sci321 prologue
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/11/2019 SCI321 Prologue
1/12
Science is the product of human curiosity about
how the world worksan organized body of
knowledge that describes the order within nature
and the causes of that order.Science is an ongoing
human activity that represents the collective
efforts, findings, and wisdom of the human race,
an activity that is dedicated to gathering knowl-
edge about the world and organizing and con-
densing it into testable laws and theories. In our
study of science,we are learning about the rules of
naturehow one thing is connected to another
and how patterns underlie all we see in our sur-
roundings. Any activity, whether a sports game,
computer game, or the game of life, is meaningful
only if we understand its rules. Learning aboutnatures rules is relevant with a capital R!
The beginnings of science go back before
recorded history, when people first discovered
repeating patterns in nature. They noted star
patterns in the night sky, patterns in the weather,
and patterns in animal migration. From these
the nature
of sci ence
prologue
A BRIEF H ISTORY OF ADVANCES IN SCIENCE
MATHEMATICS AND CONCEPTUALP HYSICAL SCIENCE
SCIENTIF IC METHODS
THE SCIENTIF IC ATTITUDE
SCIENCE HAS LIMITATIONS
S C I E N CE , A R T, A N D R E LI G I O N
TECHNOLOGYTHE P RACTICAL USE OF SCIENCE
THE P HYSICAL SCIENCES: P HYSICS, CHEMISTRY,EARTH SCIENCE, AND ASTRONOMY
IN P ERSP ECTIVE
2008934301
Conceptual Physical Science, Fourth Edition, by Paul G. Hewitt, John Suchocki, and Leslie A. Hewitt. Published by Addison-Wesley.Copyright 2008 by Pearson Education, Inc.
-
8/11/2019 SCI321 Prologue
2/12
2 PROLOGUE THE NATURE OF SCIENCE
patterns,people learned to make predictions that gave them
some control over their surroundings. Science is based on rational
thinking about the physical world.
A Brief History of Advances in Science
Science made great headway in Greece in the 4th and 3rd centuries BC andspread throughout the Mediterranean world. Scientific advance came to anear halt in Europe when the Roman Empire fell in the 5th centuryAD. Barbar-ian hordes destroyed almost everything in their paths as they overran Europe.Reason gave way to religion, which ushered in what came to be known as theDark Ages. During this time, the Chinese and Polynesians were charting the starsand the planets. Before the advent of Islam, Arab nations developed mathematicsand learned about the production of glass, paper, metals, and various chemicals.Greek science was reintroduced to Europe by Islamic influences that penetratedinto Spain during the 10th, 11th, and 12th centuries. Universities emerged inEurope in the 13th century, and the introduction of gunpowder changed thesocial and political structure of Europe in the 14th century. The 15th century sawart and science beautifully blended by Leonardo da Vinci. Scientific thought wasfurthered in the 16th century with the advent of the printing press.
The 16th-century Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus caused great con-troversy when he published a book proposing that the Sun is stationary and thatEarth revolves around the Sun. These ideas conflicted with the popular viewthat Earth was the center of the universe. They also conflicted with Churchteachings and were banned for 200 years. The Italian physicist Galileo Galileiwas arrested for popularizing the Copernican theory and for his other contribu-tions to scientific thought. Yet a century later, those who advocated Copernicanideas were accepted.
These cycles occur age after age. In the early 1800s, geologists met with vio-lent condemnation because they differed with the account of creation in thebook of Genesis. Later in the same century, geology was accepted, but theoriesof evolution were condemned and the teaching of them was forbidden. Everyage has its groups of intellectual rebels who are scoffed at, condemned, andsometimes even persecuted at the time but who later seem beneficial and oftenessential to the elevation of human conditions. At every crossway on the roadthat leads to the future, each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand menappointed to guard the past.*
Mathematics and Conceptual Physical Science
Science and human conditions advanced dramatically after science andmathematics became integrated some four centuries ago. When the ideasof science are expressed in mathematical terms, they are unambiguous. Theequations of science provide compact expressions of relationships between con-cepts. They dont have the multiple meanings that so often confuse the discus-sion of ideas expressed in common language. When findings in nature areexpressed mathematically, they are easier to verify or to disprove by experiment.
Science is a way of knowing aboutthe world and making sense of it.
* From Count Maurice Maeterlincks Our Social Duty.
Scientists have a deep-seated needto know Why? and What if?.
Mathematics is foremost in theirtoolkits for tackling these questions.
