SCI321 Prologue

Science is the product of human curiosity about
how the world worksan organized body of

knowledge that describes the order within nature
and the causes of that order. Science is an ongoing
human activity that represents the collective
efforts, findings, and wisdom of the human race,
an activity that is dedicated to gathering knowl-
edge about the world and organizing and con-
densing it into testable laws and theories. In our
study of science, we are learning about the rules of
naturehow one thing is connected to another
and how patterns underlie all we see in our sur-
roundings. Any activity, whether a sports game,
computer game, or the game of life, is meaningful
only if we understand its rules. Learning about
natures rules is relevant with a capital R!
The beginnings of science go back before
recorded history, when people first discovered
repeating patterns in nature. They noted star
patterns in the night sky, patterns in the weather,
and patterns in animal migration. From these
the nature
of sci ence
prologue
A BRI EF HI STORY OF ADVANCES I N SCI ENCE
MATHEMATI CS AND CONCEPTUAL
PHYSI CAL SCI ENCE
SCI ENTI FI C METHODS
THE SCI ENTI FI C ATTI TUDE
SCI ENCE HAS LI MI TATI ONS
SCI ENCE, ART, AND RELI GI ON
TECHNOLOGYTHE PRACTI CAL USE OF SCI ENCE
THE PHYSI CAL SCI ENCES: PHYSI CS, CHEMI STRY,
EARTH SCI ENCE, AND ASTRONOMY
I N PERSPECTI VE
M01_HEWI6954_04_SE_PROL.qxd 10/1/07 3:16 PM Page 1
2
0
0
8
9
3
4
3
0
1
Conceptual Physical Science, Fourth Edition, by Paul G. Hewitt, John Suchocki, and Leslie A. Hewitt. Published by Addison-Wesley.
Copyright 2008 by Pearson Education, Inc.
2 PROLOGUE THE NATURE OF SCI ENCE
patterns, people learned to make predictions that gave them
some control over their surroundings. Science is based on rational
thinking about the physical world.
A Brief History of Advances in Science
S
cience made great headway in Greece in the 4th and 3rd centuries BC and
spread throughout the Mediterranean world. Scientic advance came to a
near halt in Europe when the Roman Empire fell in the 5th century AD. Barbar-
ian hordes destroyed almost everything in their paths as they overran Europe.
Reason gave way to religion, which ushered in what came to be known as the
Dark Ages. During this time, the Chinese and Polynesians were charting the stars
and the planets. Before the advent of Islam, Arab nations developed mathematics
and learned about the production of glass, paper, metals, and various chemicals.
Greek science was reintroduced to Europe by Islamic inuences that penetrated
into Spain during the 10th, 11th, and 12th centuries. Universities emerged in
Europe in the 13th century, and the introduction of gunpowder changed the
social and political structure of Europe in the 14th century. The 15th century saw
art and science beautifully blended by Leonardo da Vinci. Scientic thought was
furthered in the 16th century with the advent of the printing press.
The 16th-century Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus caused great con-
troversy when he published a book proposing that the Sun is stationary and that
Earth revolves around the Sun. These ideas conicted with the popular view
that Earth was the center of the universe. They also conicted with Church
teachings and were banned for 200 years. The Italian physicist Galileo Galilei
was arrested for popularizing the Copernican theory and for his other contribu-
tions to scientic thought. Yet a century later, those who advocated Copernican
ideas were accepted.
These cycles occur age after age. In the early 1800s, geologists met with vio-
lent condemnation because they differed with the account of creation in the
book of Genesis. Later in the same century, geology was accepted, but theories
of evolution were condemned and the teaching of them was forbidden. Every
age has its groups of intellectual rebels who are scoffed at, condemned, and
sometimes even persecuted at the time but who later seem benecial and often
essential to the elevation of human conditions. At every crossway on the road
that leads to the future, each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand men
appointed to guard the past.*
Mathematics and Conceptual Physical Science
S
cience and human conditions advanced dramatically after science and
mathematics became integrated some four centuries ago. When the ideas
of science are expressed in mathematical terms, they are unambiguous. The
equations of science provide compact expressions of relationships between con-
cepts. They dont have the multiple meanings that so often confuse the discus-
sion of ideas expressed in common language. When ndings in nature are
expressed mathematically, they are easier to verify or to disprove by experiment.
