Natural Sciences

Figure 1. The ‘Blue Marble’.

Source: 'Apollo17WorldReversed.jpg' by The original uploader was Latitude0116 at English Wikipedia it is in the Public domain, Wikimedia Commons

Content sourced from Kognity

One of the more interesting of these concerns our place in a vast universe and with it a sense of frailty and loneliness. Seeing the world we inhabit floating alone in space changed and broadened our perspectives. If one of the aims of the natural sciences is to understand how the world and the universe work , this picture seems to have helped us in doing so. For example, environmental activists nowadays ask us to be aware of the risk of global warming as this fragile spot in space is the only place we have, in which to live and co-exist as humankind.

Often in the natural sciences, the discovery of one thing leads to a new mystery to be revealed. Sustained by the building blocks of the past, contemporary scientists develop their research by trying to reveal and refine new aspects of what is already known. And by doing this, knowledge is sometimes discarded and replaced. Thomas Kuhn , an American philosopher of science, called this process ‘paradigm shifts’. Watch the video to show how our knowledge is expanding.

Scientists are - Architects of change

They will permanently try to innovate to create new responses to old problems and questions - and this helps science progress
They will scrutinize what is taken as valid scientific knowledge and challenge its veracity

Paradoxically - this Peer review helps make scientific knowledge stronger. If it remains intact when scientists are attempting to disprove it, then its validity will be stronger than if it was not reviewed by other experts

But what happens if there is a gap or an unanswered question in the corpus of scientific knowledge? Possibly, scientists will need to rethink and evaluate new approaches collaboratively; this is a fundamental part of science, since this area of knowledge is dynamic and socially constructed.

‘Is the scientific mission an illusion?’

We can say that scientists question what is known, they do not settle with the first explanation that comes to hand and are prepared to change their perspectives on different matters if the evidence indicates so. The consequence of this is that the scientific endeavour is never ending.

What distinguishes this area of knowledge from others is its approach towards the objects of study.While studying natural phenomena, the natural sciences try to produce neutral observations in order to elaborate hypotheses which may become theories about how the world works. The attempt of being objective and using a shared and common method, called the ‘scientific method’, allows scientists to be independent of culture when producing knowledge.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Does it concern the evidence that sustains those knowledge claims ?
Could it be that the process performed to obtain those claims guarantees their accuracy?

What makes something a science?

To decide whether scientific claim is valid it is necessary to consider the way in which the claim has been produced. The scientific disciplines, by adhering to a standard ‘scientific method’ produce knowledge claims that are open to scrutiny and will remain valid until proven wrong. There is a lot of interesting knowledge that is perfectly valid but does not fall into the category of scientific knowledge; as a TOK student you should be aware of this.

Valid scientific claims are directly linked to the process performed to propose them and are based on proper evidence. All other claims will fall under the ‘non-scientific’ umbrella. This does not mean that they are invalid, but it means that they won’t be called ‘scientific’.

This story can help you to reflect on the question:

‘What makes something a science?’

Up to this point, we can say that scientific knowledge:

is sustained by empirical evidence; in other words, is built on observation and experimentation
has been tested and independently replicated by individual scientists or teams
is provisional in nature, meaning that in the future if substantial new evidence comes to light, scientific knowledge may change.

‘Could it be considered that technological advancements improve scientific knowledge or is it the other way around?’

Is there a connection between theoretical and applied knowledge, and to evaluate whether the latter is the natural consequence of the former?

In the 1960s, a team of scientists, which included Peter Higgs, proposed the existence of the ‘God particle’, or the ‘Higgs boson’ in order to explain why particles have mass. Interestingly, their theoretical development was confirmed almost 50 years later, at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) – the largest machine in the world!

Article 1 Article 2

A long time passed between when the theory was first proposed by Peter Higgs (and others) and its confirmation.

Do you think that the lack of necessary technology slowed down the development in this field?

You need to be aware that knowledge within this area is dynamic, and changes over time and therefore it will be difficult to achieve a ‘final and static response’ to everything.

Reasons for change in the Natural Sciences are:

the innovation proposed by influential individuals
the passage of time and the technological improvements that come with it
the permanent revision of knowledge by groups of experts within the field
the social and historical context in which knowledge is produced.

