By Qingyang Zhang, Y12
As we have learned, the sciences, especially the natural sciences, assume that there is objective knowledge, and strive to find the true nature of the world. As a result, the scientific method was created to try to attain knowledge as accurately as possible. However, it is important to understand its limitations.
Since the sciences are empirical, the basis of the scientific method is observation. Scientists first begin by asking a question. After some background research, they devise a hypothesis, which must be able to be tested.
Next, the scientist must designs an experiment to credibly provide evidence for – or against – their hypothesis. There are thus independent variables that are changed and dependent variables that are observed.
Scientists then analyze the experimental data to draw a conclusion and quantify their data, meaning that they measure variables in numbers, so the relationship between two variables can be described using a mathematical model. Sometimes, qualitative data is also used, albeit less often.
It is also important to repeat the experiment multiple times to check that the results are consistent. A well-designed experiment should be reproducible and the same conclusion should be reached if the variables are controlled. Only in such cases can the original hypothesis be verified.
Straightforward, right?
The truth is, scientists rarely follow the scientific method as a linear process, and some of the steps raise controversies. Firstly, it is hard to tell whether a hypothesis is falsifiable. Theoretical physicists devise theories for the existence of a Multiverse, which may seem impossible to measure. However, some of the multiverse theories suggest that it may have a noticeable impact on our universe, which means that it is theoretically possible to verify and confirm their out-of-this-world hypothesis.
Another difficulty of the scientific method is that it is hard to control variables. This is why repeating the same experiment in different environments is important. There is also the problem of determining how many repetitions are enough to prove a hypothesis. Just because all previous experiments have proven the hypothesis right, does not mean that the next will do the same. Sciences are, therefore, inductive, meaning that a general rule is inferred from specific cases.
This poses a problem, since nowadays fewer scientists are repeating their colleagues’ experiments. This has an impact on the quality of today’s scientific knowledge. The general public often regards scientists as figures of authority, and sees scientific facts as objectively true, despite all the uncertainties. We must thus try to make sure that we maintain the integrity of the scientific process.
To conclude, although the scientific method seems to be a clear process, it is rarely straightforward. There are many controversies regarding the validity of experiments. Despite being empirically based, results may not be as exact as one may think. We must, therefore, continue to gradually build upon past ideas, either disproving them with new evidence, or supporting them, in our quest to find absolute knowledge.