Science is a way of knowing about
the world and making sense of it.
* From Count Maurice Maeterlincks Our Social Duty.
Scientists have a deep-seated need
to know Why?and What if?.
Mathematics is foremost in their
toolkits for tackling these questions.
In pre-Copernican times the
Sun and Moon were viewed
as planets. Their planetary status
was removed when Copernicus
substituted the Sun for Earths
central position. Only then
was Earth regarded as a planet
among others. More than 200
years later, in 1781, telescope
observers added Uranus to the
list of planets. Neptune was
added in 1846. Pluto was added
in 1930and removed in 2006.
2
0
0
8
9
3
4
3
0
1
PROLOGUE THE NATURE OF SCI ENCE 3
The mathematical structure of physics is evident in the many equations you will
encounter throughout this book. The equations are guides to thinking that
show the connections between concepts in nature. The methods of mathematics
and experimentation led to enormous success in science.*
Scientific Methods
T
here is no one scientic method. But there are common features in the way
scientists do their work. Although no cookbook description of the
scientic method is really adequate, some or all of the following steps are likely
to be found in the way most scientists carry out their work.
1. Observe. Closely observe the physical world around you. Recognize a ques-
tion or a puzzlesuch as an unexplained observation.
2. Question. Make an educated guessa hypothesisto answer the question.
3. Predict. Predict consequences that can be observed if the hypothesis is
correct. The consequences should be absent if the hypothesis is not correct.
4. Test predictions. Do experiments to see if the consequences you predicted
are present.
5. Draw a conclusion. Formulate the simplest general rule that organizes the
hypothesis, predicted effects, and experimental ndings.
Although these steps are appealing, much progress in science has come from
trial and error, experimentation without hypotheses, or just plain accidental dis-
covery by a well-prepared mind. The success of science rests more on an attitude
common to scientists than on a particular method. This attitude is one of
inquiry, experimentation, and humilitythat is, a willingness to admit error.
The Scientific Attitude
I
t is common to think of a fact as something that is unchanging and absolute.
But in science, a fact is generally a close agreement by competent observers
who make a series of observations about the same phenomenon. For example,
although it was once a fact that the universe is unchanging and permanent, today
it is a fact that the universe is expanding and evolving. A scientic hypothesis, on
the other hand, is an educated guess that is only presumed to be factual until sup-
ported by experiment. When a hypothesis has been tested over and over again
and has not been contradicted, it may become known as a law or principle.
If a scientist nds evidence that contradicts a hypothesis, law, or principle, the
scientic spirit requires that the hypothesis be changed or abandoned (unless the
contradicting evidence, upon testing, turns out to be wrongwhich sometimes
happens). For example, the greatly respected Greek philosopher Aristotle
(384322 BC) claimed that an object falls at a speed proportional to its weight.
This idea was held to be true for nearly 2000 years because of Aristotles com-
pelling authority. Galileo allegedly showed the falseness of Aristotles claim with
* We distinguish between the mathematical structure of science and the practice of mathematical
problem solvingthe focus of most nonconceptual courses. Note that there are fewer mathematical
problems than exercises at the ends of the chapters in this book. The focus is on comprehension
before computation.
Science is a way to teach how some-
thing gets to be known, what is not
known, to what extent things are
known (for nothing is known
absolutely), how to handle doubt
and uncertainty, what the rules of
evidence are, how to think about
things so that judgments can be
made, and how to distinguish truth
from fraud and from show.
Richard Feynman
2
0
0
8
9
3
4
3
0
1
one experimentdemonstrating that heavy and light objects dropped from the
Leaning Tower of Pisa fell at nearly equal speeds. In the scientic spirit, a single
veriable experiment to the contrary outweighs any authority, regardless of rep-
utation or the number of followers or advocates. In modern science, argument
by appeal to authority has little value.*
Scientists must accept their experimental ndings even when they would like
them to be different. They must strive to distinguish between what they see and
what they wish to see, for scientists, like most people, have a vast capacity for
fooling themselves.** People have always tended to adopt general rules, beliefs,
creeds, ideas, and hypotheses without thoroughly questioning their validity and
to retain them long after they have been shown to be meaningless, false, or at
least questionable. The most widespread assumptions are often the least ques-
tioned. Most often, when an idea is adopted, particular attention is given to
cases that seem to support it, while cases that seem to refute it are distorted,
belittled, or ignored.