In TOK, slightly differently from the example in the video, we will understand ‘paradigms’ as lenses through which to ‘see’ reality, but shared collectively, not as individual experiences. This is important since our objective is to study the production and socialisation of knowledge. Thomas Kuhn stated that science goes through a process of knowledge production that involves change as a key driver. This means that ‘paradigms’ (understood as overarching mind-sets, including beliefs, ways of doing things and models to comprehend reality) are open to ‘shift’.

A key notion for understanding the cadence of progress of scientific knowledge is the idea of paradigm shift . Thomas Kuhn, an American physicist and philosopher, presented this term in 1962 in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Before investigating how scientific knowledge is modelled by successive paradigm shifts, make sure that you understand what a paradigm is.

Amazingly, there was a scientific claim which stated that life could be generated spontaneously, which meant that it could emerge from non-living material. This was a period of normal science , and the theory of spontaneous generation was the ‘dominant paradigm’ in biology.

Almost two thousand years later, Pasteur and others shared some of their findings which challenged this idea and provoked a drift of the paradigm, that submerged science in a period of crisis. This eventually led to a scientific revolution that produced a paradigm shift.

The new findings, validated by evidence and by multiple experiments, and included into the concept of biogenesis, state that living things come from other living things. This is the dominant paradigm in the new period of normal science in biology nowadays.

Up to this point, we can say that knowledge within the natural sciences is permanently progressing, and that what is known today could be replaced with a more accurate explanation in the future.

Knowledge in the natural sciences can be considered ‘provisional’, meaning that the explanations available can be considered best at that moment in time, but not will necessarily be true for all time.
Questioning what you already know seems to be a characteristic of a scientific perspective and a humble way to approach knowledge.
Collaboration, revision and consensus are key features for knowledge production.

KQ#6: ‘To what extent is it possible that what is valid knowledge today could be rejected tomorrow?’

To what extent is mathematics discovered as opposed to created?

Put more simply, do we create the language of mathematics to describe reality or

do we discover the reality of mathematics?

One of these skills is to understand mathematical language, which is a key element in the production of scientific knowledge. Mathematics is a powerful tool in the sciences. Many of the concepts and laws of the natural sciences are stated using the language of mathematics and some scientific explanations only exist in mathematical form.

The natural sciences require precise language in order to avoid ambiguity. Since scientists work collaboratively and need others to verify or validate their claims, the way in which they express their ideas should be precise, avoid ambiguity but also cover all the aspects of the phenomena being studied.

This brings a series of challenges for scientists when producing their claims, which can be summarised by the question ‘ Is there always a trade-off between accuracy and simplicity in the production of knowledge?’

The comprehension of knowledge depends on the skills of the knower –

and having access to knowledge does not guarantee understanding.

The power to explain the natural order with equations began in the 17th century. Isaac Newton, often called the ‘father of modern science’, provided the foundation for much of our knowledge of forces and motion. He did this by formalising the work of earlier scientists and inventing calculus to assist as a means of modelling the world. Subsequently, the language of mathematics (vectors, quadratic functions, exponential functions, kinematic equations in calculus, and so on) has frequently been used by scientists to explain many complex ideas.

Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica , which was published in 1687. This work is considered one of the greatest mathematics treatises of all time and yet it does not contain a single equation. It is written in Latin because that was the language of international communication at the time. Newton’s equation for gravity was written in words and translates into the mathematical equation. Newton’s physics remained unchallenged for 200 years, but everything changed in the 20th century when Albert Einstein used the language of mathematics to express new ideas about the movement of objects. Einstein called his theories ‘relativity’ and his theories of relativity ushered in a new collection of shared knowledge.

We can say that the language used in the natural sciences can be both simple and accurate at the same time. Scientists attempt to make sense of the world and we would expect their explanations to be both precise and difficult for the layman to comprehend. However, that is not always the case, since there are different layers of complexity when understanding scientific claims, some of which are accessible to everyone and not just the experts. Models , which are defined as a simplification of reality, are a good example of this.

