Sci-Day 4: The Foundations of Science

Hello, everyone! I hope you've been having a great week!

Today, I'd like to write about something that is a bit broader than any of the previous Sci-Day posts - specifically, some very important core concepts in science. I will be talking about the overall scientific approach that is taken in science as a field, why it is so important, and how effective it is.

The scientific approach is one of, if not the most important thing(s) to science. It is used in any field of genuine science - physics, biology, paleontology, chemistry, etc. Science is more than just a field - it is a way of thinking.

Science aims to explain observations using recorded data, and to help us learn more about the natural world. Different fields are dedicated to different topics, but they all share several things in common. They all use the scientific method - they thoroughly test their hypotheses, gathering relevant data (depending on the subject the methods will obviously differ), and these findings are submitted for peer review.

This idea of using evidence that is quantifiable, and methods that can be replicated, is absolutely key to science. If the evidence and data gathered does not support the hypothesis, it is either discarded or revised to fit the new findings. This means it is important for a scientist to never get too attached to a hypothesis - if new evidence contradicts the hypothesis, one needs to be able to accept the fact that the original hypothesis needs to be discarded or revised.

However, that open-mindedness must be moderated with a level of healthy skepticism. One of the biggest problems in modern society is that the average person is not well-educated in subjects that are extremely important to issues we currently face. Thus they are not very likely to get their information from a peer-reviewed scientific journal, or other reliable source with verified data, and simply believe what they read from less-than-trustworthy sources. Those sources often provide questionable evidence at best, rarely cite reliable sources, and often are not written by someone with an extensive background in that subject. Even if one is not a scientist with years of research experience under their belt, one can still have a level of scientific skepticism. Carl Sagan wrote a wonderful article called "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection", where he addresses this issue and outlines a few important core questions to ask yourself when you read some article, book, or the like that makes a claim. If you do this, you are far less likely to be led astray by pseudoscience.

Another thing I'd like to talk about is the definition of the word 'theory'. There is a significant difference between the scientific and colloquial definitions of the word, and this can lead to significant misunderstandings. In everyday use, 'theory' is used to mean an 'educated guess'. In science, a theory is much more than simply a 'shot in the dark', or even a hypothesis. Essentially, a theory is an explanation for some aspect of the natural world that is supported by large amounts of data, observations, experimentation, and has been repeatedly tested.

The repeated testing element is extremely important - results must not just be taken from a single piece of research. To better understand this importance, let's try a thought experiment: you are a scientist, and you conduct some experiment to investigate Hypothesis 1 [for this experiment it does not need to be anything specific]. For data, let's say you get 5 values, or whatever quantity/quality it is you're measuring: let's call these A, B, C, and D (can be anything that is quantifiable/measurable). However, some months/years later, a different scientist conducts the exact same experiment under the exact same conditions, but gets completely different results. What do you do? Do you simply assume that you were right all along, or do you go back and reinvestigate the experiment to see why two identical replications of the same experiment got drastically different results? If you are a good scientist, you will go with the latter - if results or observations are indicative of some natural process going on, then anyone should be able to replicate the procedure under identical conditions and get the same results.

Theories are extremely useful, as they are able to make falsifiable predictions - in order for something to be considered a scientific theory, it must consistently be able to make consistently accurate predictions across the range of phenomena it aims to describe. Unlike a hypothesis, a theory must be supported by multiple, independent observations and experiments - in some sense, a theory is the eventual result of a series of thoroughly tested hypotheses. However, it is similar to a hypothesis and pretty much any other scientific principle in that it must be subject to minor revisions and refinements as necessary to fit any new findings and data - this will obviously increase the accuracy of its predictions.

One example of the successful predicting power of a scientific theory is the very discovery of both Uranus and Neptune. Both were predicted to exist (using Newton's Theory of Gravity) before they were directly observed. I won't get into the details as it is not closely related to Dinosaur Battlegrounds, but if you would like to know more there are lots of sources you can find to read more about it.

Another example hails back to Charles Darwin, as he was doing research on insect pollination of orchids. Upon examining the specimens he received, he noticed that one species had an extremely peculiar flower, and subsequently predicted that there must be some species of moth with an extremely long proboscis living in that region (Darwin, 1862). This was based in part on the ideas that he outlined in his ever-famous work, On the Origin of Species, published in 1859. Many years later, a species of Hawkmoth (Xanthopan morganii) was found from that region, with an extremely long proboscis, just as Darwin predicted (though it was Alfred Wallace who predicted that the species would specifically be a hawkmoth).

Lastly, another example of the scientific approach to understanding the natural world is directly relevant to Dinosaur Battlegrounds - specifically, the discovery of the dromaeosaur Dakotaraptor steini. According to paleontologist Robert Gay, dromaeosaur teeth had been found many years before they found the actual partial skeleton, and it was hypothesized based on several characteristics of those isolated teeth that there was a large dromaeosaur living in the Hell Creek formation. This is a perfect example of how science works - evidence was taken and interpreted in a wider context, and it led us to a new discovery.

In closing, the scientific mindset, the scientific method, and the overall process by which it operates are pivotal to all of the discoveries we have made about how the universe works - from clusters of galaxies to the smallest subatomic particles... Without the use of thorough observation, experimentation, and refining ideas, we would know almost nothing of the magnificent beauty of our wonderful universe.

I hope that this post has given you a bit more information on the core principles of science, and perhaps that you will take this message to heart, asking for evidence, and craving discovery. After all, Dinosaur Battlegrounds, ultimately, is a mission of discovery that relies on people with this very mindset. Without those people, this game would not be possible.
 
Acknowledgements:
Gay, Robert J. Personal Communication. 2016
Darwin, Charles. 1862. Fertilisation of Orchids.

Special Thanks to Robert Gay for providing the example regarding Dakotaraptor, and for reviewing this post to ensure it is accurate. He's done some great work with early Jurassic theropods such as Dilophosaurus - I'd encourage you to read some of his papers, they're very fascinating and informative!