Scientists use the word theory in a way that differs from its usage in everyday
speech. In everyday speech, a theory is no different from a hypothesisa sup-
position that has not been veried. A scientic theory, on the other hand, is a
synthesis of a large body of information that encompasses well-tested and
veried hypotheses about certain aspects of the natural world. Physicists, for
example, speak of the quark theory of the atomic nucleus, chemists speak of the
theory of metallic bonding in metals, and biologists speak of the cell theory.
The theories of science are not xed; rather, they undergo change. Scientic
theories evolve as they go through stages of redenition and renement. During
the past hundred years, for example, the theory of the atom has been repeatedly
rened as new evidence on atomic behavior has been gathered. Similarly,
chemists have rened their view of the way molecules bond together, and biolo-
gists have rened the cell theory. The renement of theories is a strength of
science, not a weakness. Many people feel that it is a sign of weakness to change
their minds. Competent scientists must be experts at changing their minds. They
change their minds, however, only when confronted with solid experimental evi-
dence or when a conceptually simpler hypothesis forces them to a new point of
view. More important than defending beliefs is improving them. Better hypothe-
ses are made by those who are honest in the face of experimental evidence.
Away from their profession, scientists are inherently no more honest or ethi-
cal than most other people. But in their profession, they work in an arena that
places a high premium on honesty. The cardinal rule in science is that all
hypotheses must be testablethey must be susceptible, at least in principle, to
being shown to be wrong. Speculations that cannot be tested are regarded as
unscientic. This has the long-run effect of compelling honestyndings
widely publicized among fellow scientists are generally subjected to further test-
ing. Sooner or later, mistakes (and deception) are found out; wishful thinking is
exposed. A discredited scientist does not get a second chance in the community
of scientists. The penalty for fraud is professional excommunication. Honesty,
so important to the progress of science, thus becomes a matter of self-interest to
scientists. There is relatively little blufng in a game in which all bets are called.
In elds of study where right and wrong are not so easily established, the pres-
sure to be honest is considerably less.
* But appeal to beauty has value in science. More than one experimental result in modern times has
contradicted a lovely theory that, upon further investigation, proved to be wrong. This has bolstered
scientists faith that the ultimately correct description of nature involves conciseness of expression
and economy of conceptsa combination that deserves to be called beautiful.
** In your education it is not enough to be aware that other people may try to fool you; it is more
important to be aware of your own tendency to fool yourself.
Before a theory is accepted, it must
be tested by experiment and make
one or more new predictions
different from those made by
previous theories.
Experiment, not philosophical
discussion, decides what is
correct in science.
2
0
0
8
9
3
4
3
0
1
In science, it is more important to have a means of proving an idea wrong
than to have a means of proving it right. This is a major factor that distinguishes
science from nonscience. At rst this may seem strange, for when we wonder
about most things, we concern ourselves with ways of nding out whether they
are true. Scientic hypotheses are different. In fact, if you want to distinguish
whether a hypothesis is scientic, look to see if there is a test for proving it
wrong. If there is no test for its possible wrongness, then the hypothesis is not
scientic. Albert Einstein put it well when he stated, No number of experi-
ments can prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
Consider the biologist Charles Darwins hypothesis that life forms evolve
from simpler to more complex forms. This could be proven wrong if paleontol-
ogists were to nd that more complex forms of life appeared before their sim-
pler counterparts. Einstein hypothesized that light is bent by gravity. This might
be proven wrong if starlight that grazed the Sun and could be seen during a solar
eclipse were undeected from its normal path. As it turns out, less complex life
forms are found to precede their more complex counterparts and starlight is
found to bend as it passes close to the Sun, which support the claims. If and
when a hypothesis or scientic claim is conrmed, it is regarded as useful and as
a stepping-stone to additional knowledge.