Having a short list of different models from different disciplines will help you to understand that simple language, in the form of a chart, or a diagram, for example, can also contribute to the development of science. Click on the image above to bring you to the website for the Activity

The historical context and the technology available can determine the way in which scientists approach and produce their explanations about the world, and these can change over time. This is why models are not fixed representations that explain an aspect of the world, but they can eventually be replaced.

Models - Examples

‘Does the language used determine the understanding of knowledge within this area?’

Scientific language requires precision to avoid ambiguity.
Scientific explanations may need to be expressed in a complex language in order to be accurate.
Understanding of knowledge is not necessarily to do with the language being used, but with the skills of the knower and their capacity to interpret scientific claims.
Simple language can be also precise and is necessary for the development of science, for example in the form of representations.

Throughout history, several influential individuals have produced scientific discoveries and breakthroughs that not only changed scientific knowledge itself but also the way in which knowledge was produced in the different disciplines.

Individual creativity can sometimes solve problems that the collective cannot, by bringing new perspectives. ARTICLE

Social context can impeded which knowledge is produced. The doctors at the time of Semmelweis’s contribution didn’t want to believe that they were indirectly responsible for women’s deaths, as being a doctor was a symbol of elevated social status. This brings us back to one of our knowledge questions for this section: ‘ To what extent does context affect knowledge production or its acceptance?’

Semmelweis tried to see the problem he faced with new eyes and he was determined to find a solution. He displayed intellectual courage against social and intellectual pressure to conform. Questioning everything is key for critical thinking.
Perspectives shape the way we interact with knowledge and how we make sense of the world around us. By being aware of your own perspective, you can also acknowledge that others can have theirs and that there can be differences but also similarities. Scientific perspective seems to be based on a common ground from which knowledge can be produced, but is also open to questioning.

Methods and Tools

What are the methods used in this area and how do they produce knowledge?

Arguably, the key distinctive feature of science is the method used to produce knowledge. By doing this, and by understanding how the scientific method works, you may be able to debunk the fake news that you find in the news or in social media, and that can have consequences on your daily life. For example, you will be able to develop a proper opinion about topics such as climate change, the flat Earth theory or anti-vaccine movements. You may also be able to make better decisions every day, when considering how many products you need or if they are necessary at all.

Having a standard procedure, such as the scientific method, is a good way to help justify the claims being made in science. This is an evidence-based tool, which allows scientists to exchange ideas about how the world works with more certainties than assumptions.

We can trace back the origin of the scientific method to Aristotle , a philosopher from Ancient Greece and Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) , an Arab mathematician, physicist and astronomer born in AD 965.

The origin of the modern scientific method as we know it today, which has seen widespread use since the early 19th century, originated with Sir Francis Bacon , who published the Novum Organum (‘New Method’) in 1620.

See how Frances Oldham Kelsey stuck to the scientific method and rejected pressure exerted by a powerful drug company with their alleged scientific claims, and by doing this saved thousands of lives.

In order to understand one of the core aspects of scientific knowledge, you will need to address Popper’s concept of ‘falsifiability’.

Sciences Versus PseudoSciences

Pseudoscience- list of sciences characterized as pseudoscience by academics or researchers - either in the past or presently considered.

What are the implications of being unable to distinguish between scientific and pseudoscientific claims?

Find one clear example of a Pseudoscience. On the class slide deck using 3-4 slides include the following information:

Name and description & Visual to show what your Pseudoscience is about.
How widespread or popular the idea is - who believes it?
Typical knowledge claims made in the pseudoscience
How it seems to be scientific
Why it isnt scientific

Is there something else apart from reasoning in the production of scientific knowledge? What about intuition and imagination?

When we talk about ‘methods and tools’, we need to reflect upon the way in which individuals or groups produce knowledge. Some of these tools will be related to their particular approach to the things around them and with the kind of questions they generate, which could lead to revolutionary discoveries.

Einstein said that imagination was more important than knowledge! Thus IA prompt number 30. ‘What role does imagination play in producing knowledge about the world?’ can be discussed in the context of the natural sciences.

Is Scientific knowledge free from error?

To What extent does the scientific method guarantee accuracy?