In pre-Copernican times theSun and Moon were viewedas planets.Their planetary statuswas removed when Copernicussubstituted the Sun for Earthscentral position. Only thenwas Earth regarded as a planetamong others. More than200
years later, in1781
, telescopeobservers added Uranus to thelist of planets. Neptune wasadded in 1846. Pluto was addedin 1930and removed in 2006.
Conceptual Physical Science, Fourth Edition, by Paul G. Hewitt, John Suchocki, and Leslie A. Hewitt. Published by Addison-Wesley.Copyright 2008 by Pearson Education, Inc.
-
8/11/2019 SCI321 Prologue
3/12
PROLOGUE THE NATURE OF SCIENCE 3
The mathematical structure of physics is evident in the many equations you willencounter throughout this book. The equations are guides to thinking thatshow the connections between concepts in nature. The methods of mathematicsand experimentation led to enormous success in science.*
Scientific Methods
There is no onescientific method. But there are common features in the wayscientists do their work. Although no cookbook description of thescientific method is really adequate, some or all of the following steps are likelyto be found in the way most scientists carry out their work.
1. Observe. Closely observe the physical world around you. Recognize a ques-tion or a puzzlesuch as an unexplained observation.
2. Question. Make an educated guessa hypothesisto answer the question.
3. Predict. Predict consequences that can be observed if the hypothesis is
correct. The consequences should be absentif the hypothesis is not correct.4. Test predictions. Do experiments to see if the consequences you predicted
are present.
5. Draw a conclusion. Formulate the simplest general rule that organizes thehypothesis, predicted effects, and experimental findings.
Although these steps are appealing, much progress in science has come fromtrial and error, experimentation without hypotheses, or just plain accidental dis-covery by a well-prepared mind. The success of science rests more on an attitudecommon to scientists than on a particular method. This attitude is one ofinquiry, experimentation, and humilitythat is, a willingness to admit error.
The Scientific Attitude
It is common to think of a fact as something that is unchanging and absolute.But in science, a factis generally a close agreement by competent observerswho make a series of observations about the same phenomenon. For example,although it was once a fact that the universe is unchanging and permanent, todayit is a fact that the universe is expanding and evolving. A scientific hypothesis, onthe other hand, is an educated guess that is only presumed to be factual until sup-ported by experiment. When a hypothesis has been tested over and over againand has not been contradicted, it may become known as a laworprinciple.
If a scientist finds evidence that contradicts a hypothesis, law, or principle, thescientific spirit requires that the hypothesis be changed or abandoned (unless thecontradicting evidence, upon testing, turns out to be wrongwhich sometimeshappens). For example, the greatly respected Greek philosopher Aristotle(384322 BC) claimed that an object falls at a speed proportional to its weight.This idea was held to be true for nearly 2000 years because of Aristotles com-pelling authority. Galileo allegedly showed the falseness of Aristotles claim with
* We distinguish between the mathematical structure of science and the practice of mathematicalproblem solvingthe focus of most nonconceptual courses. Note that there are fewer mathematicalproblems than exercises at the ends of the chapters in this book. The focus is on comprehensionbefore computation.
Science is a way to teach how some-thing gets to be known, what is notknown, to what extent things are
known (for nothing is knownabsolutely),how to handle doubtand uncertainty, what the rules of
evidence are, how to think aboutthings so that judgments can be
made, and how to distinguish truthfrom fraud and from show.
Richard Feynman
2008934301
Conceptual Physical Science, Fourth Edition, by Paul G. Hewitt, John Suchocki, and Leslie A. Hewitt. Published by Addison-Wesley.Copyright 2008 by Pearson Education, Inc.
-
8/11/2019 SCI321 Prologue
4/12
one experimentdemonstrating that heavy and light objects dropped from theLeaning Tower of Pisa fell at nearly equal speeds. In the scientific spirit, a singleverifiable experiment to the contrary outweighs any authority, regardless of rep-utation or the number of followers or advocates. In modern science, argumentby appeal to authority has little value.*
Scientists must accept their experimental findings even when they would like
them to be different. They must strive to distinguish between what they see andwhat they wish to see, for scientists, like most people, have a vast capacity forfooling themselves.** People have always tended to adopt general rules, beliefs,creeds, ideas, and hypotheses without thoroughly questioning their validity andto retain them long after they have been shown to be meaningless, false, or atleast questionable. The most widespread assumptions are often the least ques-tioned. Most often, when an idea is adopted, particular attention is given tocases that seem to support it, while cases that seem to refute it are distorted,belittled, or ignored.