Consider the hypothesis The alignment of planets in the sky determines the
best time for making decisions. Many people believe it, but this hypothesis is
not scientic. It cannot be proven wrong, nor can it be proven right. It is specu-
lation. Likewise, the hypothesis Intelligent life exists on other planets some-
where in the universe is not scientic. Although it can be proven correct by the
verication of a single instance of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the uni-
verse, there is no way to prove it wrong if no intelligent life is ever found. If we
searched the far reaches of the universe for eons and found no life, then that
would not prove that it doesnt exist around the next corner. A hypothesis that
is capable of being proven right but not capable of being proven wrong is not a
scientic hypothesis. Many such statements are quite reasonable and useful, but
they lie outside the domain of science.
CHE CK
P OI NT
Which of these statements is a scientific hypothesis?
(a) Atoms are the smallest particles of matter that exist.
(b) Space is permeated with an essence that is undetectable.
(c) Albert Einstein was the greatest physicist of the 20th century.
Was this your answer?
Only statement (a) is scientific, because there is a test for falseness. The
statement not only is capable of being proven wrong, but has been
proven wrong. Statement (b) has no test for possible wrongness and is
therefore unscientific. Likewise for any principle or concept for which
there is no means, procedure, or test whereby it can be shown to be
wrong (if it is wrong). Some pseudoscientists and other pretenders of
knowledge will not even consider a test for the possible wrongness of
their statements. Statement (c) is an assertion that has no test for possi-
ble wrongness. If Einstein was not the greatest physicist, how could we
know? Note that because the name Einstein is generally held in high
esteem, it is a favorite of pseudoscientists. So we should not be surprised
that the name of Einstein, like that of Jesus or of any other highly
respected person, is cited often by charlatans who wish to bring respect
to themselves and their points of view. In all fields, it is prudent to be
skeptical of those who wish to credit themselves by calling upon the
authority of others.
The essence of science is expressed
in two questions: How would we
know? What evidence would prove
this idea wrong? Assertions without
evidence are unscientific and can be
dismissed without evidence.
We each need a knowledge filter to
tell the difference between what is
true and what only pretends to be
true. The best knowledge filter ever
invented for explaining the physical
world is science.
2
0
0
8
9
3
4
3
0
1
Science Has Limitations
S
cience deals only with hypotheses that are testable. Its domain is therefore
restricted to the observable natural world. Although scientic methods can
be used to debunk various paranormal claims, they have no way of accounting
for testimonies involving the supernatural. The term supernatural literally means
above nature. Science works within nature, not above it. Likewise, science is
unable to answer philosophical questions, such as What is the purpose of life?
or religious questions, such as What is the nature of the human spirit? Though
these questions are valid and may have great importance to us, they rely on
subjective personal experience and do not lead to testable hypotheses. They lie
outside the realm of science.
Science and Society
Pseudoscience
F
or a claim to qualify as scientific, it
must meet certain standards. For
example, the claim must be repro-
ducible by others who have no stake in
whether the claim is true or false. The
data and subsequent interpretations
are open to scrutiny in a social environ-
ment where its okay to have made an
honest mistake, but not okay to have
been dishonest or deceiving. Claims
that are presented as scientific but do
not meet these standards are what we
call pseudoscience, which literally
means fake science. In the realm of
pseudoscience, skepticism and tests
for possible wrongness are down-
played or flatly ignored.
Examples of pseudoscience abound.
Astrology is an ancient belief system
that supposes that a persons future is
determined by the positions and move-
ments of planets and other celestial
bodies. Astrology mimics science in
that astrological predictions are based
on careful astronomical observations.
Yet astrology is not a science because
there is no validity to the claim that
the positions of celestial objects influ-
ence the events of a persons life. After
all, the gravitational force exerted by
celestial bodies on a person is smaller
than the gravitational force exerted by
objects making up the earthly environ-
ment: trees, chairs, other people, bars
of soap, and so on. Further, the predic-
tions of astrology are not borne out;
there just is no evidence that astrology
works.
For more examples of pseudo-
science, turn on the television. You can
find advertisements for a plethora of
pseudoscientific products. Watch out
for remedies to ailments such as
baldness, obesity, and cancer; for
air-purifying mechanisms; and for
germ-fighting cleaning products in
particular. Although many such prod-
ucts operate on solid science, others
are pure pseudoscience. Buyer beware!
