The goal of science is to create the most accurate theories of reality. To accomplish this task all sciences are expected to use empiricism to support and test their theories of reality. Similar to Missouri's state slogan -Show Me - the methods of science require us to compare our theories or ideas of how the world works against sensory data.

The basic procedure of science is to continually critically compare our theories against observational data.

Theory = Data

The process is often described as circular and ongoing. New data can modify the theory. Likewise, changes in theory can make predictions about observational data which can then support, modify or refute the theory. And so on.

The methods of science are not magical or unique. They will not inevitably lead us to a totally accurate or complete description of reality. In fact, the method is essentially how we already think and cope with everyday life. Using your sense organs (e.g., sight, hearing, smell) you observe your environment. Your brain processes this information and makes a judgment about how the world operates. You engage in actions based on those judgments and use the new observations to confirm, modify or discard your original judgments about how the world works. And so on.

The methods of science are powerful because they make the process social - scientific verification goes beyond the individual. The scientific method externalizes both the theories of reality and the sensory input used to validate these theories. For example, one way to test (verify) a brain's theory of reality is to compare it to the realities of other brains. This is where language, math and the formal rules of logic come into the picture.

Theory

Basically, theory is a linguistic description of reality. We use words and pictures to describe how the world fits together and works. It is thus critical that we agree on the basic terms used to describe theories. We saw fallout from a lack of agreement on what words mean during President Clinton's impeachment. What is your definition of sex? This is why science requires clear definitions of how terms are being used. It is critical that we all use the same code book in describing the theory.

Theories are usually more than one statement or mathematical formula. Theories are a collection of statements about reality. These statements must be internally consistent and obey the rules of logic and mathematics. For example, it is not permissible for a theory to predict both "Yes" and "No." As they say, you can't have it both ways.

Scientific theories frequently include mathematical predictions. This is because math gives us a common code book. There is widespread agreement on the meaning of “two” and “addition.” Qualitative concepts like “norm,” “id” or even “aggressive behavior” are more fuzzy than “two.” Mathematical predictions add significantly to a theory's value because it adds a level of comparison not found in qualitative concepts. In the words of the late Carl Sagan, “If you know a thing only qualitatively, you know it no more than vaguely. If you know it quantitatively - grasping some numerical measure that distinguishes it from an infinite number of other possibilities - you are beginning to know it deeply. You comprehend some of its beauty and you gain access to its power and the understanding it provides. Being afraid of quantification is tantamount to disenfranchising yourself, giving up on one of the most potent prospects for understanding and changing the world.” (Billions and Billions, p. 21)

Data

Science requires we test our theories with empirical observations or measurements. Thus a theory that describes planet's revolving about the sun and moons revolving about planets is confirmed by observing and measuring such movements. Similarly, social science theories that predict unmarried individuals have above average suicide rates needed to be tested using data on suicide rates and marital status.

Just as we are careful to reach agreement on meaning of our theoretical terms, scientists are noted for taking extraordinary care with their measurements. Just as we use language and math to make our theories precise, we use tools and procedural controls to make our observations precise. We are uncomfortable accepting one observation or observations from a single individual. Ignoring intentional distortions, individual observations are frequently in error. We have all “seen things” that were not really there - some of us more than others.

There are also some interesting “wiring features” of the brain that call into question the accuracy of observations. So things go to fast or too slow for us to observe. And we don't actually “observe” any information in our “blind spot.” That is why when a car is in your blind spot don't see it. But neither do you “see” a black hole indicating there is no image coming from this region of your visual field. The brain fills in that region of your visual field with what it thinks should be there. That is why you should physically turn your head before changing lanes. Your brain is lying to you about what it sees. It is problems like these that encourage scientists to favor tool based measurements.

Image that we agree to use a specific blueprint to build a bird house. Now image that we will not use the ruler to decide where to cut the pieces but each of us will cut our pieces as best we can estimate. How well should we expect our pieces to fit together? Tools, like the ruler, are used to make measurements objective.

The other reason scientists like tools is that they can enhance our observations. The telescope let us see farther and the microscope see smaller. Observations using the first changed our theories of the universe - it is now older and larger than the theories predicted prior to these observations. Similarly, the microscope revolutionized our theories of disease. DNA testing is impacting theories of evolution, as well as the criminal justice system.

Thinking about science based theories

Looking at how scientists write up their research gives us some insight about how they approach their work. They usually start with a literature review. This is a way for the scientist to examine what others have thought about the topic and what observations have been made. When writing up their papers for publication, scientists often start with a literature review. This is a way for the writer and reader to understand each other. Some readers might need to read some of the writer's references to fully understand the paper. The importance academic institutions place on references can be seen in their disciplinary polices. At most schools this can get you kicked out of school. IUS students should read this policy in their student handbook.

Scientific papers also contain data from observations. Scientists are expected to be careful and specifically document not only the measurements but also the conditions under which the measurements were obtained. Theories are expected to explain observations. There must be a possible empirical outcome that would be viewed as not supporting the hypothesis. If all possible outcomes will be interpreted as either support or nonsupport , the hypothesis is not scientifically testable. Once again, you can't have it both ways.

Papers end with a discussion of how well the observations fit the theory or theories. Like our everyday theories, scientific theories are “best guesses” as to how the world works. Science cannot give us an absolute and complete theory of the universe. Scientifically tested theories are “best guesses” because they require precision in theory and observations that goes beyond the individual. The methods of science require your theory and observations be held accountable and open to scrutiny by others.