously supports the theory; (2) the predictions of the theory constantly fail;
(3) it is replaced by a theory that connects or explains more phenomena; (4) a simpler, more elegant
model replaces the theory. A good illustration of this point would be the Greek theory of spontaneous
generation, which persisted until the 17th century. The theory claims that inanimate objects under certain
natural conditions, could generate life without divine direction (Harris, 2002). This theory was only
refuted when Louis Pasteur in 1862 proposed the germ theory of diseases (Karamanou et al., 2010). This
happened shortly after he demonstrated using swan-necked flasks that boiled meat broth could remain
free of growth if microorganisms (not completely known at that time) were kept from reaching the inside
of the flask. The new data made sense, and rendered the centuries old theory now irrelevant. The

Page 3 of 13
discovery of bacteria represents new knowledge that explains the existing phenomena succinctly,
elegantly, and more accurately compared to the spontaneous generation theory, thus replacing it.

Even if the birth and death of theories are common in all ages, the philosopher Thomas Kuhn found a
pattern in the transitioning of Science across time, and challenged the idea of “cumulative development”
in the then existing notion of scientific progress. Cumulative development supposes that knowledge is
built additively, like chapters to a novel. Kuhn (1970) argues that these periods of “normal science” where
scientists subscribe to a certain set of concepts, methods, principles and theories under an overarching
framework are punctuated by periods of “scientific revolution.” These scientific revolutions, called
paradigm shifts, arise from “critical anomalies” that change the entire framework of thought employed by
scientists. These anomalies are irregularities that cannot be explained by the current paradigm, and put
into question the substantive power of the existing model of scientific thought. A critical mass of
anomalies leads to a remodeling of the normative theories of the current paradigm. The disruption of
recognized thinking brings forth unexpected new ideas encompassing old and new data, birthing a new
paradigm (Kuhn, 2014). Doors are opened for new scientific development every paradigm shift, since
scientists are liberated from the burden of incomprehensibility from an outdated paradigm (Garcia, 2011).

Some Characteristics of Science

“Scientists are not passive recipients of the unexpected; rather, they actively create the conditions for discovering the
unexpected”

— Kevin Dunbar & Jonathan Fugelsang

The rich history of scientific revolutions has allowed the subjects of scientific study to widen and
diversify. Particle physics, evolutionary developmental biology, and synthetic chemistry among numerous
others, are emergent fields that offer exciting avenues for enhancing our knowledge, testing previous
theories, and developing new paradigms. However, with all the benefit that comes with increased
specialization and radiation of scientific branches, we are left with a conundrum of finding roots of
similarity for each of these nascent fields of study. Fortunately, if we adopt a straightforward way of
finding unifying characteristics to the sciences, we see that any body of Science adopts certain universal
characteristics. Within these characteristics, there are seven basic “pillars” of scientific thinking that have
historically established its orthodoxy (Gauch, 2006). These are found here embedded in this text, labelled
(P1) to (P7).

1. Science deals with phenomena, and must make assumptions to further comprehension.

Any science works with something that can be experienced. Facts, incidences, and circumstances
in the universe that exist and can be observed to happen are called phenomena. Simplistically,
phenomena are “things that happen or have happened in the universe.” The fall of Newton’s
apple was a phenomenon that supposedly led to his describing the action of gravitational force.
Fossil-containing strata examined by Darwin during the early days of his conception of adaptive
radiation are also phenomena. Any scientific discipline deals with things that happen in the
universe, observable in some way through the faculties humanity possess.

Straightforward as it is, Science still must make assumptions in its examination of phenomena.
These assumptions are necessary to have a context with which to tackle the complexity and
variety of phenomena. Since Science is built on logical argumentation, then one can think of

Page 4 of 13
 these assumptions as logical expectations we make in the path of our comprehension of the
universe. While there are several lists of assumptions of modern science, each becoming more
stringent than the next, we can distill the essence of each into three major points:

First, it must assume that things in the universe are real¸ (P1) and contains an order that can be
perceived by the senses we possess (P2). Next, it presupposes that the principles that allow
natural process to happen are the same principles that can be used to explain consistently, through
careful study, whichever phenomena is being examined, in an evidence-based manner (P3).
Finally, the explanation and prediction of any branch of Science despite coming from standard
logic (P4) is limited and probabilistic; (P5) we can never be fully certain that an explanation
explains completely, any scientific fact, even if it appears so. Since Science cannot describe
something exactly, it does its best to approach it infinitely close instead. It eliminates possible
sources of error and puts constraints on probable deviations to build sufficiently close
approximations or models of what is observed (Steuer, 2013).