Humans are very good at denial,
which may explain why pseudoscience
is such a thriving enterprise. Many
pseudoscientists do not recognize their
efforts as pseudoscience. A practitioner
of absent healing,for example, may
truly believe in her ability to cure peo-
ple she will never meet except through
e-mail and credit card exchanges.
She may even find anecdotal evi-
dence to support her contentions. The
placebo effect, discussed in Section 8.2,
can mask the ineffectiveness of various
healing modalities. In terms of the
human body, what people believe will
happen often can happen because of
the physical connection between the
mind and body.
That said, consider the enormous
downside of pseudoscientific practices.
Today more than 20,000 astrologers are
practicing in the United States. Do peo-
ple listen to these astrologers just for
the fun of it? Or do they base important
decisions on astrology? You might lose
money by listening to pseudoscientific
entrepreneurs; worse, you could
become ill. Delusional thinking, in gen-
eral, carries risk.
Meanwhile, the results of science
literacy tests given to the general pub-
lic show that most Americans lack a
basic understanding of basic concepts
of science. Some 63% of American
adults are unaware that the mass
extinction of the dinosaurs occurred
long before the first human evolved;
75% do not know that antibiotics kill
bacteria but not viruses; 57% do not
know that electrons are smaller than
atoms. What we find is a rifta grow-
ing dividebetween those who have a
realistic sense of the capabilities of sci-
ence and those who do not understand
the nature of science, its core concepts,
or, worse, feel that scientific knowledge
is too complex for them to understand.
Science is a powerful method for
understanding the physical world, and
a whole lot more reliable than pseudo-
science as a means for bettering the
human condition.
2
0
0
8
9
3
4
3
0
1
Science, Art, and Religion
T
he search for a deeper understanding of the world around us has taken
different forms, including science, art, and religion. Science is a system
by which we discover and record physical phenomena and think about pos-
sible explanations for such phenomena. The arts are concerned with personal
interpretation and creative expression. Religion addresses the source, purpose,
and meaning of it all. Simply put, science asks how, art asks who, and religion
asks why.
Science and the arts have certain things in common. In the art of literature,
we nd out about what is possible in human experience. We can learn about
emotions such as rage and love, even if we havent yet experienced them. The
arts describe these experiences and suggest what may be possible for us. Simi-
larly, a knowledge of science tells us what is possible in nature. Scientic knowl-
edge helps us predict possibilities in nature even before we experience them. It
provides us with a way of connecting things, of seeing relationships between and
among them, and of making sense of the great variety of natural events around
us. While art broadens our understanding of ourselves, science broadens our
understanding of our environment.
Science and religion have similarities also. For example, both are motivated
by curiosity for the natural. Both have great impact on society. Science, for
example, leads to useful technological innovations, while religion provides a
foothold for many social services. Science and religion, however, are basically
different. Science is concerned with understanding the physical universe, while
religion is concerned with spiritual matters, such as belief and faith. While sci-
entic truth is a matter of public scrutiny, religion is a deeply personal matter.
In these respects, science and religion are as different as apples and oranges and
do not contradict each other. Science, art, and religion can work very well
together, which is why we should never feel forced into choosing one over the
other.
That science and religion can work very well together deserves special empha-
sis. When we study the nature of light later in this book, we treat light rst as a
wave and then as a particle. At rst, waves and particles may appear contradic-
tory. You might believe that light can be only one or the other, and that you
must choose between them. What scientists have discovered, however, is that
light waves and light particles complement each other, and that when these two
ideas are taken together, they provide a deeper understanding of light. In a sim-
ilar way, it is mainly people who are either uninformed or misinformed about
the deeper natures of both science and religion who feel that they must choose
between believing in religion and believing in science. Unless one has a shallow
understanding of either or both, there is no contradiction in being religious in
ones belief system and being scientic in ones understanding of the natural
world.*
Many people are troubled about not knowing the answers to religious and
philosophical questions. Some avoid uncertainty by uncritically accepting
almost any comforting answer. An important message in science, however, is
that uncertainty is acceptable. For example, in Chapter 15 youll learn that it is
not possible to know with certainty both the momentum and position of an
electron in an atom. The more you know about one, the less you can know
Art is about cosmic beauty. Science
is about cosmic order. Religion is
about cosmic purpose.