Scientists use the word theoryin a way that differs from its usage in everydayspeech. In everyday speech, a theory is no different from a hypothesisa sup-position that has not been verified. A scientific theory, on the other hand, is a
synthesis of a large body of information that encompasses well-tested andverified hypotheses about certain aspects of the natural world. Physicists, forexample, speak of the quark theory of the atomic nucleus, chemists speak of thetheory of metallic bonding in metals, and biologists speak of the cell theory.
The theories of science are not fixed; rather, they undergo change. Scientifictheories evolve as they go through stages of redefinition and refinement. Duringthe past hundred years, for example, the theory of the atom has been repeatedlyrefined as new evidence on atomic behavior has been gathered. Similarly,chemists have refined their view of the way molecules bond together, and biolo-gists have refined the cell theory. The refinement of theories is a strength ofscience, not a weakness. Many people feel that it is a sign of weakness to changetheir minds. Competent scientists must be experts at changing their minds. Theychange their minds, however, only when confronted with solid experimental evi-dence or when a conceptually simpler hypothesis forces them to a new point ofview. More important than defending beliefs is improving them. Better hypothe-ses are made by those who are honest in the face of experimental evidence.
Away from their profession, scientists are inherently no more honest or ethi-cal than most other people. But in their profession, they work in an arena thatplaces a high premium on honesty. The cardinal rule in science is that allhypotheses must be testablethey must be susceptible, at least in principle, tobeing shown to be wrong. Speculations that cannot be tested are regarded asunscientific. This has the long-run effect of compelling honestyfindingswidely publicized among fellow scientists are generally subjected to further test-ing. Sooner or later, mistakes (and deception) are found out; wishful thinking isexposed. A discredited scientist does not get a second chance in the communityof scientists. The penalty for fraud is professional excommunication. Honesty,so important to the progress of science, thus becomes a matter of self-interest toscientists. There is relatively little bluffing in a game in which all bets are called.In fields of study where right and wrong are not so easily established, the pres-sure to be honest is considerably less.
4 PROLOGUE THE NATURE OF SCIENCE
* But appeal to beautyhas value in science. More than one experimental result in modern times hascontradicted a lovely theory that, upon further investigation, proved to be wrong. This has bolsteredscientists faith that the ultimately correct description of nature involves conciseness of expressionand economy of conceptsa combination that deserves to be called beautiful.** In your education it is not enough to be aware that other people may try to fool you; it is moreimportant to be aware of your own tendency to fool yourself.
Before a theory is accepted, it mustbe tested by experiment and make
one or more new predictionsdifferent from those made by
previous theories.
Experiment, not philosophicaldiscussion, decides what is
correct in science.
Conceptual Physical Science, Fourth Edition, by Paul G. Hewitt, John Suchocki, and Leslie A. Hewitt. Published by Addison-Wesley.Copyright 2008 by Pearson Education, Inc.
-
8/11/2019 SCI321 Prologue
5/12
PROLOGUE THE NATURE OF SCIENCE 5
In science, it is more important to have a means of proving an idea wrongthan to have a means of proving it right. This is a major factor that distinguishesscience from nonscience. At first this may seem strange, for when we wonderabout most things, we concern ourselves with ways of finding out whether theyare true. Scientific hypotheses are different. In fact, if you want to distinguishwhether a hypothesis is scientific, look to see if there is a test for proving it
wrong. If there is no test for its possible wrongness, then the hypothesis is notscientific. Albert Einstein put it well when he stated, No number of experi-ments can prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
Consider the biologist Charles Darwins hypothesis that life forms evolvefrom simpler to more complex forms. This could be proven wrong if paleontol-ogists were to find that more complex forms of life appeared before their sim-pler counterparts. Einstein hypothesized that light is bent by gravity. This mightbe proven wrong if starlight that grazed the Sun and could be seen during a solareclipse were undeflected from its normal path. As it turns out, less complex lifeforms are found to precede their more complex counterparts and starlight isfound to bend as it passes close to the Sun, which support the claims. If andwhen a hypothesis or scientific claim is confirmed, it is regarded as useful and as
a stepping-stone to additional knowledge.Consider the hypothesis The alignment of planets in the sky determines thebest time for making decisions. Many people believe it, but this hypothesis isnot scientific. It cannot be proven wrong, nor can it be proven right. It is specu-lation. Likewise, the hypothesis Intelligent life exists on other planets some-where in the universe is not scientific. Although it can be proven correct by theverification of a single instance of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the uni-verse, there is no way to prove it wrong if no intelligent life is ever found. If wesearched the far reaches of the universe for eons and found no life, then thatwould not prove that it doesnt exist around the next corner. A hypothesis thatis capable of being proven right but not capable of being proven wrong is not ascientific hypothesis. Many such statements are quite reasonable and useful, butthey lie outside the domain of science.