One such approximate approach is breaking down complex phenomena so that it may be
explained by the sum of its more basic constituent parts – reductionism (Thornton, 2015).
Reductionism follows the idea that anything happening in the universe can be described
scientifically by analyzing simpler, individual processes, or by creating models of a smaller scale
that make the process of analysis easier. These “reduced” explanations and process while useful,
may not always cover the sophistication of an individual phenomenon, less, the intricacy of
intertwined phenomena happening in Nature. While modern Science does not always take
reductionist approaches in dealing with phenomena, it still finds use in areas where dissection of
a larger phenomenon leads to new ideas, and new questions.

2. Science uses no strict method.

Science is functional, and necessitates the use of various methodologies to examine phenomena.
Science never remains a sketch on the drawing board, because several individuals must test
validity of hypotheses repetitively before acceptance or rejection. We were taught at some point
in life that the Science used a certain set of “scientific methods” to ascertain the validity of the
process of its evaluation of facts. While it is important to remove bias from any source of
unreasonable influence, we cannot simply state that there is a single protocol that can be applied
in the assessment of all phenomena. Such an idea is preposterous – there is no silver bullet, no
one recipe in the practice of Science. Science has several pathways that take different forms and is
more than a sequence of a list of procedures. This this “creative flexibility” is the crucial to
scientific practice (McLelland, 2006). What exists is a multitude of approaches in doing Science,
where there are no definite beginnings or endings. If the logical approach to answering a query or
dissecting an observation is testable, verifiable and repeatable, then it is acceptable.

The breaking of the linearity of the conventional scientific method is important as we tackle
myriad problems and questions, most of which are unanswerable through strategies of any single
discipline. Putting a man on the moon, for example required the combined collaborative efforts
of hundreds of different scientists each working on small details. From astronaut diet to flight
simulation, material engineering, rocket fuel development, and computational astrophysics – all
were necessary to put Neil Armstrong on the lone satellite of Earth in 1969. No one branch of
modern Science could have allowed such a feat. Multi-disciplinarity is vital if we are to grasp the
causal relationships of phenomena in Nature, and apply what we find to our daily lives.

Page 5 of 13
3. Science can lead to the development of technology.

Whichever explanation or set of protocols or prototype ends up describing the reason for a
phenomenon, we can see that Science is a path to comprehension. When this comprehension is
applied for practical purposes, we build technology – the cornerstone of civilizations. Modern
media has a tendency of portraying technology as electronic and computerized, but this depiction
is very restrictive. It does not do justice what has been traditionally called technology, such as the
selective breeding of plants and livestock, or what its developing into, such as the use bacteria to
produce important therapeutic drugs for treating diseases. In both cases, we see that technology
can be “natural” – it can deal with the use of resources found in nature. Technology then, could
be envisioned as a form of manufacturing guided by scientific principles, irrespective of the product
it makes, and the process it uses (Hansen & Froelich, 1994).

Regardless of the form that technology takes, it both benefits from scientific advancement and
helps develop better Science, and consequently provides benefit to human life. As more
phenomena are known and explained, some of these can be used to develop improved
technology. In turn, with more sophisticated technology, scientists are given new methods,
materials, and mechanisms to expand how they perform Science. In this perspective, technology
is both the articulation and the tangible, physical expression of Scientific knowledge.

These technologies have resulted in tremendous improvements in the length and quality of
human life. In the 17th and 18th century for example, at birth, the average European would
probably live no longer than 35, and a third to half the population would perish before the age of
16, due to infections and various illnesses (Shephard, 2015). Currently, both eastern and western
Europe enjoy life expectancies of over 65 years (Leon, 2011). Technology has increased the ease
and spread of disease information to a wide range of audiences and allowed the faster and larger
manufacture and distribution of food and medication. It has also revolutionized waste
management and disposal, and modernized medicinal treatments and procedures – all
contributing to increased lifespans not just in Europe, but in most parts of the world.

