{"id":5057,"date":"2017-07-18T19:51:22","date_gmt":"2017-07-18T19:51:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/hccs-waymakerbiology1\/?post_type=chapter&p=5057"},"modified":"2017-08-02T19:54:05","modified_gmt":"2017-08-02T19:54:05","slug":"scientific-inquiry","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/hccs-waymakerbiology1\/chapter\/scientific-inquiry\/","title":{"raw":"Scientific Inquiry","rendered":"Scientific Inquiry"},"content":{"raw":"
\r\n
\r\n

Learning Outcomes<\/h3>\r\n
    \r\n \t
  • Understand the process of scientific inquiry<\/li>\r\n \t
  • Compare inductive reasoning with deductive reasoning<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    One thing is common to all forms of science: an ultimate goal \u201cto know.\u201d Curiosity and inquiry are the driving forces for the development of science. Scientists seek to understand the world and the way it operates. Two methods of logical thinking are used: inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.<\/p>\r\n

    Inductive reasoning<\/strong> is a form of logical thinking that uses related observations to arrive at a general conclusion. This type of reasoning is common in descriptive science. A life scientist such as a biologist makes observations and records them. These data can be qualitative (descriptive) or quantitative (consisting of numbers), and the raw data can be supplemented with drawings, pictures, photos, or videos. From many observations, the scientist can infer conclusions (inductions) based on evidence. Inductive reasoning involves formulating generalizations inferred from careful observation and the analysis of a large amount of data. Brain studies often work this way. Many brains are observed while people are doing a task. The part of the brain that lights up, indicating activity, is then demonstrated to be the part controlling the response to that task.<\/p>\r\n

    Deductive reasoning or deduction is the type of logic used in hypothesis-based science. In deductive reasoning, the pattern of thinking moves in the opposite direction as compared to inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning<\/strong> is a form of logical thinking that uses a general principle or law to forecast specific results. From those general principles, a scientist can extrapolate and predict the specific results that would be valid as long as the general principles are valid. For example, a prediction would be that if the climate is becoming warmer in a region, the distribution of plants and animals should change. Comparisons have been made between distributions in the past and the present, and the many changes that have been found are consistent with a warming climate. Finding the change in distribution is evidence that the climate change conclusion is a valid one.<\/p>\r\n

    Both types of logical thinking are related to the two main pathways of scientific study: descriptive science and hypothesis-based science. Descriptive<\/strong> (or discovery) science<\/strong> aims to observe, explore, and discover, while hypothesis-based science<\/strong> begins with a specific question or problem and a potential answer or solution that can be tested. The boundary between these two forms of study is often blurred, because most scientific endeavors combine both approaches. Observations lead to questions, questions lead to forming a hypothesis as a possible answer to those questions, and then the hypothesis is tested. Thus, descriptive science and hypothesis-based science are in continuous dialogue.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/section><\/section>

    \r\n

    Hypothesis Testing<\/h2>\r\n
    <\/figure>\r\n
    \r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_1082\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"250\"]\"Painting Figure 1. Sir Francis Bacon is credited with being the first to document the scientific method.[\/caption]\r\n

    <\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\nBiologists study the living world by posing questions about it and seeking science-based responses. This approach is common to other sciences as well and is often referred to as the scientific method. The scientific method was used even in ancient times, but it was first documented by England\u2019s Sir Francis Bacon (1561\u20131626) (Figure 1), who set up inductive methods for scientific inquiry. The scientific method is not exclusively used by biologists but can be applied to almost anything as a logical problem-solving method.\r\n

    The scientific process typically starts with an observation (often a problem to be solved) that leads to a question. Let\u2019s think about a simple problem that starts with an observation and apply the scientific method to solve the problem. One Monday morning, a student arrives at class and quickly discovers that the classroom is too warm. That is an observation that also describes a problem: the classroom is too warm. The student then asks a question: \u201cWhy is the classroom so warm?\u201d<\/p>\r\n

    Recall that a hypothesis is a suggested explanation that can be tested. To solve a problem, several hypotheses may be proposed. For example, one hypothesis might be, \u201cThe classroom is warm because no one turned on the air conditioning.\u201d But there could be other responses to the question, and therefore other hypotheses may be proposed. A second hypothesis might be, \u201cThe classroom is warm because there is a power failure, and so the air conditioning doesn\u2019t work.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

    Once a hypothesis has been selected, a prediction may be made. A prediction is similar to a hypothesis but it typically has the format \u201cIf . . . then . . . .\u201d For example, the prediction for the first hypothesis might be, \u201cIf<\/em> the student turns on the air conditioning, then<\/em> the classroom will no longer be too warm.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

