PresentationPDF Available

Science and the Search for Truth: Scientific Method

Authors:
  • PlanaltoResearch

Abstract and Figures

The Scientific Method is a fundamental tool in exploring the limits of knowledge and life. However, its understanding is often beset by misconceptions, leading to errors in advanced research and even day-to-day decisions. For example, it is a common mistake to think of a hypothesis as a guess or a prediction, or to assume that a hypothesis must include cause and effect. Another common error is to think that in science a YES means “true” and a NO means “false.” With the growing importance of science and scientific arguments in today’s society, it is critical to avoid these and other pitfalls, (such as nocebo effects in biology) in order to more effectively apply and contrast scientific principles in career and life.
No caption available
… 
Content may be subject to copyright.
Neuroscience:
fMRI Showing Neuronal Activity
(c) Gerck Research
One problem: the
fish was long
dead.
Why?
an fMRI
experiment can
be analyzed in
nearly 7000
ways and the
results could
vary widely.
Ed Gerck, Ph.D.
UCSanDiego|Extension|OSHER
Winter 2017 Program
January 19, 2017
Science and the Search for Truth:
The Scientific Method
Ed Gerck
ed@gerck.com
Ph.D., Physics
Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet, Muenchen
© Gerck Research, 2013-17
+The Brownian Motion Experiment
Science is unitary (one thing)
(c) Gerck Research
Biology Physics
Chemistry Mathematics
1827 Biology observation:
Brownian motion
80 years later: Physics (Einstein)
explained it.
It was fundamental to all
Science: existence of molecules
(DNA), atoms and particles.
Scientists
Open questions from Biology:
Life
Origin of Life (OoL)
Mind
Consciousness
Why Biology?
There is a big problem:
“It can be proven that most claimed research
findings [in Biology, Neuroscience, Genetics
and Biomedicine] are false.
Ioannidis, John P. A. “Why Most Published Research Findings
Are False.PLoS Medicine 2.8 (2005): e124. PMC.
US National Institutes Of Health (NIH): Hard to
reproduce at least 3/4 of published biomedical
findings.
(c) Gerck Research
The Devil
Prof. Ioannidis (Stanford)
Powerful new experimental methods and techniques
Becoming less authority-based, more evidence-based
More dialogue between theory and experiment
Going from ‘soft science’ to ‘hard science’ in Biology,
Neuroscience, Genetics, Biomedicine, etc.
What people think…
(c) Gerck Research
Science knows how people are likely to think.
1. Can history change?
Yes. New facts, new connections, new theories, …
2. What is a fact?
Something that you are willing to believe. A fact is a bias.
Google knows what people are likely to think before they
think it. Bias (aka prejudice) is a pre-set reaction.
3. What is the value of 00 (zero to the power of zero)?
In US middle- and high school: undefined. In the university: 1
4. What do all living things need?
In middle- and high school: water. However, a tardigrade can live
even in space. How about Mars? What does it mean to be alive?
Brownian Motion (1827)
Robert Brown: botanist, microscope pioneer
(c) Gerck Research
Brown’s experiment:
Pollen grains in water
Brown observed:
Flow, jittery movement
From observation:
Fact: The pollen particles
move independently,
they are alive.
What does it mean
to be alive?
Where most people think we live
(c) Gerck Research
La Jolla
Where few people think we live
(c) Gerck Research
How did we find this out?
© Gerck Research
How could you find this out?
(a) Ask me
(b) Survey
(c) Observation
(d) Guessing
(e) Making an educated guess
(f) Asking someone else
(g) Looking it up
(h) Critical thinking
(i) It is something else…
How did Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Tesla, Leibniz,
Newton, Einstein, and Feynman find this out?
How Science Works…
Your first jump will last 37 seconds. You are a Ph.D.
student in a 1964 lecture by Prof. Feynman.
Your second jump will last 13 seconds, to 1981.
Feynman gives you a missing clue for the ‘64 lecture.
In 1965, Feynman received the Physics Nobel Prize
for advances in quantum mechanics.
© Gerck Research
Quantum Jumps Ahead!
(c) Gerck Research
1st Jump: For 37 seconds you are a Ph.D. student in a …
1964 lecture by Prof. Feynman
OK, lets try …
AND the blind man
says …
I GUESS That
Is a SNAKE!
It did not work… let’s guess again… and again… that goes slowly…
Guessing can also create serious snakes… I mean mistakes!
So, what is Feynman talking about?
© Gerck Research
I’ll make a guess now…
Feynman explained the Scientific Method as follows:
Guess it Compute Consequences Compare with Experiments (Nature)
What’s in that Guess?
… the question that started the research
… beauty
… simplicity
… not arbitrary
… very determined forms
… from scientific principles
... a testable relationship
This is not a guess!
Frame
What is Feynman talking about?
© Gerck Research
That “Guess” includes a Question, a Frame, and a Hypothesis.
17 years later: play the missing clue
Can you think of
other Frames?
What’s this?
Testable Relationship
Must be testable and not only by you (repeatable).