C H E C KP O I N T
Which of these statements is a scientific hypothesis?(a) Atoms are the smallest particles of matter that exist.(b) Space is permeated with an essence that is undetectable.(c) Albert Einstein was the greatest physicist of the 20th century.
Was this your answer?
Only statement (a) is scientific,because there is a test for falseness.Thestatement not only is capable of being proven wrong,buthas beenproven wrong.Statement (b) has no test for possible wrongness and is
therefore unscientific. Likewise for any principle or concept for whichthere is no means, procedure,or test whereby it can be shown to bewrong (if it is wrong).Some pseudoscientists and other pretenders ofknowledge will not even consider a test for the possible wrongness oftheir statements. Statement (c) is an assertion that has no test for possi-ble wrongness.If Einstein was not the greatest physicist,how could weknow? Note that because the name Einstein is generally held in highesteem, it is a favorite of pseudoscientists. So we should not be surprisedthat the name of Einstein,like that of Jesus or of any other highlyrespected person, is cited often by charlatans who wish to bring respectto themselves and their points of view. In all fields,it is prudent to beskeptical of those who wish to credit themselves by calling upon theauthority of others.
The essence of science is expressedin two questions:How would we
know? What evidence would provethis idea wrong? Assertions withoutevidence are unscientific and can be
dismissed without evidence.
We each need a knowledge filtertotell the difference between what istrue and what only pretends to be
true.The best knowledge filter everinvented for explaining the physical
world is science.2008934301
Conceptual Physical Science, Fourth Edition, by Paul G. Hewitt, John Suchocki, and Leslie A. Hewitt. Published by Addison-Wesley.Copyright 2008 by Pearson Education, Inc.
-
8/11/2019 SCI321 Prologue
6/12
Science Has Limitations
Science deals only with hypotheses that are testable. Its domain is thereforerestricted to the observable natural world. Although scientific methods canbe used to debunk various paranormal claims, they have no way of accounting
for testimonies involving the supernatural. The term supernaturalliterally meansabove nature. Science works within nature, not above it. Likewise, science isunable to answer philosophical questions, such as What is the purpose of life?or religious questions, such as What is the nature of the human spirit? Thoughthese questions are valid and may have great importance to us, they rely onsubjective personal experience and do not lead to testable hypotheses. They lieoutside the realm of science.
6 PROLOGUE THE NATURE OF SCIENCE
Science and Society
Pseudoscience
For a claim to qualify as scientific, itmust meet certain standards. Forexample,the claim must be repro-
ducible by others who have no stake in
whether the claim is true or false.The
data and subsequent interpretations
are open to scrutiny in a social environ-
ment where its okay to have made an
honest mistake, but not okay to have
been dishonest or deceiving.Claims
that are presented as scientific but do
not meet these standards are what we
call pseudoscience, which literally
means fake science.In the realm of
pseudoscience,skepticism and tests
for possible wrongness are down-
played or flatly ignored.
Examples of pseudoscience abound.
Astrology is an ancient belief system
that supposes that a persons future is
determined by the positions and move-
ments of planets and other celestialbodies. Astrology mimics science in
that astrological predictions are based
on careful astronomical observations.
Yet astrology is not a science because
there is no validity to the claim that
the positions of celestial objects influ-
ence the events of a persons life.After
all, the gravitational force exerted by
celestial bodies on a person is smaller
than the gravitational force exerted by
objects making up the earthly environ-
ment: trees,chairs, other people, bars
of soap, and so on. Further, the predic-
tions of astrology are not borne out;
there just is no evidence that astrology
works.
For more examples of pseudo-
science, turn on the television.You can
find advertisements for a plethora of
pseudoscientific products. Watch out
for remedies to ailments such as
baldness,obesity, and cancer; for
air-purifying mechanisms;and for
germ-fightingcleaning products in
particular. Although many such prod-
ucts operate on solid science, others
are pure pseudoscience.Buyer beware!
Humans are very good at denial,
which may explain why pseudoscience
is such a thriving enterprise.Many
pseudoscientists do not recognize their
efforts as pseudoscience. A practitioner
of absent healing,for example, may
truly believe in her ability to cure peo-
ple she will never meet except throughe-mail and credit card exchanges.
