“Science is what scientists do” may be true; but it is nevertheless useful to think about the method of science. Views on this question differ among the practicing scientists, the sociologists and historians of science and the philosophers. There are certain traits of Science however, on which these groups agree. These traits, one may try to identify.
To begin with; one may assert that science is useful knowledge about the material world. Islam agrees with this view about science. The gathering of useful knowledge is a complex activity and involves the following sub-activities:
i) Casual observations
ii) Systematic observations
iii) Controlled experiments
iv) Hypothesis formation
v) Creative thinking
vi) Evolution of concepts, theories and models
vii) Predictions
viii) Applications
ix) Verifications and falsification
These activities are usually mentioned when people discuss the method of science. These are associated with certain values which pertain to the practice of science. These values are objectivity, universality, predictability, coherence and systematization. Islamic world view recognizes these values as valid; because all of them reflect the harmony present in the universe.
The structure of scientific method:
A block diagram may be useful in representing the relation between the sub-activities mentioned in further paragraphs.
Observations, Casual and Systematic:
A chance observation may trigger a trend of thought. The story of Newton observing a falling apple is legendary. The familiar observation that the sky is blue in the day time while dark at night has given rise to a number of ideas in Physics and Astronomy. The solitary waves in oceans were a chance observation and later this observation led to unexpected theoretical developments. The role of chance observation is however limited to the initiation of a trend of thought or it may bring a question into sharp focus. Such an observation has to be followed by “systematic observations” and this involves the sub-activity of “hypothesis formation”.
In the present stage of science, phenomena to be investigated are not primitive. Hypothesis formation is therefore not a simple activity. The “systematic observations” need planning on the part of the investigator. This planning is done by forming a “hypothesis”. The hypothesis, by itself is, however, not enough. The “systematic observations” have to be based on the existing theoretical framework as well. A simple example will illustrate this. A casual observation may bring to the attention of a scientist, a particular material which seems to be heat resistant to a high degree. The scientist regards this characteristic of the material as a very useful one. He therefore plans to investigate the matter properly. He proposes the tentative hypothesis that the unusual characteristics are due to a particular molecular structure. This hypothesis suggests a series of “systematic observations” involving spectroscopic, chemical and optical techniques.
“systematic observations” are not determined by hypothesis alone. The role of existing theory is also important in carrying them out.
In carrying out the suggested systematic observations (i.e. the observations suggested by the hypothesis) the scientist will make use of the existing theoretical framework. The techniques of X-ray diffraction and spectroscopy among several others will use the accepted theories. The terminology will be the one suggested by the existing theory. Thus “systematic observations” are not determined by hypothesis alone. The role of existing theory is also important in carrying them out.
Controlled experiments:
Controlled experiments are closely related to “systematic observations”. They are characterized by the additional requirement that the investigator does not allow free play to the various variable conditions under which the observed phenomena takes place in nature. Rather, he tries to study one variable at a time.
For instance, let the investigator study the rate of a chemical reaction. At the stage of “hypothesis formation” the investigator may assume that the rate of chemical reaction depends on
i) the concentration of reactants
ii) the temperature of the environment
iii) the pressure on the reactants mixture etc.
A “controlled experiment” means for example that the investigator always starts the reaction with the same concentration of each particular reactant. He does not let any variable (except the temperature) vary during the experiment. This controlled experiment yields information about the dependence of the rate on temperature. This information would be subsequently coordinated with information obtained from other such experiments.
The technique of “controlled experiment” may not always be applied. The phenomenon may be one in which various variables affect one another in a complex way. The investigator may not be able to keep them at constant values. This is particularly true for biological phenomena. According to Islamic view, the scientific method of “controlled experiments” is not applicable to social phenomena.
Creative thinking and creation of concepts:
It can be asserted (and has been asserted) that the scientific concepts are “free creations of the human mind”. Observations, casual and systematic, motivate an investigator to think and may suggest the possible directions of thought but by themselves, they do not provide the “concepts” which the scientist employs. He/she has to “create” the concepts and this task requires highly imaginative thinking. One may examine such concepts as force, inertia, energy, work, and power which are suggested by observations but nevertheless require imagination on the scientist’s part. At a higher plane of abstraction, one may look at concepts like field, potential and entropy which are certainly not directly suggested by observations. At a still higher plane, one may think of concepts such as wave function and curvature of space time which are far remote from direct experience. Perhaps one can justifiably claim that they are creations of highly creative minds and in that respect resemble the creation of a poet or of an artist.
Are the scientific concepts arbitrary? No! The scientist has to invent concepts which make sense by themselves and may be integrated into a coherent system of concepts.
How does, then, the scientist invent his concepts? Where do they come from?
The answer to this pertinent question seems to be that concepts may come from anywhere. It has been suggested that the idea of independently moving indivisible particles (as in the kinetic theory) is naturally suggested to an investigator who belongs to the urbanized society, in which people are compelled to live as individuals and the influence of the community is diluted. The ring like structure of benzene was suggested by a dream in which a snake was seen chasing its tail.