* Of course, this does not apply to certain religious extremists who steadfastly assert that one cannot
embrace both science and their brand of religion.
2
0
0
8
9
3
4
3
0
1
about the other. Uncertainty is a part of the scientic process. Its okay not to
know the answers to fundamental questions. Why are apples gravitationally
attracted to Earth? Why do electrons repel one another? Why do magnets inter-
act with other magnets? Why does energy have mass? At the deepest level, sci-
entists dont know the answers to these questionsat least not yet. We know a
lot about where we are, but nothing really about why we are. Its okay not to
know the answers to such religious questions. Given a choice between a closed
mind with comforting answers and an open and exploring mind without
answers, most scientists choose the latter. Scientists in general are comfortable
with not knowing.
CHE CK
P OI NT
Which of the following activities involves the utmost human expression of
passion, talent, and intelligence? (a) painting and sculpture (b) literature
(c) music (d) religion (e) science
Was this your answer?
All of them. In this book, we focus on science, which is an enchanting
human activity shared by a wide variety of people. With present-day tools
and know-how, scientists are reaching further and finding out more
about themselves and their environment than people in the past were
ever able to do. The more you know about science, the more passionate
you feel toward your surroundings. There is science in everything you see,
hear, smell, taste, and touch!
TechnologyThe Practical Use of Science
S
cience and technology are also different from each other. Science is con-
cerned with gathering knowledge and organizing it. Technology lets
humans use that knowledge for practical purposes, and it provides the instru-
ments scientists need to conduct their investigations.
Technology is a double-edged sword. It can be both helpful and harmful. We
have the technology, for example, to extract fossil fuels from the ground and
then burn the fossil fuels to produce energy. Energy production from fossil fuels
has beneted society in countless ways. On the ip side, the burning of fossil
fuels damages the environment. It is tempting to blame technology itself for
such problems as pollution, resource depletion, and even overpopulation. These
problems, however, are not the fault of technology any more than a stabbing is
the fault of the knife. It is humans who use the technology, and humans who are
responsible for how it is used.
Remarkably, we already possess the technology to solve many environmental
problems. The 21st century will likely see a switch from fossil fuels to more
sustainable energy sources. We recycle waste products in new and better ways.
In some parts of the world, progress is being made toward limiting human
population growth, a serious threat that worsens almost every problem faced
by humans today. Difculty in solving todays problems results more from
social inertia than from failing technology. Technology is our tool. What we do
with this tool is up to us. The promise of technology is a cleaner and health-
ier world. Wise applications of technology can improve conditions on planet
Earth.
The belief that there is only one
truth and that oneself is in posses-
sion of it seems to me the
deepest root of all the evil that
is in the world.
Max Born
2
0
0
8
9
3
4
3
0
1
Risk Assessment
T
he numerous benefits of technology
are paired with risks. X-rays, for
example, continue to be used for med-
ical diagnosis despite their potential
for causing cancer. But when the risks
of a technology are perceived to out-
weigh its benefits, it should be used
very sparingly or not at all.
Risk can vary for different groups.
Aspirin is useful for adults, but for
young children it can cause a poten-
tially lethal condition known as Reyes
syndrome. Dumping raw sewage into
the local river may pose little risk for a
town located upstream, but for towns
downstream the untreated sewage
is a health hazard. Similarly, storing
radioactive wastes underground may
pose little risk for us today, but for
future generations the risks of such
storage are greater if there is leakage
into groundwater. Technologies involv-
ing different risks for different people,
as well as differing benefits, raise ques-
tions that are often hotly debated.
Which medications should be sold to
the general public over the counter
and how should they be labeled?
Should food be irradiated in order to
put an end to food poisoning, which
kills more than 5000 Americans each
year? The risks to all members of soci-
ety need consideration when public
policies are decided.
The risks of technology are not
always immediately apparent. No one
fully realized the dangers of combus-
tion products when petroleum was
selected as the fuel of choice for auto-
mobiles early in the last century. From
the hindsight of 20/20 vision, alcohols
from biomass would have been a supe-
rior choice environmentally, but they
were banned by the prohibition move-
ments of the day.
