{"id":22,"date":"2020-07-13T19:19:03","date_gmt":"2020-07-13T19:19:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/accecosphereenvironmental\/chapter\/nature-of-science\/"},"modified":"2025-01-16T20:00:11","modified_gmt":"2025-01-16T20:00:11","slug":"nature-of-science","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/accecosphereenvironmental\/chapter\/nature-of-science\/","title":{"raw":"Nature of science","rendered":"Nature of science"},"content":{"raw":"Before we start a textbook on ecology, we have to first describe what ecology is and why we should bother to learn it. Ecology is the scientific study of living organisms and their abiotic (non-living) and biotic (living) environments. We will look more closely at each part of this definition to describe ecology. In this chapter, we will explore the nature of science.\n

1.1 Ecology is a science, but what is science?<\/h2>\n
\n
\n\n[caption id=\"attachment_1246\" align=\"alignleft\" width=\"537\"]\"The<\/a> This is Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone in Yellowstone National Park. An objective statement about this would be: \u201cThe picture is of a waterfall.\u201d A subjective statement would be: \u201cThe picture is beautiful.\u201d An inference would be \u201cThe waterfall is there because of erosion.\u201d[\/caption]\n\n
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nScientists seek to understand the fundamental principles that explain natural patterns and processes. Science is more than just a body of knowledge, science provides a means to evaluate and create new knowledge while minimizing bias [1]<\/span>.\n\nScientists use\u00a0objective<\/div>
An observation that is completely free of bias, i.e. anyone and everyone would make the same observation.<\/div>\">[pb_glossary id=\"99\"]objective[\/pb_glossary]<\/span>\u00a0evidence over\u00a0subjective<\/div>
An observation which is influenced by the observer's personal bias.<\/div>\">[pb_glossary id=\"100\"]subjective[\/pb_glossary]<\/span> evidence, to reach sound and logical conclusions. An\u00a0objective<\/div>
An observation that is completely free of bias, i.e. anyone and everyone would make the same observation.<\/div>\">[pb_glossary id=\"99\"]objective[\/pb_glossary]<\/span>\u00a0observation<\/div>
The act of gathering new information from the senses or from a scientific instrument.<\/div>\">[pb_glossary id=\"101\"]observation[\/pb_glossary]<\/span>\u00a0is without personal bias and the same by all individuals. Humans are biased by nature, so they cannot be completely\u00a0objective<\/div>
An observation that is completely free of bias, i.e. anyone and everyone would make the same observation.<\/div>\">[pb_glossary id=\"99\"]objective[\/pb_glossary]<\/span>; the goal is to be as unbiased as possible. A\u00a0subjective<\/div>
An observation which is influenced by the observer's personal bias.<\/div>\">[pb_glossary id=\"100\"]subjective[\/pb_glossary]<\/span>\u00a0observation<\/div>
The act of gathering new information from the senses or from a scientific instrument.<\/div>\">[pb_glossary id=\"101\"]observation[\/pb_glossary]<\/span>\u00a0is based on a person\u2019s feelings and beliefs and is unique to that individual.\n\nAnother way scientists avoid bias is by using\u00a0quantitative<\/div>
An observation which is based on numerical data. These observations are preferred because they can be used in calculations.<\/div>\">[pb_glossary id=\"102\"]quantitative[\/pb_glossary]<\/span>\u00a0over\u00a0qualitative<\/div>
An observation which is based on non-numerical data. While these types of observations are not preferred, they can still be useful.<\/div>\">[pb_glossary id=\"103\"]qualitative[\/pb_glossary]<\/span> measurements whenever possible. A quantitative<\/div>
An observation which is based on numerical data. These observations are preferred because they can be used in calculations.<\/div>\">quantitative<\/span> measurement is expressed with a specific numerical value. qualitative<\/div>
An observation which is based on non-numerical data. While these types of observations are not preferred, they can still be useful.<\/div>\">Qualitative<\/span>\u00a0observations are general or relative descriptions. For example, describing a tree as tall or young is a qualitative<\/div>
An observation which is based on non-numerical data. While these types of observations are not preferred, they can still be useful.<\/div>\">qualitative<\/span>\u00a0observation<\/div>
The act of gathering new information from the senses or from a scientific instrument.<\/div>\">observation<\/span>. Measuring the height of the tree and using tree ring data to determine the tree age\u00a0is\u00a0quantitative<\/div>
An observation which is based on numerical data. These observations are preferred because they can be used in calculations.<\/div>\">quantitative<\/span>. Numerical values are more precise than general descriptions, and they can be analyzed using statistical calculations. This is why\u00a0quantitative<\/div>
An observation which is based on numerical data. These observations are preferred because they can be used in calculations.<\/div>\">quantitative<\/span>\u00a0measurements are much more useful to scientists than\u00a0qualitative<\/div>
An observation which is based on non-numerical data. While these types of observations are not preferred, they can still be useful.<\/div>\">qualitative<\/span>\u00a0observations.<\/span>\n\nFalsifiability separates science from <\/span>Pseudoscience<\/div>