Tests can be done by reason and/or evidence.
NO need to include why (cause-effect), how (mechanism), or equation.
Works with BIG DATA (patterns, correlation).
Examples: The sky is often blue at noon.
Testable: yes
Relationship: sky, color, time, correlation
An electric current creates a magnetic field.
Testable: yes
Relationship: electric current, magnetic field, cause-effect
One is a positive number.
Testable: ? Relationship: ?
(c) Gerck Research
Scientific Hypothesis: (hypothesis)
a testable relationship
How Science Works
“Its very easy to have a good hypothesis. With some
training you can have ten for breakfast!”
Well, it’s actually not so easy but …suppose you have one.
You test your hypothesis through the Scientific Method.
You now have a result…
Your hypothesis either… worked… or not.
This may surprise you… how Science works, either result
is useful! There are no “good” or “bad” guys.
(c) Gerck Research Let’s see …
The Scientific Method
© Gerck Research
Hypothesis: a testable relationship, including null (no relationship).
Step 7
+
warp
8. Choose reality mode:
S = Subjective
I = Intersubjective
O = Objective
A = Abstract
1. State the
question and
frame.
2. Formulate a
fitting hypothesis.
3. Determine the
consequences.
4. Test: compare
with experiments.
5. Interpret results.
6. Goal: prove the
hypothesis.
=====
No single description, but
same method.
7. What if I am wrong?
A
O
I
S
I
The Scientific Hypothesis
Where does a new hypothesis come from?
Dreams (Prof. Kekulé, benzene structure), new questions, new
observations and, often, the unexpected.
What is a scientific hypothesis?
A testable relationship.
Example: An electric current creates a magnetic field.
MUST be able to determine the consequences.
NO need to include why, how, or equations.
AVOID using only a guess (why?) or “educated guess” (why?).
What can I use to test (experiment) a scientific hypothesis?
Reason and evidence. The null case (there is no relationship)
must also be considered.
In summary…
…What if I am wrong?
April/2014 © Gerck Research
In Science, a NO is an answer. NO = “not this way”
Think of the discovery of Penicillin… a beautiful
failure! Test and, rather than discard, recycle the
work of each other.
We used Feynman’s work today and he helped us a
lot, also when he blundered.
…What if I am right?
standing on the
shoulders
of giants…
We can see further by
…What if I am right?
(c) Gerck Research
Not such a big deal. Why not?
In Science, a YES is an answer but is not
Truth.
Because of the success of Science, people
think that Science is about proving Truth.
It is not.
What is a YES then?
YES = NYF (not yet false)
In Science, a YES is understood as “not yet false”. And a NO is
“not a YES”.
This is called refutability. A YES or NO result may no longer fit the
class of other results, or may be seen as incomplete or invalid.
Refutability in Physics (experimental Science):
A single experiment can prove me wrong”. Albert Einstein
Refutability in Mathematics (formal Science):
1 used to be a prime number; 2 was not always a prime.
‘1+1=2’ is an invalid mathematical expression for a C compiler.
'=' is now known to have at least five different definitions!
NYF means that it may one day be considered false…
… and this is How Science Works...
(c) Gerck Research
How some people see Science…
© Gerck Research
.
Bad guys
new
rule
break
This is how
it works!
No, it’s not!
The “good guys” find out how things work
and the “bad guys” break it…
How other people see Science…
© Gerck Research
The “bad guys” make mistakes in finding out how
things work and the “good guys” fix them…
.
Good guys
new
rule
break
This is how
it works!
No, it’s not!
How Science Works
© Gerck Research
Science is a way of thinking!
1. Use the Scientific Method to find or break rules
2. Accept rule as “not yet false” instead of “true”
3. Keep asking… keep testing…
.
- Runs on Hypothesis
not on observation alone
(Newton’s mistake)
- Running > 2,300 years!
- Keeps Evolving
- Open and Fair
- Self-Correcting
- Full Recycling
-Open-ended …
(testable relationship)
true
Scientific Method correct mistakes
accept
rule
break
Hypothesis
false
not yet false
Brownian Motion (1827)
Robert Brown & The Scientific Method
(c) Gerck Research
Brown’s experiment:
Pollen grains in water
Brown observed:
Flow, jittery movement
In still water:
Pollen grains rupture and
release motile particles,
with jittery movement.
Brown’s 1st Hypothesis :
The pollen particles move
because they are alive.
Motility Life
What does it mean to be alive?
Brownian Motion
(c) Gerck Research
Brown checked it:
NULL Hypothesis Test
In still water:
Sand, sterile powders
Brown observed:
Motility, similar jittery
movement.
He concluded (1829):
The pollen particles were
NOT alive.
Brown did not provide a
theory to explain
the motion.
Solution (physics):
In 1905 by A. Einstein.
Verified by Perrin (1908).
Science is Interdisciplinary
(c) Gerck Research
The Brownian Motion Experiment:
From Botany to Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics,
Engineering, Economics, and Wall Street, with a Nobel
Prize.