4. Science has limits.

Despite its reach and breadth, Science has limits. The first major restraint is that it can only deal
with phenomena. There is a staggering number of phenomena that happens in a single second,
but not all of it can be questioned using the scientific processes. Science is silent on issues
regarding the supernatural – things or manifestation that cannot be described by natural laws.
The concept of God, faith, and spirituality are ideas that fall outside the realm of Science. We
cannot say that these are not important, we can only say that Science cannot understand these
ideas using its framework. We cannot affirm or deny the existence of anything outside Scientific
scope, because the measures that we apply on phenomena are inapplicable to such. With regard
to these matters, what we can say with confidence, is that, at the very least, these do not fall
within the capacities of Science at this given time.

Science provides reliable knowledge that we can utilize when making decisions. It cannot
however, direct the decision maker into using this knowledge in a particular manner. Knowing
that nuclear fission releases energy, for example, was used in the making of fission weapons in
the Manhattan project as a counter to the German initiative of making the atomic bomb during
World War II. The same principles are being used today to create nuclear energy that turns steam

Page 6 of 13
 turbines to produce electricity. Polarized as the effects may be, Science cannot directly tell us what
to do; it can only show us how something is done. If Science provides means to perform actions
rather than influences ends, then it follows that it cannot ascribe moral value to the choices that
we make based on the information we possess. This is because Science must remain objective;
without objectivity, science loses its empiricism, the backbone of what makes it dependable and
consistent to begin with. Science can give probabilistic outcomes of choices that we make, but to
say whether these outcomes, and actions are good, or evil, are beyond its power.

Finally, science is limited by whosoever practices it. Being human means, we are prone to error,
for (1) we cannot be completely unbiased and (2) there are observational limits in the way we can
inquire about phenomena. This of course impacts the way science is performed. The human eye,
for example, the chief organ we use for observation cannot see past a certain range. This already
sets a limit to what and how we can observe nature. This nevertheless, does not rob Science of its
worth. The elegance of the design of an experiment that delimits as many things as possible is
our foremost defense against subjectivity. Using microscopes and telescopes dramatically increase
the scales of what we can observe. Over time, we have found better ways to answer our
questions, by building more sophisticated technology to address our natural limitations.

With technology constantly developing, so have we started to expand the repertoire of

explanations Science possesses to comprehend the universe. However, our understanding, while
extensive, remains incomplete. Several phenomena escape our understanding despite the
complexity of our combined modern methodologies. We must be very careful in treating with
these “anomalies.” We cannot jump to the conclusion that our failure to resolve certain
phenomena is derived from natural inconsistency, but rather, a deficiency in our ability to find a
suitable, elegant model. In the same way, sometimes, our failure is in partly due to the object of
our inquiry – the object may lie outside the ability of Science to comprehend. One must do good
Science to determine whether the cause is the former or the latter.

5. Science involves serendipity.

The list of discoveries that have come from scientific “blunders” is long and extensive. We must
not be afraid of failure and inconsistent results, for serendipity and luck play a huge role in
scientific discovery (Bosenman, 1988). This may connote a certain capriciousness in the scientific
methods, but this is not the case. Being blessed with a fortunate accident takes more than being
completely just completely lucky. The role of chance is usually to provide an opportunity to find a
different result of the same experiment or a probable reason behind why an error or oversight
produces an unexpected result. It may take years of profuse training before someone can realize
which minute differences in a failed experiment are worth following up and studying carefully.
Apart from this, one must possess the proper tools to see how useful or redundant a potentially
lucky break is. It is not always necessary for someone to be the first to discover something for it
to have unique value. Sometimes, what is necessary is to find creative interpretation of what
already exists – being first to see something in a different way.

6. Science is not static.

It is catastrophic to envision Science as a book, to which new pages are added as more
information of the world is uncovered. With shifts in knowledge come rearrangement,
reassessment, and refutal of theories that come from new data, which in turn are derived from

Page 7 of 13
 more precise yardsticks used to test assumptions. Science is contingent more than absolute and
change is not to its detriment. The constant flux of scientific facts instead makes Science more
capable of explanation, and consequently, more reliable. Good science happens when as many
confounding variables that affect interpretation of phenomena are removed while entertaining as
many possible alternate interpretations of the observation. This means that our variations in our
understanding and interpretation of the material universe is normal, and in fact a sign of
continued progress. The development of powerful machines and methods that augment our
natural abilities for observation and experimentation allow us to constantly revise, modify, and
alter our view of Nature.