She may even find anecdotal evi-
dence to support her contentions.The
placebo effect, discussed in Section8.2,
can mask the ineffectiveness of various
healing modalities. In terms of the
human body,what people believe will
happen often can happen because of
the physical connection between the
mind and body.
That said,consider the enormous
downside of pseudoscientific practices.
Today more than 20,000astrologers are
practicing in the United States. Do peo-
ple listen to these astrologers just for
the fun of it? Or do they base important
decisions on astrology? You might lose
money by listening to pseudoscientific
entrepreneurs;worse, you could
become ill. Delusional thinking,in gen-
eral,carries risk.
Meanwhile,the results of science
literacy tests given to the general pub-
lic show that most Americans lack a
basic understanding of basic concepts
of science.Some 63% of American
adults are unaware that the mass
extinction of the dinosaurs occurred
long before the first human evolved;
75% do not know that antibiotics kill
bacteria but not viruses;57% do not
know that electrons are smaller than
atoms.What we find is a rifta grow-
ing dividebetween those who have a
realistic sense of the capabilities of sci-ence and those who do not understand
the nature of science, its core concepts,
or, worse, feel that scientific knowledge
is too complex for them to understand.
Science is a powerful method for
understanding the physical world, and
a whole lot more reliable than pseudo-
science as a means for bettering the
human condition.
Conceptual Physical Science, Fourth Edition, by Paul G. Hewitt, John Suchocki, and Leslie A. Hewitt. Published by Addison-Wesley.Copyright 2008 by Pearson Education, Inc.
-
8/11/2019 SCI321 Prologue
7/12
PROLOGUE THE NATURE OF SCIENCE 7
Science, Art, and Religion
The search for a deeper understanding of the world around us has takendifferent forms, including science, art, and religion. Science is a systemby which we discover and record physical phenomena and think about pos-
sible explanations for such phenomena. The arts are concerned with personalinterpretation and creative expression. Religion addresses the source, purpose,and meaning of it all. Simply put, science asks how, art asks who, and religionasks why.
Science and the arts have certain things in common. In the art of literature,we find out about what is possible in human experience. We can learn aboutemotions such as rage and love, even if we havent yet experienced them. Thearts describe these experiences and suggest what may be possible for us. Simi-larly, a knowledge of science tells us what is possible in nature. Scientific knowl-edge helps us predict possibilities in nature even before we experience them. Itprovides us with a way of connecting things, of seeing relationships between andamong them, and of making sense of the great variety of natural events around
us. While art broadens our understanding of ourselves, science broadens ourunderstanding of our environment.Science and religion have similarities also. For example, both are motivated
by curiosity for the natural. Both have great impact on society. Science, forexample, leads to useful technological innovations, while religion provides afoothold for many social services. Science and religion, however, are basicallydifferent. Science is concerned with understanding the physical universe, whilereligion is concerned with spiritual matters, such as belief and faith. While sci-entific truth is a matter of public scrutiny, religion is a deeply personal matter.In these respects, science and religion are as different as apples and oranges anddo not contradict each other. Science, art, and religion can work very welltogether, which is why we should never feel forced into choosing one over the
other.That science and religion can work very well together deserves special empha-sis. When we study the nature of light later in this book, we treat light first as awave and then as a particle. At first, waves and particles may appear contradic-tory. You might believe that light can be only one or the other, and that youmust choose between them. What scientists have discovered, however, is thatlight waves and light particles complementeach other, and that when these twoideas are taken together, they provide a deeper understanding of light. In a sim-ilar way, it is mainly people who are either uninformed or misinformed aboutthe deeper natures of both science and religion who feel that they must choosebetween believing in religion and believing in science. Unless one has a shallowunderstanding of either or both, there is no contradiction in being religious in
ones belief system and being scientific in ones understanding of the naturalworld.*Many people are troubled about not knowing the answers to religious and
philosophical questions. Some avoid uncertainty by uncritically acceptingalmost any comforting answer. An important message in science, however, isthat uncertainty is acceptable. For example, in Chapter 15 youll learn that it isnot possible to know with certainty both the momentum and position of anelectron in an atom. The more you know about one, the less you can know
Art is about cosmic beauty. Scienceis about cosmic order. Religion is
about cosmic purpose.
* Of course, this does not apply to certain religious extremists who steadfastly assert that one cannotembrace both science and their brand of religion.
