Special Edition Newsletter

October 25, 2013 - Scientific Thought in Biology

Scientific Thought

Each academic discipline has a specific way of viewing the world, a paradigm. In the sciences, one of the major filters is the Hypetheticodeductive Model, a common example of which is the Scientific Method. If we look at the word hypetheticodeductive, we can easily distinguish two critical concepts: Hypothesis and Deduction. These are the critical foundations of scientific thought.

A hypothesis is a tentative explanation of a phenomena that can lead to predictions that can be tested experimentally. One trick to the hypothesis is that it must admit to the possibility of being false (a hypothesis that has no way of yielding a false result is invalid). For example, you read about a new herbal supplement that increases intellect. Doing some web searches, you find more information from the producer. You read in the fine print that "people who do not experience increased intellect in the first few weeks have toxins in their body that block the beneficial effects of this supplement." They then give you a link to their herbal detox. Was the statement about results a hypothesis? Could you have a hypothesis that said some nebulous toxin prevents claims that there was a negative result?

The second word to consider is deductive. Deductive reasoning starts with one or more premises. These are general statements, such as a hypothesis, that are used to build a logical conclusion. In science, part of the process is to gather evidence that supports the hypothesis. The analysis of evidence (facts, data) allows us to build a logical conclusion that either supports or refutes the hypothesis.

This brings us to a few more critical concepts worthy of consideration. Experimentation is critical to a scientist. You could generate hypotheses all day, but you are not doing science if that is all you do. In order to do science, you must put your hypotheses to the test. Think of experimentation as a set of actions and observations performed in order to solve a particular problem or question. In science, the context is to provide support or refutation of a hypothesis.

What does an experiment give us? DATA (a synonym for data in this case is FACTS). Data is used as evidence to support or refute the hypothesis.

Goal of Science

Essentially, the goal of science is to predict and control natural phenomena. To do this, we use our senses (even senses enhanced by high-tech instruments). Because of our reliance on sensory information, we are unable to describe the Truth of Reality, but we can create models of reality that allow us to predict and control natural phenomena. For example, a doctor can look at your blood work, listen to your heart and lungs, feel your lymph nodes, and from all the tests, diagnose an ailment. They can then prescribe a treatment to control or eliminate the ailment.

Scientific Thought in Biology

Biology is like the other sciences, our core model is the hypetheticodeductive model. Unlike physics and chemistry though, we also rely on pure observation without a formal hypothesis as a critical pursuit to understand natural phenomena.

Consider a "Disease Detective" confronting an outbreak. Do they go in with the idea of "let's first form a hypothesis as to the cause", or do they just go in, look at patients, collect patient vitals, as well as samples. They then analyze the collected information and samples, and begin narrowing down what they have found. From their experience and knowledge, they may quickly rule out causes, but this is still not a formal hypothesis. They may have an informal hypothesis that it is a biological agent, but they are still very much working on pure observation. Are they even experimenting at first?

Consider the observations of Charles Darwin during his time aboard the HMS Beagle. Did he have a hypothesis he was testing, or was he just observing?

Does this mean that all we do is observation? No. A critical feature of modern biology is experimentation. Understanding of genetics and molecular has led to the ability to test hypotheses we could only formulate 10 years ago. Powerful computers have allowed statistical analysis of decades worth of observational data. Experimentation and data analysis are still critical, but remember so to is observation.

Discussion

Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis is a figure rarely discussed in general biology, but his work as one of the founders of Infection Control is important. His work also stands as an incredible example of the hypethetico-deductive model at work:
Read the following websites/articles. It is suggested that you read them in order.

In the discussion forum for today, describe how Dr. Semmelweis' work with puerperal fever demonstrate the scientific method at work. Look at the hypotheses he generated, and consider whether these were strong or weak? Does the data shown in the fourth link provide support to Dr. Semmelweis' final solution? Did Dr. Semmelweis have the correct cause, or were there other discovers that ultimately explain what was happening in the First Ward? Discuss the concept of an Agent of Change; how did Dr. Semmelweis fail as an agent of change, and consider how you would stand as an agent of change.
NOTE: Don't answer these as individual questions. Consider and build a response.