How Does Science Actually Work, Really?

We see the fruits of scientific progress every minute of every day of our lives but don’t really think about it. I’m currently writing on device which works more or less infallibly. It relies upon the scientific understanding of electronics, computing, electromagnetism, and many others. In short: science works; yet it is not as simple as that. The ideas that make my tablet work have been underpinned by many years, even centuries, of experimental observations, to the point where they’re now considered theories.

The concept of the hypothesis versus a theory needs to be talked about. A hypothesis is a scientific idea that can be tested. This can come from personal observation, or from the current theories. Let’s say I have an hypothesis ‘All swans are white’. This seems like a good starting point, a good hypothesis. I’ve seen a lot of white swans. How do I test this? Do I look for more white swans? No, I look for swans of a different colour. I try to falsify or disprove the hypothesis. As it is, black swans actually exist, and so I discard the hypothesis.

The layman often says ‘I have a theory’, when what they mean is ‘I have a hypothesis’. ‘Hypothesis’ is admittedly a bit of a mouthful. Theories are something else entirely, they’re the really big ideas in science. Gravity is for example a pretty good theory, but in layman’s terms there’s nothing’s theoretical about gravity.

What then makes a theory? This was a question that didn’t fall to scientists to answer, and is indeed still being discussed. However, as a good introduction we need to talk about the work of Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn was one of the great minds in the philosophy of science, he wrote that a theory should be:

1. Accurate – it should hold up under experimental observation.

2. Consistent – both with itself, but also other theories.

3. Broad Scope – it should cover a wide area of scientific knowledge, and open up new areas.

4. Simple – it should be the simplest available explanation.

5. Fruitful – it should identify new scientific phenomena, or make links between scientific phenomena.

So, theories are really big things. In every day language people use ‘I have a theory’, what they mean is ‘I have an idea’. When a scientist says ‘I have a theory’, you’re talking to a Nobel prize winner. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is one of the most important and fruitful recent theories. Kuhn further realised that because theories are so large, the development of a new theory is a massive event in science. Science then leaps forward and new scientific phenomena are identified very quickly. Kuhn called this event a paradigm shift. Consider the rapid development in computing following the contributions of people like Alan Turing. The current paradigm is the current consensus on how something works in the scientific community due to a well tested set of theories.

How do you test a theory? If you can’t test it, obviously some very bad science can occur. Another philosopher helps us immeasurably here, Karl Popper. Karl Popper argued that all theories must be demonstrably falsifiable. No matter how much you find to prove a theory to be correct, it is the thing that could disprove the theory that is far more important. Always ask yourself when reading a scientific article, or indeed discussing science, ‘So how do you disprove this?’.

Hopefully you’re now forming the idea that science is in fact mutable, never set in stone. It can change rapidly as new phenomena present themselves and theories are tested. The ability of science to change its mind due to paradigm shifts is normal and healthy. Being able to break a theory by finding something that disproves isn’t a weakness it the theory, in fact it’s what makes a theory strong. Karl Popper initially had some criticism for Darwin’s theory, as presented it was not easily falsifiable. However a simple laboratory experiment gives rise to a falsifiable component:

Take a population of bacteria, and grow them on a petri dish with some penicillin. If Darwin’s theory is incorrect then the population will not respond to being placed under stress by the penicillin; this would falsify the theory. As it is we observe that after a few generations the bacteria become resistant to the effects of penicillin. Evolution has taken place, the theory is upheld. This is a very simple example, and just one example, but serves as a reasonable example.

After lots of testing, and incredible amounts of fruitful research by scientists. Karl Popper changed his mind about Darwin’s theory, and become a great advocate of it.

What does this mean for the Aspie mind? Aren’t we supposed to like order and logic. Well, yes, in a way we do. We’re very good at making connections, understanding patterns. But, also, when something doesn’t seem quite right it leaps out at us. This makes us phenomenal researchers. The most exciting point in research is when someone says, ‘Huh, that’s a bit odd!’, this is in fact far more common than shouting ‘Eureka!’. We’re very good at finding odd.