The SPLATS about science

What are SPLATs? They are explained here.

The nature of science

• All of the principles here are open to question. You may change your mind as you learn more, but they work as a basis to invent, make and explain things.

• Science works well because everything is open to question. There is no room in the principles of science for notions of dogma, heresy or political correctness.

• The secret of real science is that things have a cause, they just don't happen, and causes are limited by some neat laws about conservation of mass and energy.

• Energy does not appear out of nowhere, it has to exist and be transferred, and energy only travels in one direction: from high to low, never the other way.

• In some cases, energy may appear to flow the other way, as when a refrigerator gets cold, but that is because energy has been used to move other energy.

• Matter is made up of atoms that link together, and it normally takes an application of energy to change those linkages and rearrange the atoms a new way.

• In all sorts of chemistry, in test tubes, in industry, in rocks and in living things, the products always weigh the same as the original ingredients.

• Science depends on an acceptance of the causality principle, that there is a necessary and sufficient cause for everything. Science is about seeking causes.

• The only reliable knowledge comes when you test everything, but even then do not assume you know the complete story. Usually, the simplest explanation is best.

• If scientists find that a fact does not fit their favorite theories, and they are unable to disprove the fact, there is no choice: the theories have to go.

• Around 1330, William of Ockham proposed what we now call 'Ockham's razor', which basically says that given two explanations, the simpler one is a better one.

• Scientists reserve the right to reject any claim that is made which does not appear to be backed by evidence and an acceptable and rigorous scientific proof.

• The explanation of an observation that we accept today may be discarded in the future when we learn more, and realize that it is not consistent with the facts.

• Science is made up of a set of mutually consistent ideas, generalizations and principles. Changing any one will usually mean having to (at least) adjust others.

• The beauty of science is that what we learn in one branch of science may be applied in other branches: if the branches are inconsistent, something must change.

• You cannot just throw out ideas you don't like. To discard any idea in science, including these principles, you need evidence from a controlled experiment.

• The controlled experiment lies at the very center of the scientific method. To work, it must involve a knowledge of current theories and likely causes.

• If a controlled experiment is to work, it must either deliver results that can be measured in some reliable way, or it must deliver an unequivocal response.

• Because it is not always clear what evidence is most relevant, it is possible for scientists to disagree, for the time being. In the end, they usually agree.

• Around 320, Lactantius, the 'Christian Cicero', showed by rigorous logic that the Earth did not have antipodes. This was later used to prove the world was flat.

• In 1800 Georg Hegel wrote a dissertation to show that seven planets was a necessity of nature, a year before the first asteroid is discovered.

• As a general rule, proof by logical argument is not all that useful in science, since it is possible to start with false premises and reach wrong answers.

• While it is uncommon to prove the truth of something in science, it is possible to test certain assumptions by what is known today as a thought experiment.

• Thought experiments do not actually prove something to be right or wrong (though they may suggest it). They can sometimes point the way for further enquiries.

• Michael Faraday used lines of force to explain the effects of magnetic fields in a concrete way, and we continue to use the notion, but there are no such lines.

• One of the curious features of science is that so much of it is counter-intuitive, going against what we expect, based on what we can see, looking around us.

• To the unscientific eye, the Earth is flat, the Sun moves around the planet, things stop if they are not pushed, and evolution does not happen as we watch.

The scientific method

• The scientific method is central to scientific literacy, and nobody can claim honestly to be a scientist without using the scientific method in some form.

• One result of an experiment is that we may draw an inference about causes, but our results are only as good as the logic we apply in reaching the inference.

• People who engage in 'creation science' have chosen to avoid any involvement with or use of the scientific method, and cannot rightly be called scientists.

• Many charlatans claim to be scientific, because they think it makes them more believable. Some honest but very deluded people may also claim to be scientific.

• There is generally assumed to be a single scientific method, but in reality, every scientist has and applies a separate idea of what the scientific method is.

• Even though perceptions vary, the different versions of the scientific method all have certain things in common, and are different ways of doing the same thing.

• Any principle in science is based on things that can be measured. There are many things we can't measure, but until we can do so, we can't use them in science.

• In science, the aim is to make measurements that are accurate and precise enough to answer an interesting question. Perfect precision may not be necessary.

• As an example, it may not be possible to measure how long a patient will live, but if a dead patient has been revived, that may be taken as a sufficient result.

• Equally, it may not be possible to measure the exact force of an explosion, but if it destroys its target, that may be a sufficient measurement in itself.

• When something cannot be measured, it is still legitimate for scientists to speculate about it, so long as they recognize their thoughts as just speculation.

• As a general rule, every measurement is imprecise if you look sufficiently closely. The limitations of measuring instruments make certain of that.

• Speculation is a legitimate part of science, because it offers an excellent source of ideas for new ways to approach (or think about) an existing problem.

• When scientists speculate about things that cannot be measured, their major concern is generally to work out ways in which they might be measured in the future.

• It is the special preserve of the great scientist to see that the simple and intuitive model may be wrong, that the Earth may go around the Sun, not vice versa.

• The genius of the truly great scientist lies in asking simple questions that have answers which will, when considered carefully, change how the world thinks.

• When you are testing an idea, it is important to have complete control over the possible variables in the situation, so you can pinpoint the cause of change.

• An experiment needs controlled variables. Experiments often produce results that are less than perfect, so the results are often examined by statistical methods

• Controlled experiments allow us to distinguish between, and also to measure, the effects of different possible and actual causes of a particular phenomenon.

• Where human judgment or reaction is involved, double-blind testing is best. Trials of new medical treatments often use a placebo, administered double-blind.

• Where any sort of analysis is used to detect the presence of something, a blank test is a good idea, to see if some flaw is causing wrong positive indications.