Does this mean that concepts are arbitrary? No! The scientist has to invent concepts which make sense by themselves and may be integrated into a coherent system of concepts. This system of concepts should be able to give a systematic and “verifiable” account of the phenomena under investigation.
Islamic view requires that the concepts concluded by the human mind should not contradict any of the Quranic statements. A Muslim scientist will always regard this as an infallible rule.
Theories and models:
The term “theory” is used in many senses. All the various meanings of this word are not relevant to the structure of the scientific method. In the context of the method of science, the proper meaning of the term is a “system of concepts” relevant to a particular phenomenon which may be regarded as having “experimental support”. Theories may frequently be imagined to have a hierarchy; in which one theory is “contained” in another more encompassing one and the latter is contained in a still more comprehensive doctrine.
This hierarchy has been symbolically represented in the above figure .
Here T1 is the most comprehensive theory; T2 is a part of it and T3 is a part of the theory T2.
How does the investigator know that a given theory has “experimental support”? This question is crucial but at the same time; it does not seem easy to answer it. A theory may seem to be in agreement with experiments known so far and yet may turn out to be false, later on. History of science provides many instances of this. All claims for the validity of a theory are thus tentative. A student of science, with all humility, should always be aware of the fallibility of theories; however attractive they might be.
In addition to the requirement of “experimental support” a theory must “respect” the “hierarchy”, to become acceptable. This means that it should not be in conflict with the theories more comprehensive than itself.
A theory may seem to be in agreement with experiments known so far and yet may turn out to be false, later on. History of science provides many instances of this.
The term “model” is also used in a number of senses. In the context of a discussion of the scientific method, the term may mean a structure of concepts derived from a theory. In this situation, the “model” is a particular realization or representation of the theory. However, the term “model” may also be used in the situation, in which no theory exists, as yet. At that stage of investigation, the “model” is simply a “structure of concepts” which, in future, is expected to mature into a theory.
Predictions
A “structure of concepts”, whether at the level of a “theory” or at the level of a “model”, should be able to make unambiguous and verifiable predictions about the phenomena described by that particular theory or model. However, if a prediction made by a theory fails, the theory may still be retained
a) Either as an “approximate” theory or
b) As a theory which may be made acceptable by modifications or
c) As a theory which does not faithfully represent the phenomena, but nevertheless provides a “language” for describing it or
d) By assuming that the reports about failure of the theory are of poorly done experiments and by hoping that further experimental work may exonerate the theory.
If none of these alternatives are available, the theory may be rejected. The decision is, almost always, controversial and a theory may take a long time to completely die! Classical mechanics is an example of an “approximate” theory of type (a) above. It approximates the quantum theory and the theory of relativity. Before Kepler’s suggestion of planets moving in elliptical orbits, the planetary motions were described by using the device of “epicycles”. (A planet was assumed to move in a circle; the centre of which moved on yet another circle). Any conflict between the predictions and observations could then be removed by adding suitable epicycles. This is an example of situation (b) mentioned above.
A theory though not supported by experiment may still provide a suitable language for describing the phenomena. Theories of imperfect symmetry in particle physics are of this kind. (Type (c) above).
It is reported that when the characteristics of elements predicted by Mendeleev on the basis of his periodic classification of elements, did not agree with the data available; he refused to give up the theory
Finally a theory (type (d)) above may be retained in defiance of experimental reports which are in conflict with it and with further and more comprehensive experimental work, the theory may be validated. It is reported that when the characteristics of elements predicted by Mendeleev on the basis of his periodic classification of elements, did not agree with the data available; he refused to give up the theory, later experimental work provided more extensive data and the theory got experimental support, thus justifying the initial confidence placed in it by the founder.
Applications
An application of scientific theories and models is the most visible aspect of scientific activity. Applications provide the motivation to the resource providing agencies and a section of scientific investigators work with applications as their main objective. An important segment of the investigators (who are usually the more creative ones!) however regard the applications as secondary. For them, the joy of discovery and creation and the satisfaction of arriving at coherent conceptions of the universe are the prime motivations.
Islam insists that the applications of science need to be regulated by universal ethical values. The use of science should be for the betterment of human society and should not injure the environment. Sometimes the ethical requirements may be ambiguous but a consensus of the “producers” and “users” of science can always resolve such issues.
The remarks of the famous Islamic scholar S.A.A. Maudoodi in his book Towards Understanding Islam, 1932 are pertinent in this regard. He says:
“God has honoured man with authority over His countless creatures. Everything in the universe has been harnessed for man. Mankind has been endowed with the capacity to subdue them and make them serve its objectives. The superior position bestows authority on man; he enjoys the power to use things according to his inclination.
But this state of affairs does not mean that God has given man unlimited liberty. Islam says that all creation has certain rights; which must be recognized and honoured by man.
“What are these rights?
i) Man should not waste them on fruitless ventures.
ii) Man should not unnecessarily hurt them or harm them. When he uses them for his service, he should cause them the least possible harm. This implies that he ought to employ the best and the least injurious methods of using them.”
Featured Image Source: http://update.gci.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/scientific_method_wordle.jpg