Errors can occur, despite the characteristics that we have explored, which help to guarantee a good rate of success for the knowledge produced using the scientific method.

There are different kinds of errors when evaluating scientific knowledge production. First, consider objectivity , which is a fundamental requirement of producing knowledge; the absence of it, subjective bias is one of the causes for errors.

Bias can take many forms, such as confirmation bias , in which a scientist tends to try to confirm their hypothesis and does not pay attention to the evidence against it, for example, when performing an experiment. ARTICLE

An important characteristic of the natural sciences is that they are self-correcting.

Why is ethics important?

But what about the ‘processes’ involved in trying to achieve this? Can anything that we imagine be done no matter what the consequences are? Should everyone have access to reports on the findings of scientific research? Is publicising these findings a moral obligation for scientists?

It is important for a TOK student to consider the ethical dimension of scientific knowledge production. Imagine what the current technological and scientific developments allow scientists to do.

Should we accept everything in the name of science?

Should Scientific knowledge be subject to an ethical dimension?

To think about this, it would be interesting to reconsider what science is for. If we stick to our definition of understanding the world and the universe, and being able to explain them and eventually change them for the benefit of humankind, then we may think that anything which serves this final objective is permissible. A typical question when considering the edges of science and their possible ethical constraints is ‘Does the end justify the means?’

Year after year there are new theoretical and technological developments that allow the scientists to revolutionize their practices in the laboratory. Why should they stop?

On the one hand, the natural sciences serve society, and thus cannot be isolated from the rules to which it conforms. Despite their objectives and the way that technology can allow us to explore and research, for example, the innumerable tests that could be performed in order to study the human body, there are limits that will imply a sanction if trespassed. On the other hand, there are different ‘perspectives’ for considering whether something is ethically valid or not, and these views may also change through time.

Different ethically questionable experimentation has been done in the past in the name of science.

Go back to one of the knowledge questions ‘ Who decides whether something is ethically permitted or not in science and how do they decide?’ What is your first attempt at a response?
Should scientists reach a consensus in determining this?
How should decisions be policed to make sure that everyone in the scientific community abides by the rules?
Is there a ‘universal’ shared definition of what is ethically valid and what is not?
Should science produce a kind of universal code of ethics for scientific knowledge production?

Several years ago, there probably weren’t as many and as varied ethical debates related to scientific development. But perhaps they had different forms and possibly more clearly imaginable consequences.

After the dropping of the atomic bombs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, during WWII, the extent of the consequences of technological advancements is clearly a big issue. The reflections of Albert Einstein, J. Robert Oppenheimer and others, who finally regretted being part of that development, help us understand that sometimes the technological advancements made through the progress of scientific knowledge can have unforeseen consequences.

That is why a permanent questioning from an ethical standpoint is crucial in science. You may also wonder here: ‘Does having scientific knowledge impose certain ethical responsibilities?’

This does not mean that scientific knowledge is the only language or method we should adhere to, but there is something within its method that helps us to better share and understand in a more universal way.

Can you think of reasons to justify that science helps us overcome cultural differences?

By sharing the same methodology we can overcome the challenges that arise from our rich and different perspectives and produce scientific knowledge that is understood by everyone.

KQ#7: To What degree should scientific knowledge production be regulated?

Our perspectives shape the way in which we see the world, and having a scientific perspective means understanding reality through a specific ‘lens’. But is this the only way to produce knowledge? Is it the best way? What do you think?

Scientists are very aware of the need to be in permanent collaboration with other disciplines, because they know that in order to better understand the world ‘all perspectives’ are helpful and will help produce a bigger picture.

ARTICLE

‘Is science the best way to produce knowledge about the world?’ The scientific perspective is just one among many which can help us to produce an interpretation about the world, and it can be enhanced by adding other perspectives. Remember the elephant!

Science is great. It provides us with the opportunity to know the world and be able to transform it in order to have better lives. However, there are also challenges, some of which you have explored throughout your inspection of this area of knowledge.

But one thing is certain: by understanding how science works, what it can do for us, and what we can do with it, we will have a broader perspective that will help to give us a sense of who we are and how to live in the world.

Page updated

Report abuse