Knowledge that does not change, is absolute, and unwilling to admit contradictory examples and
exceptions has no room in the practice of Science. There are times, nevertheless, when ideas and
theories guilty of these deviations use the vocabulary and formulation of empirical Science as a
mask to claim legitimacy. These belief systems are called pseudoscience and its demarcation against
empirical Science is sometimes difficult to spot and can be quite problematic. Some tend to
oversimplify pseudoscience as “bad science” or a “masquerading science” which endangers other
branches of learning that do not adhere to the historical and traditional framework of scientific
investigation. This is called the demarcation problem: it is difficult to spot pseudoscience since it is
“clothed in the garb of science.”

Addressing the uncertain line between Science and pseudoscience is performed by looking at the
qualities of the belief system. If the system (1) is inflexible, lacks replicability and uses repeated
reference to unverifiable authority or belief; (2) is unwilling to admit wrongfulness or ignorance;
(3) is not built on a testable hypothesis and disregards the logic of methodical observation; (3)
overgeneralizes the phenomena at hand by not criticizing its own arguments; and (4) fails to add
new data and further arguments over time, then it is probably pseudoscientific in nature. Perhaps
the most important aspect to consider in recognizing pseudoscience is its “pragmatic usefulness”
(Shermer, 2011). If an idea generates new questions, furthers research in its field, leading to the
establishment of novel discoveries that are shared with the public, then there is a great possibility
that the idea is scientific.

7. Science is a social exercise.

Science is not performed in isolation – it is a universal social endeavor (P6). Collaborations

between scientists are encouraged to bring together different sets of perspective, expertise, and
skill. The scientific community comes together to critically assess and conduct peer reviews of
publications to address errors and oversights, if any. This helps in self correction and the building
(and sometimes erasing) of knowledge. More than this, modern Science recognizes the role of
stakeholders from diverse social groups. They are more than welcome to identify tangible needs
in various sectors of a changing social landscape. In fact, public participation and acceptance
through active Science dissemination can be thought of as a key element in the scientific progress
of any human community (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1991). Greater public understanding of
Science often comes from a positive perception, which can only happen if the public is enfolded
into the process of scientific practice. The modern scientist must leave his ivory tower if he
desires the fruit of his labor to become useful in a social context. Perception precedes
understanding risks and benefits of any scientific innovation, ultimately influencing its social
acceptance. This is something that the modern scientist must grapple with considering the wide-

Page 8 of 13
 spread ease at which damaging misinformation is spread online at this age (Del Vicario et al.,
2016).

More than this, Science is now performed hand in hand with non-professionals. The
participation of non-professional individuals in “citizen science” is a positive form of growth n
the practice of modern Science (Silvertown, 2009). More and more of the public who devote
their time and energy into this could perhaps find Science more relatable, doable and essentially
part of daily life. Participation in projects that crowd-source information in partnership and
guidance from professional scientists is wonderful avenue in mainstreaming the idea that science
is inseparable from our day to day personal agendas.

Why should we believe in Science?

“Scientists tell us that the world is warming. Scientists tell us that vaccines are safe. But how do we know if they're
right? Why should we believe the science?”

—Naomi Oreskes

Perhaps it is safe to say that that Science, despite its limitations, contributes magnanimously to our daily
life not just through technology, but through information, and the speed we obtain and use it. With this
modernity which is our current natural setting, it is almost inconceivable to go through the course of a
day not encountering some form of Science or its application. Ironically it is in this age that Science is
increasingly becoming disavowed from public opinion, finding itself under attack from various fronts.
Even some world leaders seem to seek to dismantle its principles, silence scientists, and sideline evidence-
based thinking (Reardon et al., 2017). The question is, why is this happening?

One of the probable answers is that Science literacy is something that is neglected (Calfee & Burning,
2010). Fundamentally, the goal of science is to contribute meaningfully to the world (P7). Has it been
failing? The advancement in both theory and technology in the last fifty years alone is enough to say
otherwise. The problem lies with who knows what. Learning Science is adopting a vantage point that helps
illuminate our view of the world. This enables people to make informed decisions about everyday tittle-
tattle. This is a practice that is supposed to be communally shared by the global community, and is
probably not the case. More and more people find it hard to believe in Science, simply because they don’t
understand it, or lack the tools to verify what they learn themselves. When you ask someone, “Why do
you not like Science?” chances are, they are going to reply, “It requires too much memory” or “it’s too
complicated.” This is the sad predicament wherein we find the state of Science education, especially in
countries where access to materials in developing the sciences in all levels of schooling are very limited.