2008934301
Conceptual Physical Science, Fourth Edition, by Paul G. Hewitt, John Suchocki, and Leslie A. Hewitt. Published by Addison-Wesley.Copyright 2008 by Pearson Education, Inc.
-
8/11/2019 SCI321 Prologue
8/12
about the other. Uncertainty is a part of the scientific process. Its okay not toknow the answers to fundamental questions. Why are apples gravitationallyattracted to Earth? Why do electrons repel one another? Why do magnets inter-act with other magnets? Why does energy have mass? At the deepest level, sci-entists dont know the answers to these questionsat least not yet. We know alot about where we are, but nothing really about whywe are. Its okay not to
know the answers to such religious questions. Given a choice between a closedmind with comforting answers and an open and exploring mind withoutanswers, most scientists choose the latter. Scientists in general are comfortablewith not knowing.
C H E C KP O I N T
Which of the following activities involves the utmost human expression ofpassion, talent, and intelligence? (a) painting and sculpture (b) literature(c) music (d) religion (e) science
Was this your answer?
All of them.In this book,we focus on science, which is an enchantinghuman activity shared by a wide variety of people. With present-day toolsand know-how, scientists are reaching further and finding out moreabout themselves and their environment than people in the past wereever able to do.The more you know about science, the more passionateyou feel toward your surroundings.There is science in everything you see,hear, smell, taste,and touch!
TechnologyThe Practical Use of Science
Science and technology are also different from each other. Science is con-cerned with gathering knowledge and organizing it. Technology lets
humans use that knowledge for practical purposes, and it provides the instru-ments scientists need to conduct their investigations.
Technology is a double-edged sword. It can be both helpful and harmful. Wehave the technology, for example, to extract fossil fuels from the ground andthen burn the fossil fuels to produce energy. Energy production from fossil fuelshas benefited society in countless ways. On the flip side, the burning of fossilfuels damages the environment. It is tempting to blame technology itself forsuch problems as pollution, resource depletion, and even overpopulation. Theseproblems, however, are not the fault of technology any more than a stabbing isthe fault of the knife. It is humans who use the technology, and humans who areresponsible for how it is used.
Remarkably, we already possess the technology to solve many environmentalproblems. The 21st century will likely see a switch from fossil fuels to moresustainable energy sources. We recycle waste products in new and better ways.In some parts of the world, progress is being made toward limiting humanpopulation growth, a serious threat that worsens almost every problem facedby humans today. Difficulty in solving todays problems results more fromsocial inertia than from failing technology. Technology is our tool. What we dowith this tool is up to us. The promise of technology is a cleaner and health-ier world. Wise applications of technology can improve conditions on planetEarth.
8 PROLOGUE THE NATURE OF SCIENCE
The belief that there is only onetruth and that oneself is in posses-
sion of it seems to me thedeepest root of all the evil that
is in the world.Max Born
Conceptual Physical Science, Fourth Edition, by Paul G. Hewitt, John Suchocki, and Leslie A. Hewitt. Published by Addison-Wesley.Copyright 2008 by Pearson Education, Inc.
-
8/11/2019 SCI321 Prologue
9/12
PROLOGUE THE NATURE OF SCIENCE 9
Risk Assessment
The numerous benefits of technologyare paired with risks. X-rays,forexample,continue to be used for med-ical diagnosis despite their potential
for causing cancer.But when the risks
of a technology are perceived to out-
weigh its benefits,it should be used
very sparingly or not at all.
Risk can vary for different groups.
Aspirin is useful for adults,but for
young children it can cause a poten-
tially lethal condition known as Reyes
syndrome. Dumping raw sewage into
the local river may pose little risk for a
town located upstream,but for towns
downstream the untreated sewageis a health hazard.Similarly, storing
radioactive wastes underground may
pose little risk for us today,but for
future generations the risks of such
storage are greater if there is leakage
into groundwater. Technologies involv-
ing different risks for different people,
as well as differing benefits,raise ques-
tions that are often hotly debated.
Which medications should be sold to
the general public over the counter
and how should they be labeled?
Should food be irradiated in order to
put an end to food poisoning,which
kills more than 5000Americans each
year? The risks to all members of soci-
ety need consideration when public
policies are decided.The risks of technology are not
always immediately apparent.No one
fully realized the dangers of combus-
tion products when petroleum was
selected as the fuel of choice for auto-
mobiles early in the last century. From
the hindsight of 20/20 vision, alcohols
from biomass would have been a supe-
rior choice environmentally,but they
were banned by the prohibition move-
ments of the day.