Physics Nobel Prize 1926: Jean Perrin
Confirmed Einstein’s Brownian Motion theory of 1905,
evidencing theoretically and experimentally the existence
of the molecule.
Aeronautical Engineering:
Explains how airplanes can fly and the laws that govern
their motion (you can DIY this now)
Summary
(c) Gerck Research
Science is a good, fair, effective way to find Truth. A common
and costly error is to think that in science a YES means “true”
and a NO means “false.
With the growing importance of science and scientific
arguments in today’s society, it is critical to avoid this and
other pitfalls, in order to more effectively apply and contrast
scientific principles in career and life.
My next OSHER 2017 Lecture
(c) Gerck Research
February 16. The Big Idea in Physics and Science: The Absolute
The next lecture is about the “Big Idea” in Science, discussing the
key that may ultimately solve the irreproducibility crisis in the
biosciences, improving personal and public healthcare decisions.
This two-part UCSD/OSHER lecture series demonstrate s that it is time
for everyone researchers, students, citizen-scientists, and lifelong
learners to understand more deeply how science works in
exploring the limits of knowledge and life, including new foundations
for research and verification.
We saw new things…
(c) Gerck Research
cause
effect
guess
scientific
method
theory
law
BIG DATA
how science
works
frame
hypothesis
Universe
La Jolla
correlation
question
how?
why?
Copernicus
Galileo
Newton
Einstein
Feynman
More friends…
patterns
Brownian
motion
Go And Explore…
© Gerck Research
Ed Gerck
ed@gerck.com
Ph.D., Physics
Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet, Muenchen
... This is not a Wirklichkeit one sees, however. It is faced by all, hence it seems objective 4 [27,28]. It means 4 Classification as SUBJECTIVE: individual, one observer; IN-TERSUBJECTIVE: group agreement, two or more independent observers in agreement; OBJECTIVE: cannot be changed or set, many independent observers in agreement, and ABSTRACT: with no observers or entities, only relationships. ...
... Qualitative reasoning, although not part of physics explicitly, may be useful in the theoretical part, adding uncertainty of two quite different, albeit unknown, components: what is known to be ignored, and what is ignored and therefore is unknown to be ignored [28]. This will also help reduce bias. ...
... This will also help reduce bias. In this vision, science is not a collection of immutable facts, but evolving sets of what is not yet false ("true"), what is maybe false ("false"), and that which is simply unknown [28]. One can go into reported cases, such as in the medical literature of East and West, against the "arrow of time", by remembering the future, as in the cases of foreknowledge or déjà vu, if the evidence is accepted. ...
Preprint
A set of macro-world processes that "always win" in the limit, would not be possible at first sight in thermodynamics, but are shown here, using Shannon's Information Theory. This is also of importance to the issue of the arrow of time. It shows that the second law of thermodynamics can be circumvented, while the first law cannot. We suggest that Nature may superficially look chaotic but does seem to act in a non-random way, where we investigate physical reality as may be seen through diverse pathways linked to thermodynamic interpretations, including by Caratheodory. This sets a stage of two limiting cases, 'what is there to see' representing the Kantian concept of Natur, and 'what one seems to see' representing the Kantian Wirklichkeit, critically studying diverse interpretations of thermodynamics. The behavior of the dynamical laws, governing micro and leading to their macro, links Shannon's entropy H with thermodynamical entropy S. ( IN PRINT )
... Qualitative reasoning, although not part of physics explicitly, may be useful in adding uncertainty of two quite different, albeit unknown, components: what we know we ignore, and what we ignore we ignore [19]. This will also help reduce bias. ...
... In this vision, science is not a collection of immutable facts, but evolving sets of NOT YET FALSE ("true"), MAYBE FALSE ("false"), and WHO KNOWS? [19] Regarding biology, something (more) comes out of a lesser set, as a family of ten living farmers come out of their two parents -more life seems to come out of less, to multiply. There are more chickens, dogs and cats too. ...
... This is the Red case, the observer-independent reality. Current material limitations notwithstanding, this work finds no basic thermodynamic limitation in opposition to objectivity in science: there is an absolute rule of right versus wrong, and of mathematical ordering in-between, in physics [19,20] -right is what mostly works, and wrong is what mostly does not. Both, as shown here, can be used, objectively, to "always win," as closely as desired, even taking into account local rules, such as tax code differences on hedging vs. betting. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
We set a stage of two limiting cases, called Blue for external appearance, and Red for underlying reality, critically studying a popular interpretation of thermodynamics. We use the lenses of classical thermodynamics, statistical thermodynamics, information theory, game theory, mathematical finance, biology, psychology, and literature, trying to obtain a more diverse view. We report a set of macro-world processes (not quantum mechanical) that "always win'" in the limit, which would not be possible at first sight in thermodynamics, but is provable using Shannon's Information Theory. The behavior of their dynamical laws, governing micro and leading to their macro, links Shannon's entropy H with thermodynamical entropy S. We conclude, through various cases, that Nature may superficially look chaotic but does seem to not act in a random way.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.