Because we are now more aware
of the environmental costs of fossil-
fuel combustion, biomass fuels are
making a slow comeback. An aware-
ness of both the short-term risks and
the long-term risks of a technology
is crucial.
People seem to have a hard time
accepting the impossibility of zero risk.
Airplanes cannot be made perfectly
safe. Processed foods cannot be ren-
dered completely free of toxicity, for all
foods are toxic to some degree. You
cannot go to the beach without risking
skin cancer, no matter how much sun-
screen you apply. You cannot avoid
radioactivity, for its in the air you
breathe and the foods you eat, and it
has been that way since before
humans first walked on Earth. Even the
cleanest rain contains radioactive
carbon-14, as do our bodies. Between
each heartbeat in each human body,
there have always been about 10,000
naturally occurring radioactive decays.
You might hide yourself in the hills, eat
the most natural foods, practice obses-
sive hygiene, and still die from cancer
caused by the radioactivity emanating
from your own body. The probability of
eventual death is 100%. Nobody is
exempt.
Science helps determine the
most probable. As the tools of science
improve, then assessment of the most
probable gets closer to being on target.
Acceptance of risk, on the other hand,
is a societal issue. Placing zero risk as a
societal goal is not only impractical but
selfish. Any society striving toward a
policy of zero risk would consume
its present and future economic
resources. Isnt it more noble to accept
nonzero risk and to minimize risk as
much as possible within the limits of
practicality? A society that accepts no
risks receives no benefits.
The Physical Sciences: Physics, Chemistry,
Earth Science, and Astronomy
S
cience is the present-day equivalent of what used to be called natural phi-
losophy. Natural philosophy was the study of unanswered questions about
nature. As the answers were found, they became part of what is now called sci-
ence. The study of science today branches into the study of living things and
nonliving things: the life sciences and the physical sciences. The life sciences
branch into such areas as molecular biology, microbiology, and ecology. The
physical sciences branch into such areas as physics, chemistry, the Earth sciences,
and astronomy.
A few words of explanation about each of the major divisions of science:
Physics is the study of such concepts as motion, force, energy, matter, heat, sound,
light, and the components of atoms. Chemistry builds on physics by telling us
how matter is put together, how atoms combine to form molecules, and how the
molecules combine to make the materials around us. Physics and chemistry,
applied to Earth and its processes, make up Earth sciencegeology, meteorology,
2
0
0
8
9
3
4
3
0
1
and oceanography. When we apply physics, chemistry, and geology to other plan-
ets and to the stars, we are speaking about astronomy. Biology is more complex
than physical science, for it involves matter that is alive. Underlying biology is
chemistry, and underlying chemistry is physics. So physics is basic to both physi-
cal science and life science. That is why we begin with physics, then follow with
chemistry, then investigate Earth science and conclude with astronomy. All are
treated conceptually, with the twin goals of enjoyment and understanding.
In Perspective
J
ust as you cant enjoy a ball game, computer game, or party game until you
know its rules, so it is with nature. Because science helps us learn the rules of
nature, it also helps us appreciate nature. You may see beauty in a structure such
as the Golden Gate Bridge, but youll see more beauty in that structure when you
understand how all the forces that act on it balance. Similarly, when you look at
the stars, your sense of their beauty is enhanced if you know how stars are born
from mere clouds of gas and dustwith a little help from the laws of physics, of
course. And how much richer it is, when you look at the myriad objects in your
environment, to know that they are all composed of atomsamazing, ancient,
invisible systems of particles regulated by an eminently knowable set of laws.
If the complexity of science intimidates you, bear this in mind: All the
branches of science rest upon a relatively small number of basic rules. Learn
these underlying rules (physical laws), and you have a tool kit to bring to any
phenomenon you wish to understand.
Go to itwe live in a time of rapid and fascinating scientic discovery!
SUMMARY OF TE RMS
Science The collective ndings of humans about nature, and a
process of gathering and organizing knowledge about
nature.
Scientic method Principles and procedures for the system-
atic pursuit of knowledge involving recognition and
formulation of a problem, collection of data through
observation and experiment, and formulation and testing
of hypotheses.
