---

Alec Burton,M.Sc.,D.C.,D.O.Hons(Lond)

“Science is Physics, all the rest is stamp collecting.” Ernest Rutherford, 1871 – 1937

Science is highly regarded in modern society and it is the common belief that there is something extraordinary and special about the enterprise. It is believed to be a source of objective and reliable knowledge that is constantly expanding.

I think that science is one of the most useful activities ever conceived by the human mind and the results of its application are all around us. We are frequently lost in wonder.

However, as we may perceive its many results and benefits, we must also acknowledge its limitations. In fact, the high regard for science has elevated it to a position of a modern religion. But the common beliefs about it are unjustifiable.

Science does not prove things nor does it disprove them. Scientific theories do not claim to be true, but probably more true than the theories they displace.1 Galileo (1564-1642) was successful in understanding the world through mathematical theories of motion, there were important and significant differences achieved by Newton (1642-1727), whose theories were tested countless times everyday for 300 years; but Einstein (1879-1955) exposed the errors and presented a radically different way of looking at the universe.

The origins of modern science can be traced back to Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626), Lord Chancellor of England (1618-1621), a lawyer, philosopher and outstanding literary man, who gives a method of acquiring natural knowledge in his Novum Organum published in 1620. It was a project not explored much since the time of Aristotle (384-322 BC).

Until recently it was believed that there is some special kind of approach that scientists practice called the ‘scientific method’.This has largely faded through the work of Paul Feyerabend, incisively expounded in his work, ‘Against Method’.2 This book caused an absolute storm among philosophers when it was published in the 1970’s but, I think, it is generally accepted now.

Much happened in the past four centuries, well documented in John Gribbin’s book ‘Science – A History (1543 to 2001)’3 an epic and exciting work for anyone interested in science.

The scientific practice was formally analysed by Thomas Kuhn (1922 – 1996) in his masterful work ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’4. In this work, he introduced the term ‘paradigm’, conceptual world views made up of theories, experiments and classical methods which seem adequate to describe particular phenomena at the time; but as knowledge advances, the inadequacies of the paradigm are exposed and a crisis arises which can only be resolved by a ‘paradigm shift’. Historically, such paradigm shifts were the displacement of Ptolemy’s cosmology by the Heliocentrism of Copernicus and the replacement of Newtonian theories by those of Einstein and Quantum mechanics.

The crucial defining characteristic of Science is the type of reasoning it employs which, in philosophy, is called ‘the problem of induction’. Induction is a process of reasoning that goes from empirical premises to empirical conclusions, supported by the premises, but not deduced from them. It is, therefore, inductive rather than deductive reasoning. In deductive reasoning, the conclusion is implicit in the premise:

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal

This is not the case with inductive reasoning which is the inverse process, reasoning from the particular to the general. It is based on the assumption that if something is true in a number of observed occasions, it is also true on other occasions, although not observed. An example of this is the common opinion poll where the ‘opinion’ of a small percentage is projected to the total population. It is not difficult to see that there are problems with this.

This leads to the problem of causation and the sceptics’ rejection of scientific principles or laws. The philosopher, David Hume (1711 – 1776)5 was quite devastating in his rejection of the idea of causation. He says ‘Reason can never show us the connection of one object with another, though aided by experience, and the observation of their conjunction in all past instances’. Hume argued that there is no necessary connection between cause and effect. Hume’s effect was enormous and led to Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) developing his critical philosophy as a direct reaction to Hume.

Science is based on the inductive method of reasoning, and explaining natural events, causal mechanisms, predicting events and occurrences are its forte. Now, if you want to see how difficult this is, study the weather reports. This is science in action. When it comes to foretelling the future, the difficulties are enormous. No matter how many times an effect is observed, following a particular cause, it is not possible to predict the outcome with accuracy. We may enter the esoteric area of probability but let us recognise one thousand; one hundred thousand or even one million divided into infinity is still zero.

Bertrand Russell tells the story of the inductivist turkey who lived on the turkey farm in quiet confidence. He was fed every morning, given drink, his pen was dutifully cleaned and his environment tidied. He lived the good life and knew what to expect every day. Then one day, as Christmas approached, his keeper visited and cut his throat.

When one reads the voluminous literature on the philosophy of science, almost all the challenging examples are from physics. They are not from the life sciences. In physics, it is possible, although difficult, to control the variables. It is virtually impossible in biology. Of course, complex statistical methods are employed to counteract their effect, but it is still basically true, as Lord Rutherford stated, “Science is physics”.

One of the best books listed by some authorities as among the ten best books of the twentieth century is ‘The Logic of Scientific Discovery’6 by Sir Karl Popper. In this work, the author introduces the concept of “falsification”. Scientific theories are essentially conjectures that are testable. If theory is not capable of being falsified, it is not scientific. In Hygiene, we are all familiar with the appealing ‘enervation-toxaemia theory’ which has enormous explanatory power, but it cannot be tested or falsified. It is not scientific. 7,8

This is not to suggest that a theory or position that is not scientific is not useful; science is not applicable to all areas of knowledge. This was a problem that pervaded the philosophers and scientists of the Vienna Circle in the 1920’s. The movement came to be known as Logical Positivism, Logical Empiricism, Scientific Empiricism and a fundamental tenet they espoused was the ‘verification principle’, that only propositions based on experience and observation were meaningful. Its narrow vision was soon exposed but aspects of the philosophy, significantly modified, are extant today.

In our quest for knowledge we need both philosophy and science and we should vigorously guard against the tendency, now apparent in our organisation, to elevate science to an unjustified position as the only source of knowledge.

References
Chalmers, A.F., What is This Thing Called Science, University of Queensland Press, 1976
Feyerabend, Paul, Against Method, Verso, London, 1975
Gribbin, J., Science A History, 1543-2001, Penguin Books, London, 2001
Kuhn, T. S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, 1962
Hume, D. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding 1748
Popper, K. R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson of London, 1959 Objective Knowledge, Clarendon Press, Oxford, l972
Cartwright, Nancy, How the Laws of Physics Lie, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1983
8. Stove, D.C., The Rationality of Induction, Clarendon Press, Oxford. 1986Hllll hixo

Hllll hixo

Dr Alec Burton is a director of Arcadia Health Centre, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia and a director of the Australian College of Hygiene which offers graduate training for doctors and a correspondence course in Hygiene for lay people.