• Any proper report about a set of experiments must contain enough details about the methods used to allow other scientists to repeat the experiments themselves.

• Experiments should be able to be replicated, done again with the same results. When a result is written up, it must give details of the methods and apparatus.

• Genuine science offers predictions that may be tested, so the starting point for discovery is usually a testable hypothesis and an attempt to test it properly.

• Scientific predictions and statements must be able to be proved false. In principle, no statement in science is true, it is just 'not shown to be false, yet'.

• In practice, most scientists will generally accept as proven any idea that can be used to predict what will happen under certain circumstances, for the present.

• Falsifiability must be possible if a statement is scientific. Most scientists accept this definition, but they are practical, and take rules of thumb as proven.

• One contradiction, one example breaking any principle, is all that is required to justify, at the very least, amending the principle, or maybe even dropping it.

• Science results must be published. Results which have not been shared either in public meetings, or in print, are not part of the body of science.

• Science is based on a consensus about publicly-shared principles, knowledge and methods. Science cannot exist in secret, or it is not really legitimate science.

• Science has no forbidden areas where scientists may not investigate, unless it would involve using unethical methods. Methods can be wrong, but never topics.

• Informal experiments can also be carried out, a form of trial and error that is less rigorous than statements about the scientific method may suggest.

• All matters are open to doubt and test, and scientists will go to any lengths, and do whatever it takes, to arrive at the truth about claims and suspicions.

• In 1626, Francis Bacon died after an experiment in which he stuffed a dead hen with snow, to see if the meat kept longer. He caught a cold in the process.

• In 1600, William Gilbert described how he tested experimentally the claims that onions and garlic have an effect on the operation of the lodestone, or magnet.

• The greatest victory for a scientist is to show that an existing model is wrong, and must be replaced by a new one. There is no greater achievement in science.

• Because the prospect of proving a model wrong is so attractive to ambitious scientists, false science has little chance of surviving for any length of time.

• Because the different parts of science are all consistent, if a false model is proposed, it will not survive, because conflict between models is unacceptable.

• Wilhelm Ostwald was able to function perfectly well as a chemist while refusing to believe that matter existed as atoms, as he could still make experiments.

• Without believing in atoms, Wilhelm Ostwald could still carry out chemical experiments, but he would have found problems explaining some of his observations.

Truth and fraud in science

• In 1791, Franz Joseph Gall published his theory that the brain consists of sections, founding the totally unscientific 'science' of phrenology or bump-reading.

• In 1819, Pierre-Louis Dulong and Alexis-Therese Petit published their fraudulent 'Dulong and Petit's Law' which was only unmasked as a fraud in 1985.

• The Piltdown Man was a fraud, created from a human skull and an ape jaw, cleverly worked to make them seem to belong together. The fraud would never work today.

• In 1953, Kenneth Oakley reported that the Piltdown skull was a fake, providing clear scientific evidence and pointing to a number of glaring discrepancies.

• In 1902, anarchist Peter Kropotkin found evolution unpalatable, and argued, in his 'Mutual Aid', that animals do not struggle for existence, but cooperate.

• Around 1838, it is likely that the US Exploring Expedition searched for Symmes' Hole in Antarctic waters. It had certainly been proposed that they do so.

• Symmes' Hole was a supposed entry point to access a supposedly hollow planet Earth. Symmes was an American who campaigned hard to have the hole found.

• It matters very little if enquiries are driven by speculation and fervent wishes, so long as the results are not tainted by the beliefs of the experimenter.

• In the 1980s, Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe claimed that Archaeopteryx was a fraud. This has not been supported by any evidence since that time.

• Even though there was no evidence for the Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe claims about Archaeopteryx, the claims are repeated by creation science supporters. 

 Serendipity in science

• There is nothing wrong with noticing an odd event and asking the question "why?" and there is nothing wrong with having a bit of luck. It happens all the time.

• Louis Pasteur said: "Dans les champs de l'observation, le hasard ne favorise que les esprits preparés." ("In observation, chance favours only the prepared mind.").

• Louis Pasteur used dead cholera germs to infect poultry by mistake. Then he injected the birds with live bacteria but found they were now protected in some way.

• Louis Pasteur looked at the inactive form of tartaric acid under the microscope, and saw that it was made up of two sorts of crystals with mirror-image forms.

• Pasteur separated out the two crystal types with tweezers, tested them, and found the solution made from one group was optically active in the expected way.

• Pasteur also found that a solution of tartaric acid crystals from the other group turned light the opposite way, introducing us to the idea of isomers.

• James Clerk Maxwell's experiment in colour photography only worked because the red dye in the tartan he photographed reflected UV, and the film detected it.

• Henri Becquerel might have missed radioactivity if bad Paris winter weather had not caused him to leave uranium salts and photographic paper in a drawer.

• If Alexander Fleming had not misclassified penicillin as a lytic agent, Howard Florey and Chain may not have chanced upon it when they made a literature search.

• If Alexander Fleming had not used bad technique near where La Touche was culturing some unusual Penicillium, he would never have seen the penicillin effect.

• When Clinton Davisson and Lester Germer demonstrated electron diffraction by a crystal, it only worked because they had dropped and damaged their equipment. 

There are other SPLATS to be found, but you will need to go back to the main SPLATS page to find the links.

© The author of this work is Peter Macinnis, who asserts his sole right to the product as it is packaged here, recognising that many of the ideas are common. You are free to use this as a model to do your own version. Copies of this whole file or site may be made and stored or printed for personal or educational use. You can contact me at macinnis44@gmail.com, but only if you add my first name to the front of that email address — this is a low-tech way of making it harder to harvest the e-mail address I actually read.