Because we are now more aware
of the environmental costs of fossil-fuel combustion, biomass fuels are
making a slow comeback. An aware-
ness of both the short-term risks and
the long-term risks of a technology
is crucial.
People seem to have a hard time
accepting the impossibility of zero risk.
Airplanes cannot be made perfectly
safe. Processed foods cannot be ren-
dered completely free of toxicity, for all
foods are toxic to some degree.You
cannot go to the beach without risking
skin cancer, no matter how much sun-
screen you apply. You cannot avoid
radioactivity, for its in the air you
breathe and the foods you eat,and it
has been that way since before
humans first walked on Earth.Even thecleanest rain contains radioactive
carbon-14, as do our bodies. Between
each heartbeat in each human body,
there have always been about 10,000
naturally occurring radioactive decays.
You might hide yourself in the hills, eat
the most natural foods,practice obses-
sive hygiene,and still die from cancer
caused by the radioactivity emanating
from your own body.The probability of
eventual death is 100%. Nobody is
exempt.
Science helps determine themost probable.As the tools of science
improve,then assessment of the most
probable gets closer to being on target.
Acceptance of risk,on the other hand,
is a societal issue.Placing zero risk as a
societal goal is not only impractical but
selfish. Any society striving toward a
policy of zero risk would consume
its present and future economic
resources. Isnt it more noble to accept
nonzero risk and to minimize risk as
much as possible within the limits of
practicality? A society that accepts no
risks receives no benefits.
The Physical Sciences: Physics,Chemistry,Earth Science, and Astronomy
Science is the present-day equivalent of what used to be called natural phi-losophy. Natural philosophy was the study of unanswered questions aboutnature. As the answers were found, they became part of what is now called sci-ence. The study of science today branches into the study of living things andnonliving things: the life sciences and the physical sciences. The life sciencesbranch into such areas as molecular biology, microbiology, and ecology. Thephysical sciencesbranch into such areas as physics, chemistry, the Earth sciences,and astronomy.
A few words of explanation about each of the major divisions of science:Physics is the study of such concepts as motion, force, energy, matter, heat, sound,light, and the components of atoms. Chemistry builds on physics by telling ushow matter is put together, how atoms combine to form molecules, and how themolecules combine to make the materials around us. Physics and chemistry,applied to Earth and its processes, make up Earth sciencegeology, meteorology,
2008934301
Conceptual Physical Science, Fourth Edition, by Paul G. Hewitt, John Suchocki, and Leslie A. Hewitt. Published by Addison-Wesley.Copyright 2008 by Pearson Education, Inc.
-
8/11/2019 SCI321 Prologue
10/12
and oceanography. When we apply physics, chemistry, and geology to other plan-ets and to the stars, we are speaking about astronomy. Biology is more complexthan physical science, for it involves matter that is alive. Underlying biology ischemistry, and underlying chemistry is physics. So physics is basic to both physi-cal science and life science. That is why we begin with physics, then follow withchemistry, then investigate Earth science and conclude with astronomy. All are
treated conceptually, with the twin goals of enjoyment and understanding.
In Perspective
Just as you cant enjoy a ball game, computer game, or party game until youknow its rules, so it is with nature. Because science helps us learn the rules ofnature, it also helps us appreciate nature. You may see beauty in a structure suchas the Golden Gate Bridge, but youll see more beauty in that structure when youunderstand how all the forces that act on it balance. Similarly, when you look atthe stars, your sense of their beauty is enhanced if you know how stars are bornfrom mere clouds of gas and dustwith a little help from the laws of physics, ofcourse. And how much richer it is, when you look at the myriad objects in yourenvironment, to know that they are all composed of atomsamazing, ancient,invisible systems of particles regulated by an eminently knowable set of laws.
If the complexity of science intimidates you, bear this in mind: All thebranches of science rest upon a relatively small number of basic rules. Learnthese underlying rules (physical laws), and you have a tool kit to bring to anyphenomenon you wish to understand.
Go to itwe live in a time of rapid and fascinating scientific discovery!
10 PROLOGUE THE NATURE OF SCIENCE
S U M M A R Y O F T E R M S
Science The collective findings of humans about nature, and aprocess of gathering and organizing knowledge aboutnature.
Scientific method Principles and procedures for the system-atic pursuit of knowledge involving recognition andformulation of a problem, collection of data throughobservation and experiment, and formulation and testingof hypotheses.
