"Don't let an 'expert' stand in front of people and tell them everything s/he knows. This is mostly just an ego trip for the expert, and a very boring experience for the victims. The overhead projector has done more to destroy learning than any other thing I can think of. " -- Tom Magliozzi (Here's more proof that the guys on Car Talk really understand the scientific method. . .)

I. Wrap-up on experimental methods

1. Not all fields of science use experiments!
   1. Sometimes experiments aren't possible or aren't practical (e.g. geology, astronomy, meteorology, global climate research).
   2. In other cases, experiments are possible but would be unethical to do (e.g. certain areas of medicine, such as certain kinds of human brain research).
   3. In these fields, careful observation is the norm. We can't eliminate all the variables, but we can note carefully what they are and how they might work.
   4. Model building is another possible appproach -- experiments can be done on a model of something (whether a physical model, a mathematical model, or, more frequently these days, a computer model).
   5. Reasoning like a scientist often involves jumping back and forth between formal experiments, observations, modeling, and hypothesizing.
2. But regardless of how you do science, what you do must be reproducible.
   1. Anyone should be able to follow what you've done and find the same thing you did
   2. The real point of using "scientific jargon" should be to describe precisely. (Though it may not seem that way. . .)
   3. This is what makes science a universal endeavor -- anyone, whether capitalist, Communist, left-wing, right-wing, male, female, atheist, born-again, WHATEVER -- should be able to check an experiment's results, or someone's observations or models, and either confirm them or call them into question.

II. An untestable statement is not scientific and has no place in science. (This doesn't mean that untestable statements are useless or meaningless or wrong -- just that you can't use the "toolkit" of science to work with them.) Examples include (but are not limited to):

1. Aesthetics ("Beethoven's Seventh Symphony is more beautiful than Brahms's First Symphony.")
2. Imprecise statements ("Like, when the sun shines on plants, like, stuff happens and, like, so they're all, like, kind of growing. Like, y'know?")
   1. Science isn't the same as mathematics. . .
   2. . . . but many branches of science use mathematics as a language, because it forces you to be precise about what you mean. . .
   3. . . . and the same applies to scientific vocabulary. It's a pain in the neck to learn all the long words that scientists often use -- but the reason they're useful is because they have very precise meanings, and they let you state precise, testable hypotheses.
      • This hypothesis sounds complex. . . but once you learn what the words mean -- once you learn the code -- it's very testable, because it means something very specific: "LSD is an agonist of the 5HT2A and 5HT2C serotonin receptors in the brain."
      • On the other hand, "LSD, like, wow, man. . . like, you see stuff, and it's like, oh, wow. . ." is easy to understand -- but it's too vague to be tested, and so it's not scientific.
3. Subjective statements ("There are elves in my medicine chest that no one else can see.")
4. Moral statements ("Everyone should vote Republican." "You should be willing to sacrifice your life for others.")
   1. This is sometimes called the "is-ought" dichotomy. . .
   2. Science can explain why the world is the way it is, and predict what will happen if you do certain things. . . but there is no logical way for it to tell you what you should do.
   3. The naturalistic fallacy is the logical mistake of asserting that something that is is something that should be. (Your professor is extremely nearsighted, but that doesn't mean that he shouldn't wear glasses. Some people are very aggressive, but that doesn't mean that they should kill other people if they want to.)
5. Supernatural and religious ideas ("The universe was created by the god Odhinn, and his brothers Vili and Ve, from the dismembered body parts of the corpse of the giant Ymir.")
   1. Science follows what is known as naturalism -- some textbooks calls it natural causality. In other words, scientists work with what we think of as natural forces and phenomena -- matter, energy, space, time.
   2. The "supernatural", whether it exists or not, is probably impossible to test. (And if it was testable, would it still be supernatural?)
   3. This doesn't mean scientists themselves must be atheists or agnostics -- in fact, religious beliefs of many kinds are fairly widespread among scientists.
   4. But it means that, in their work, scientists generally don't (or shouldn't) blend science with religion -- at least, not as the two terms are usually understood in our culture.
      • Example discussed in class: the 1999 Kansas City clinical trial of the effectiveness of prayer in recovery from heart attacks. For more information, check out the following articles. (Some are neutral, some are skeptical, and some are accepting of claims for healing prayer. Why not read 'em all?)
        • "Thy Will Be Done" (Atlantic Monthly, April 2001)
        • The Skeptic's Dictionary
        • "Can Prayer Heal?"
        • "Is there scientific evidence that intercessory prayer speeds medical recovery? A debate."