Hypothesis An educated guess; a reasonable explanation of an
observation or experimental result that is not fully accepted
as factual until tested over and over again by experiment.
Fact A phenomenon about which competent observers who
have made a series of observations agree.
Law A general hypothesis or statement about the relationship
of natural quantities that has been tested over and over
again and has not been contradicted. Also known as a
principle.
Theory A synthesis of a large body of information that
encompasses well-tested and veried hypotheses about
certain aspects of the natural world.
Pseudoscience Fake science that pretends to be real
science.
REVI E W QUE STI ONS
1. Briey, what is science?
A Brief History of Advances in Science
2. Throughout the ages, what has been the general reaction
to new ideas about established truths?
Mathematics and Conceptual Physical Science
3. What is the role of equations in this course?
Scientific Methods
4. Outline the steps of the classic scientic method.
2
0
0
8
9
3
4
3
0
1
The Scientific Attitude
5. Distinguish between a scientic fact, a hypothesis, a law,
and a theory.
6. In daily life, people are often praised for maintaining
some particular point of view, for the courage of their
convictions. A change of mind is seen as a sign of
weakness. How is this different in science?
7. What is the test for whether a hypothesis is scientic
or not?
8. In daily life, we see many cases of people who are caught
misrepresenting things and who soon thereafter are
excused and accepted by their contemporaries. How is
this different in science?
Science Has Limitations
9. What is meant by the term supernatural ?
Science, Art, and Religion
10. Why are students of the arts encouraged to learn
about science and science students encouraged to
learn about the arts?
11. Why do many people believe they must choose between
science and religion?
12. Psychological comfort is a benet of having solid answers
to religious questions. What benet accompanies a posi-
tion of not knowing the answers?
TechnologyThe Practical Use of Science
13. Clearly distinguish between science and technology.
The Physical Sciences: Physics, Chemistry, Earth
Science, and Astronomy
14. Why is physics considered to be the basic science?
In Perspective
15. What is the importance to you in learning natures rules?
E XPL ORI NG F URTHE R
Bodanis, David. A Biography of the Worlds
Most Famous Equation. New York: Berkley Publishing
Group, 2002. This is an engaging book about the people
of science.
Bryson, Bill. A Short History of Nearly Everything. New
York: Broadway Books, 2003. Another engaging book
about the people of science, and from time to time, their
zany antics.
E = mc
2
: Feynman, Richard P. Surely Youre Joking, Mr. Feynman.
New York: Norton, 1986. This is such tasty reading that I
(PGH) allowed myself only one chapter per reading!
Gleick, James. GeniusThe Life and Science of Richard
Feynman. New York: Pantheon Books, 1992. More in
depth about perhaps the most colorful physicist of the
20th century.
E XE RCI SE S
1. Which of the following are scientic hypotheses?
(a) Chlorophyll makes grass green. (b) Earth rotates about
its axis because living things need an alternation of light
and darkness. (c) Tides are caused by the Moon.
2. In answer to the question, When a plant grows, where
does the material come from?, Aristotle hypothesized by
logic that all material came from the soil. Do you con-
sider his hypothesis correct, incorrect, or partially correct?
What experiments do you propose to support your
choice?
3. The great philosopher and mathematician Bertrand
Russell (18721970) wrote about ideas in the early part
of his life that he rejected in the latter part of his life. Do
you see this as a sign of weakness or as a sign of strength
in Bertrand Russell? (Do you speculate that your present
ideas about the world around you will change as you learn
and experience more, or do you speculate that further
knowledge and experience will solidify your present
understanding?)
4. Bertrand Russell wrote, I think we must retain the belief
that scientic knowledge is one of the glories of man.
I will not maintain that knowledge can never do harm.
I think such general propositions can almost always be
refuted by well-chosen examples. What I will maintain
and maintain vigorouslyis that knowledge is very much
more often useful than harmful and that fear of knowl-
edge is very much more often harmful than useful.
Think of examples to support this statement.
2
0
0
8
9
3
4
3
0
1
2
0
0
8
9
3
4
3
0
1

SCI321 Prologue

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCI321 Prologue

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCI321 Prologue

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Science is the product of human curiosity about

how the world worksan organized body of

You might also like