HypothesisAn educated guess; a reasonable explanation of anobservation or experimental result that is not fully acceptedas factual until tested over and over again by experiment.
FactA phenomenon about which competent observers whohave made a series of observations agree.
LawA general hypothesis or statement about the relationshipof natural quantities that has been tested over and overagain and has not been contradicted. Also known as aprinciple.
TheoryA synthesis of a large body of information thatencompasses well-tested and verified hypotheses aboutcertain aspects of the natural world.
Pseudoscience Fake science that pretends to be realscience.
R E V I E W Q U E S T I O N S
1. Briefly, what is science?
A Brief History of Advances in Science
2. Throughout the ages, what has been the general reactionto new ideas about established truths?
Mathematics and Conceptual Physical Science
3. What is the role of equations in this course?
Scientific Methods
4. Outline the steps of the classic scientific method.
Conceptual Physical Science, Fourth Edition, by Paul G. Hewitt, John Suchocki, and Leslie A. Hewitt. Published by Addison-Wesley.Copyright 2008 by Pearson Education, Inc.
-
8/11/2019 SCI321 Prologue
11/12
PROLOGUE THE NATURE OF SCIENCE 1
The Scientific Attitude
5. Distinguish between a scientific fact, a hypothesis, a law,and a theory.
6. In daily life, people are often praised for maintainingsome particular point of view, for the courage of theirconvictions. A change of mind is seen as a sign of
weakness. How is this different in science?7. What is the test for whether a hypothesis is scientific
or not?8. In daily life, we see many cases of people who are caught
misrepresenting things and who soon thereafter areexcused and accepted by their contemporaries. How isthis different in science?
Science Has Limitations
9. What is meant by the term supernatural?
Science, Art, and Religion
10. Why are students of the arts encouraged to learn
about science and science students encouraged tolearn about the arts?
11. Why do many people believe they must choose betweenscience and religion?
12. Psychological comfort is a benefit of having solid answersto religious questions. What benefit accompanies a posi-tion of not knowing the answers?
TechnologyThe Practical Use of Science
13. Clearly distinguish between science and technology.
The Physical Sciences:Physics,Chemistry, EarthScience, and Astronomy
14. Why is physics considered to be the basic science?
In Perspective
15. What is the importance to you in learning natures rules?
E X P L O R I N G F U R T H E R
Bodanis, David. A Biography of the WorldsMost Famous Equation. New York: Berkley PublishingGroup, 2002. This is an engaging book about the peopleof science.
Bryson, Bill.A Short History of Nearly Everything. NewYork: Broadway Books, 2003. Another engaging bookabout the people of science, and from time to time, theirzany antics.
E = mc2: Feynman, Richard P. Surely Youre Joking, Mr. Feynman.New York: Norton, 1986. This is such tasty reading that I(PGH) allowed myself only one chapter per reading!
Gleick, James. GeniusThe Life and Science of RichardFeynman. New York: Pantheon Books, 1992. More indepth about perhaps the most colorful physicist of the20th century.
E X E R C I S E S
1. Which of the following are scientific hypotheses?(a) Chlorophyll makes grass green. (b) Earth rotates aboutits axis because living things need an alternation of lightand darkness. (c) Tides are caused by the Moon.
2. In answer to the question, When a plant grows, wheredoes the material come from?, Aristotle hypothesized by
logic that all material came from the soil. Do you con-sider his hypothesis correct, incorrect, or partially correct?What experiments do you propose to support yourchoice?
3. The great philosopher and mathematician BertrandRussell (18721970) wrote about ideas in the early partof his life that he rejected in the latter part of his life. Doyou see this as a sign of weakness or as a sign of strength
in Bertrand Russell? (Do you speculate that your presentideas about the world around you will change as you learnand experience more, or do you speculate that furtherknowledge and experience will solidify your presentunderstanding?)
4. Bertrand Russell wrote, I think we must retain the belief
that scientific knowledge is one of the glories of man.I will not maintain that knowledge can never do harm.I think such general propositions can almost always berefuted by well-chosen examples. What I will maintainand maintain vigorouslyis that knowledge is very muchmore often useful than harmful and that fear of knowl-edge is very much more often harmful than useful.Think of examples to support this statement.
2008934301
Conceptual Physical Science, Fourth Edition, by Paul G. Hewitt, John Suchocki, and Leslie A. Hewitt. Published by Addison-Wesley.Copyright 2008 by Pearson Education, Inc.
-
8/11/2019 SCI321 Prologue
12/12