Most people who don’t understand Science reduce it to a matter of perspective, as if it was the same as
picking which condiments go with a meal. The entire empirical practice is taken as a matter of belief
knowledge with the alternative often something misconstrued. For those who cannot follow scientific
discourse, Science becomes an act of faith, because it lies beyond their world of understanding, and
remains inexplicable beyond their personal experience. Thus, widening the scope of individual scientific
instruction, practice, and skill development becomes imperative if the impetus of ignorance is to be
slowed down.

A scientific culture is difficult cultivate, because seeds must be planted early. More than creating living
repositories capable of regurgitating facts, it is having the ability to think scientifically and apply this to the

Page 9 of 13
choices that they make that matters (Suarez, 2009). Beyond the difficulty of scientific jargon, the difficulty
of mainstreaming Science may be a failure on the part of the scientist and educator to convey the
contextualize the role and implications of Science in daily life. This is not unheard of, because there is
little comfort in understanding, even between scientists of different fields (Oreskes, 2014). However, it is
when the average person cannot see the point of intersection between Science and everyday choices that
the value of Science is lost, and distrust in its principles grow.

Persuading people to believe in Science is difficult, especially when the ideas being presented are radical
and strange, as what the celebrated science communicator Carl Sagan would call “bizarre concepts
contradictory to common sense… challenging our accustomed beliefs, shaking the doctrines we have
grown to rely upon” (1997, p.32). Accepting novelty is not easy, and even scientists themselves need to
be conservative in the practice of proper Science. Compound these with the fact that scientific theory
keeps on changing every shift in paradigm, and you inevitably must ask the question, “Why should we
believe in Science?”

Naomi Oreskes (2014) proposes an answer in the form of consensus. Many trust that the value of Science
lies in an institutional authority based on the legitimacy and canon of its methods. One might say that to a
certain extent, this is true – Science does concern itself with authority, and is often consulted in various
conflicts and junctures. The value of Science however, does not come from just its methods not from any
individual man. It comes from the collective efforts of centuries of scientists and engineers working
together (and sometimes against each other) to bring progress to in tackling the questions asked by
humanity. We can trust Science since it is the consensus of devoted experts who through constant
evaluation and organized scrutiny, offer us a tested, collated perspective. Whether it be through
breakthrough ideas or the development of technology, the stability of today’s society was built on millions
of lives devoted to the honesty, integrity, and practice of Science.

The usefulness of Science, while limited, is far reaching. It influences practically every aspect of human
life. With the quick transition of technology from one day to the other, the value of Science as a principle
and practice has been drowned in utility. What is important becomes that which is technologically useful,
the impact of which, determined by a global population that is growing increasingly shortsighted of
anything but their immediate ends. Revisiting the root of the comfort that we possess is necessary if our
vision is to be nuanced against what we have grown accustomed to: an unconscious disregard of the
benefits of Science, and the process that comes with it. Perhaps, this is the greatest challenge the we face:
rekindling not just appreciation, but a constant marvel at Nature, and remembering that the mystery of
her veil is not completely pierced.

Page 10 of 13
Guide Questions:
1. What is the “veil of Isis”? Why is this imagery important in establishing the relationship between
Science and Nature?
2. How can empirical skepticism influence paradigm shifts?
3. Is the value and power of Science not built on the logical fallacy, the Appeal to Authority?

Points for Reflection:

1. Is mathematics a science? How does it fall within the framework of questioning phenomena?
2. How does Filipino parental authoritarianism affect the way by which we view Science?
3. The Zodiac calendar is a prime example of pseudoscience. At this day and age of technological
competency, why has it not died down?

Page 11 of 13
References:

1. Bosenman, M. F. (1988). Serendipity and scientific discovery. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 22(2),
132-138. Retrieved from:
http://www.morehouse.edu/academics/psychology/pdf/mrosenmann/Serendipity-And-
Scientific-Discovery.pdf.

2. Calfee, R., & Bruning, R. (2010). Science education: neglected. Science, 329(5993), 748-748.

3. Del Vicario, M., Bessi, A., Zollo, F., Petroni, F., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., ... & Quattrociocchi, W.
(2016). The spreading of misinformation online. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
113(3), 554-559.

