Natural Sciences: Methods & Tools
“The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not ‘Eureka!’ but ‘That’s funny…’“ — attributed to Isaac Asimov
Science begins with a — something that does not fit, something that demands explanation. A good scientific explanation moves us from puzzle to understanding.
Types of Explanation
- — what a phenomenon is made of
- — what caused the phenomenon
- — explaining the whole by its component parts
- — explaining a system where the behaviour of parts depends on the whole
Good explanations are simpler (), more powerful, and better supported. An — invented for just one case — is the weakest kind.
Explanations need not be literally true. A (Vaihinger) is a self-contradictory model that still functions as a good explanation.
The Scientific Method
The scientific method is pluralistic. There is no single procedure. What diverse methods share: data collection, analysis, and interpretation through theory. Science is partly driven by — finding valuable results while looking for something else entirely.
A critical pitfall: the . Correlations are symmetrical; causation is not. Establishing causation requires a causal theory supported by evidence, not merely a correlation.
is the engine of scientific . A result obtained once might be a fluke; results replicated by multiple independent teams using different methods provide strong evidence.
Theories, Laws, and Models
in science does not mean “mere speculation.” A theory is a systematic body of knowledge — concepts, laws, methods, and standard examples — with strong evidential support.
A is a general, experimentally confirmed description of a feature of reality. Two views on what laws are:
- Realist: laws are built into the fabric of the universe
- Anti-realist: laws are useful idealisations that apply only to idealised situations which do not actually exist
A is an idealised, simplified (and often literally false) representation that illuminates phenomena by analogy. Like a map: technically false (it omits everything), yet a good map gets the important features right.
Theory Choice and Paradigm Shifts
When two theories compete, five criteria help: predictive power, explanatory power, consistency, simplicity, and fruitfulness. The most powerful evidence is a novel prediction — predicting phenomena no one has seen yet.
Theories do not change quickly, even when anomalies accumulate. The cost of abandoning a theory is enormous: textbooks, methods, reputations, and funding must all change. This is why s are revolutionary rather than incremental.
Thomas Kuhn described a cycle: normal science → anomalies accumulate → crisis → revolution → new paradigm → new normal science. Kuhn’s radical claim: competing paradigms exhibit — they cannot be directly compared because each paradigm includes its own notion of what counts as good evidence and good method. If true, there is no neutral standpoint from which to judge progress. Peter Galison (1997) disagrees: theory can change without method changing, giving footholds for comparison.
Objectivity and Its Limits
The natural sciences aim at s — facts that hold independently of any observer. This is achieved through method: replication, peer review, the requirement for natural explanations.
But complete objectivity may be more of an ideal than a reality. Scientists are human; they have biases, funding interests, and cultural assumptions. Paradigms shape what questions get asked. The method is designed to cancel out the human factor — but it was designed by humans.
The gap between the natural sciences and other AoKs on objectivity may be smaller than it first seems.
This is not a reason to distrust science — it is a reason to understand how science actually works and what gives it its distinctive reliability.