How science does not work
In chapter 4, "At Odds with Science" in Facts not Fear Michael Sanera and Jane S. Shaw, rather than explaining how science works, repeat common myths about science, as well as adding their own distorted view of things. .
Odd Science
The authors start (page 39) by telling their readers that "Science sets out to discover what 'is'." But scientists don't set out to just discover what "is, they try to understand and explain it. The authors go on to say that "Many environmental texts skip past the 'what is' to arrive at the 'what ought to be.'" Not really sure what they mean by "what ought to be", but let us continue: "For example, scientists don't know whether greenhouse gases are causing the Earth to get warmer." But the 1995 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had declared that the preponderance of the evidence pointed toward human caused global warming. Sanera and Shaw used this report as a reference in their chapter 13, so they must have been aware of this statement. The book continues: "But Earth Science: The Challenge of Discovery tells children what to do do about it anyway: 'Reduce greenhouse gases by using less fossil fuel, Walk, ride a bike, or take a bus instead of a car for short trips. Turn off appliances when you are not using them.'" Even if there was no global warming, this would be good advice. Who (other than the fossil fuel industry) could object to telling kids that the should walk, or turn off appliances that are not in use? The authors go on to give additional misleading information about climate change and other environmental problems. For example, on page 42 they write that: "These expeditions [to the Antarctic] supported the theory that chlorine from CFCs is deleting ozone, but they also supported the view that other factors, such as cold polar temperatures and winds known as the polar vortex, affect ozone levels too." These simply are not different "views" but are instead parts of the same complex picture. And no one that I know of has every claimed that there were not natural variations in ozone levels-in fact it would be extremely surprising if there weren't such variations.
The scientific method
Facts not Fear (page 40) repeats perhaps the most prevelant myth about science, that there is a single scientific method. But as William McComas has pointed out (Ten myths of science: Reexamining what we think we know..., School Science & Mathematics, Vol. 96, Jan. 1, 1996) scientists use a variety of methods:
Close inspection will reveal that scientists approach and solve problems with imagination, creativity, prior knowledge and perseverance. These, of course, are the same methods used by all problem-solvers. The lesson to be learned is that science is no different from other human endeavors when puzzles are investigated.
Not only that, but Sanera and Shaw paint a very distorted picture of the alleged scientific method, one that tries to distinguish the certainty of "real science" with the uncertainty of "environmental science". (page 40): "To understand where environmental science veers from science, we need to recognize that over the years scientists have developed a process for learning what 'is.' This is the scientific method, and it works like this:" This sounds very much like the argument made by creationists, who claim that there is something called "evolution science" that is not "real science". But those who study the environment and environmental problems come from a variety of scientific fields: chemistry, physics, geology, ecology, wildlife biology, botany, toxicology, epidemiology, climatology and many others. You simply cannot separate out something called "environmental science" and claim that it is somehow different from science. The authors continue:
Scientists start by being curious about something. To use a simplistic example, suppose that they want to know the cause of fire. Gradually, they developed a hypothesis, a statement about the physical world that can be tested.
I doubt if scientists would say they were studying the "cause of fire." They would probably say that they were studying the mechanism or process. And "fire" is not a well defined term, it can refer to anything from a candle flame to in inferno. A scientist would probably say that he was studying combustion. And while a hypothesis may develop gradually, many are developed in a short period of time. But the big problem with their example is that it is not as simple as they think.
(Page 41): "For example, a scientist might develop a hypothesis about one piece of the puzzle: The scientist might propose that fire needs oxygen to burn," The authors leave out a crucial part of the definition of a hypothesis, that it makes predictions that can be tested. In this case, the scientist might predict that a fire would burn in oxygen but go out in a chamber filled with nitrogen. The authors go on to describe how the scientist runs tests using carbon dioxide, nitrogen and oxygen, and then publishes his results so others can repeat them. This is all very well and good, but then Sanera and Shaw go off the deep end (page 41): "If an experiment is repeated many times and produces the same results, scientists have established a scientific fact." I have never heard anyone refer to anything as a "scientific fact", and most experiments are not repeated many times. It is simply too costly, and too time consuming. And much more can be learned from doing other experiments. What if a scientist had used chlorine gas or nitrous oxide in the experiment? Combustion would have continued, showing that oxygen is not needed. What if a different type of combustible material had been used? If the material had a much stronger affinity for oxygen than carbon, it would burn in carbon dioxide. (I say someone burn magnesium using sold carbon dioxide (dry ice) as a source. The result is magnesium oxide and carbon soot.) These experiments would lead to not just a better understanding of combustion, but of other chemical reactions as well.
Sanera and Shaw now repeat another myth, that strongly supported theories become scientific laws (page 41): "[A theory] is a statement about the physical world that is supported by scientific experiments and other forms of evidence, but does not have sufficient evidence to establish it as a scientific law." However, theories and laws are fundamentally different kinds of knowledge. Laws are generalizations, principles or patterns in nature, while theories are the explanations of those generalizations (McComas). Facts not Fear then gives an alleged example of how a theory became a law (page 41) "Sir Isaac Newton . . . first stated the theory of gravity. However, only after many experiments did other scientists agree with Newton and consider the theory a scientific law." This is just plain wrong. Newton stated the law of gravity, the relationship between mass, distance and gravity. He publicly stated that he was unable to developed a theory of gravity, an explanation for the relationship. Even today there is no universally accepted theory of gravity (McComas)
Sanera, Michael and Jane S. Shaw, Facts not Fear: A Parent's Guide to Teaching Children About the Environment, Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1996. Now in a second edition.
Written by Jim Norton
Visit my anti-environmental myths home page
Visit my practical skepticism page
The text on these pages may be freely copied, distributed and posted as long as my name, this statement and the URL (http://info-pollution.com/hownot.htm) are included.