4. Dowden, B. H. (1993). Logical reasoning. Wadsworth Publishing Company, USA.

5. Dunbar, K., & Fugelsang, J. (2005). Causal thinking in science: How scientists and students
interpret the unexpected. In M. E. Gorman, R. D. Tweney, D. Gooding & A. Kincannon
(Eds.), Scientific and Technical Thinking (pp. 57-79). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

6. Garcia, J.J. (2011). Science and the Scientific Method. in: Stellar Origins, Human Ways, Readings
in Science, Technology and Society. Ateneo de Manila University Press.

7. Gauch, H.G. Jr. (2006). Science, Worldviews, and Education. In: Science, Worldviews, & Education,
Springer. Retrieved from:
http://www2.geog.ucl.ac.uk/~mdisney/teaching/GEOGG121/bayes/gauch_worldview.pdf.

8. Godfrey-Smith P. (2009). Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science.

University of Chicago Press.

9. Graham, D. W. (2003). Does nature love to hide? Heraclitus B123 DK. Classical Philology, 98(2),
175-179.

10. Hadot, P. (2006). The Veil of Isis: An Essay on the History of the Idea of Nature. Harvard
University Press.

11. Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of Natural Science. Prentice-Hall.

12. Henry Harris. (2002). Things come to life: Spontaneous generation revisited. Oxford University
Press.

13. Karamanou, M., Panayiotakopoulos, G., Tsoucalas, G., Kousoulis, A. A., & Androutsos, G.
(2012). From miasmas to germs: a historical approach to theories of infectious disease
transmission. Infez Med, 20(1), 58-62. Retrieved from:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Antonis_Kousoulis/publication/223957556_From_mias
mas_to_germs_A_historical_approach_to_theories_of_infectious_disease_transmission/links/0f
cfd505a01e81aa71000000.pdf.

14. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd enl. ed. University of Chicago
Press.

15. Kuhn, T.S. (2014). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 50th anniversary Edition. University
of Chicago Press.

Page 12 of 13
16. Leon, D. A. (2011). Trends in European life expectancy: a salutary view. International Journal of
Epidemiology, 40(2), 271-277.

17. Lloyd, G.E.R. (2012). Early Greek Science: Thales to Aristotle. Random House.

18. McLelland, C.V. (2006). The Nature of Science and the Scientific Method. The Geological
Society of America. Retrieved from:
https://www.geosociety.org/documents/gsa/geoteachers/NatureScience.pdf.

19. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Science literacy: Concepts,
contexts, and consequences. National Academies Press.

20. Nickels, M. (1998). The Nature of Modern Science & Scientific Knowledge. Retrieved from:
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/mart.nos.pdf.

21. Oreskes, N. (2014). Why We Should Trust Scientists. TED Summaries. Retrieved from:
https://tedsummaries.com/2014/08/03/naomi-oreskes-why-we-should-trust-scientists/.

22. Popper, K. (2005). The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge.

23. Reardon, S., Phillips, N., Abbott, A., Casassus, B., Callaway, E., Witze, A., ... & Rodriguez, M. E.
(2017). What happened at March for Science events around the world. Nature, 544(7651), 404.

24. Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1991). Science for all Americans. Oxford University Press.

25. Sagan, C. (1997). The demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark. Random House
Digital, Inc.

26. Shephard, R. J. (2015). An illustrated history of health and fitness, from pre-history to our post-
modern world. New York, NY: Springer.

27. Shermer, M. (2011). What is Psueodscience? Scientific American. Retrieved from:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-pseudoscience/.

28. Silvertown, J. (2009). A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in ecology & evolution, 24(9), 467-471.

29. Steuer, M. (2013). The Role of Assumptions in Scientific Investigation. LSE Center for
Philosophy of Natural and Social Science. Retrieved from:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/CPNSS/research/old/RoleofAssumptionsinScientificInvestigation.aspx.

30. Suarez, R. K. (2009). What Good Is Science Education? Star Science, Philstar Global Business.
Retrieved from: http://www.philstar.com/science-and-technology/499282/what-good-science-
education.

31. Thornton, T. (2015). Scientific Reductionism. In: The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology. John
Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118625392.wbecp246/abstract

Page 13 of 13