A method of investigation the claims to be scientific, but does not hold up to full scientific scrutiny. Examples include astrology, paranormal studies, young-Earth creationism, and cryptozoology (i.e. the study of creatures like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster).<\/div>\">[pb_glossary id=\"105\"]pseudoscience[\/pb_glossary]<\/span>. Scientists are wary of explanations of natural phenomena that discourage or avoid falsifiability. An explanation that cannot be tested or does not meet scientific standards is not considered science, but\u00a0<\/span>Pseudoscience<\/div>
A method of investigation the claims to be scientific, but does not hold up to full scientific scrutiny. Examples include astrology, paranormal studies, young-Earth creationism, and cryptozoology (i.e. the study of creatures like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster).<\/div>\">pseudoscience<\/span>.\u00a0<\/span>Pseudoscience<\/div>
A method of investigation the claims to be scientific, but does not hold up to full scientific scrutiny. Examples include astrology, paranormal studies, young-Earth creationism, and cryptozoology (i.e. the study of creatures like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster).<\/div>\">Pseudoscience<\/span>\u00a0is a collection of ideas that may appear scientific but does not use the\u00a0<\/span>scientific method<\/div>
The idea in science that phenomena and ideas need to be scrutinized using hypothesizing, experimentation, and analysis. This can eventually result in a consensus or scientific theory.<\/div>\">[pb_glossary id=\"106\"]scientific method[\/pb_glossary]<\/span>. Astrology is an example of\u00a0<\/span>Pseudoscience<\/div>
A method of investigation the claims to be scientific, but does not hold up to full scientific scrutiny. Examples include astrology, paranormal studies, young-Earth creationism, and cryptozoology (i.e. the study of creatures like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster).<\/div>\">pseudoscience<\/span>. It is a belief\u00a0<\/span>system<\/div>
An interconnected set of parts that combine and make up a whole.<\/div>\">[pb_glossary id=\"107\"]system[\/pb_glossary]<\/span> that claims that the movement of celestial bodies influences human behavior. Astrologers rely on celestial observations, but their conclusions are not based on experimental evidence and their statements are not <\/span>falsifiable<\/div>
The idea that any claim in science can be proved wrong with proper evidence.<\/div>\">[pb_glossary id=\"104\"]falsifiable[\/pb_glossary]<\/span>. This is not to be confused with astronomy which is the scientific study of celestial bodies and the cosmos\u00a0<\/span>[2;\u00a03]<\/span>. <\/span>Establishing truth in science is difficult because all scientific claims are\u00a0falsifiable<\/div>
The idea that any claim in science can be proved wrong with proper evidence.<\/div>\">falsifiable<\/span>, which means any initial\u00a0hypothesis<\/div>
A proposed explanation for an observation that can be tested.<\/div>\">[pb_glossary id=\"108\"]hypothesis[\/pb_glossary]<\/span> may be tested and proven false. A hypothesis a specific, testable explanation of how multiple variables and observations relate (for example, increased nitrogen in the soil will have increase the fruit production of tomatoes more than it will increase the fruit production of snap peas when fruit production is measured as the total mass of fruit). One common misconception is that if a hypothesis is supported, it becomes a theory. This is used to help distinguish between the typical use of \"theory\" in everyday conversation and overarching theories in science like gravity and evolution. A scientific [pb_glossary id=\"109\"]theory[\/pb_glossary] is a broad explanation for how something in the world works based on observations and previous research. A hypothesis is much more specific. If repeated testing of hypotheses generated from the theory indicates that the theory is a good explanation for the phenomena, the theory gains acceptance, but the hypotheses do not become theories. Similarly, lots of hypotheses that have been confirmed can be pulled together to form a theory. A theory is always subject to revision or even rejection based on new evidence and testing of hypotheses generated from the theory or from competing theories. This meticulous scrutiny reveals weaknesses or flaws in a hypothesis<\/div>
A proposed explanation for an observation that can be tested.<\/div>\">hypothesis<\/span> and is the strength that supports all scientific ideas and procedures. In fact, proving current ideas are wrong has been the shear force<\/div>
Component of the gravitational force which pushes material downslope.<\/div>\">driving force<\/span> behind many scientific careers. Despite this, some theories explain such a wide range of phenomena and are so well-supported, that they can be considered overarching or fundamental theories. Examples include plate tectonics, evolution, and special relativity.\n\n \n\n[embed]https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=lqk3TKuGNBA[\/embed]\n\n \n

1.2 The Scientific Method<\/strong><\/h2>\n[caption id=\"attachment_21\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"282\"]\"A This flowchart from the University of California Museum of Paleontology demonstrates a more complete view of the scientific method and demonstrates that the steps are not followed in a linear fashion. Image from \"The real process of science\" Understanding Science. University of California Museum of Paleontology. 14 July 2020 <https:\/\/undsci.berkeley.edu\/article\/0_0_0\/howscienceworks_02>. Used with permission.[\/caption]\n
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nModern science is based on the\u00a0scientific method<\/div>
The idea in science that phenomena and ideas need to be scrutinized using hypothesizing, experimentation, and analysis. This can eventually result in a consensus or scientific theory.<\/div>\">scientific method<\/span>, an iterative process in which scientists\n