    A hypothesis must be testable to ensure that it is valid. For example, a hypothesis that depends on what a bear thinks is not testable, because it can never be known what a bear thinks. It should also be falsifiable<\/strong>, meaning that it can be disproven by experimental results. An example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis is \u201cBotticelli\u2019s Birth of Venus<\/em> is beautiful.\u201d There is no experiment that might show this statement to be false. To test a hypothesis, a researcher will conduct one or more experiments designed to eliminate one or more of the hypotheses. This is important. A hypothesis can be disproven, or eliminated, but it can never be proven. Science does not deal in proofs like mathematics. If an experiment fails to disprove a hypothesis, then we find support for that explanation, but this is not to say that down the road a better explanation will not be found, or a more carefully designed experiment will be found to falsify the hypothesis.<\/p>\r\nScientific inquiry has not displaced faith, intuition, and dreams. These traditions and ways of knowing have emotional value and provide moral guidance to many people. But hunches, feelings, deep convictions, old traditions, or dreams cannot be accepted directly as scientifically valid. Instead, science limits itself to ideas that can be tested through verifiable observations. Supernatural claims that events are caused by ghosts, devils, God, or other spiritual entities cannot be tested in this way.\r\n

    \r\n

    Practice Question<\/h3>\r\nYour friend sees this image of a circle of mushrooms and excitedly tells you it was caused by fairies dancing in a circle on the grass the night before. Can your friend\u2019s explanation be studied using the process of science?\r\n\r\n\"There\r\n\r\n[reveal-answer q=\"665464\"]Show Answer<\/strong>[\/reveal-answer]\r\n[hidden-answer a=\"665464\"]In theory, you might try to observe the fairies. But fairies are magical or supernatural beings. We have never observed them using any verifiable method, so scientists agree that they cannot be studied using scientific tools. Instead, science has an explanation supported by strong evidence: \u201cfairy rings\u201d result when a single colony of fungus spreads out into good habitat over a period of many years. The core area is clear of mushrooms because the soil nutrients have been partly depleted there. This idea can be evaluated with repeated observations over time using chemical soil tests and other verifiable measurements.[\/hidden-answer]\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    Each experiment will have one or more variables and one or more controls. A variable<\/strong> is any part of the experiment that can vary or change during the experiment. A control<\/strong> is a part of the experiment that does not change. Look for the variables and controls in the example that follows. As a simple example, an experiment might be conducted to test the hypothesis that phosphate limits the growth of algae in freshwater ponds. A series of artificial ponds are filled with water and half of them are treated by adding phosphate each week, while the other half are treated by adding a salt that is known not to be used by algae. The variable here is the phosphate (or lack of phosphate), the experimental or treatment cases are the ponds with added phosphate and the control ponds are those with something inert added, such as the salt. Just adding something is also a control against the possibility that adding extra matter to the pond has an effect. If the treated ponds show lesser growth of algae, then we have found support for our hypothesis. If they do not, then we reject our hypothesis. Be aware that rejecting one hypothesis does not determine whether or not the other hypotheses can be accepted; it simply eliminates one hypothesis that is not valid (Figure 2). Using the scientific method, the hypotheses that are inconsistent with experimental data are rejected.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Practice Question<\/h3>\r\n
    \r\n
    <\/figure>\r\n
    \r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_1083\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"448\"]\"A Figure 2. The scientific method is a series of defined steps that include experiments and careful observation. If a hypothesis is not supported by data, a new hypothesis can be proposed.[\/caption]\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    In the example below, the scientific method is used to solve an everyday problem. Which part in the example below is the hypothesis? Which is the prediction? Based on the results of the experiment, is the hypothesis supported? If it is not supported, propose some alternative hypotheses.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

      \r\n \t
    1. My toaster doesn\u2019t toast my bread.<\/li>\r\n \t
    2. Why doesn\u2019t my toaster work?<\/li>\r\n \t
    3. There is something wrong with the electrical outlet.<\/li>\r\n \t
    4. If something is wrong with the outlet, my coffeemaker also won\u2019t work when plugged into it.<\/li>\r\n \t
    5. I plug my coffeemaker into the outlet.<\/li>\r\n \t
    6. My coffeemaker works.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n[practice-area rows=\"4\"][\/practice-area]\r\n[reveal-answer q=\"41039\"]Show Answer[\/reveal-answer]\r\n[hidden-answer a=\"41039\"]The hypothesis is #3 (there is something wrong with the electrical outlet), and the prediction is #4 (if something is wrong with the outlet, then the coffeemaker also won\u2019t work when plugged into the outlet). The original hypothesis is not supported, as the coffee maker works when plugged into the outlet. Alternative hypotheses may include (1) the toaster might be broken or (2) the toaster wasn\u2019t turned on.[\/hidden-answer]\r\n\r\n<\/section><\/div>\r\n

      In practice, the scientific method is not as rigid and structured as it might at first appear. Sometimes an experiment leads to conclusions that favor a change in approach; often, an experiment brings entirely new scientific questions to the puzzle. Many times, science does not operate in a linear fashion; instead, scientists continually draw inferences and make generalizations, finding patterns as their research proceeds. Scientific reasoning is more complex than the scientific method alone suggests.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/section>","rendered":"

      \n
      \n
      \n

      Learning Outcomes<\/h3>\n
        \n
      • Understand the process of scientific inquiry<\/li>\n
      • Compare inductive reasoning with deductive reasoning<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n

        One thing is common to all forms of science: an ultimate goal \u201cto know.\u201d Curiosity and inquiry are the driving forces for the development of science. Scientists seek to understand the world and the way it operates. Two methods of logical thinking are used: inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.<\/p>\n

        Inductive reasoning<\/strong> is a form of logical thinking that uses related observations to arrive at a general conclusion. This type of reasoning is common in descriptive science. A life scientist such as a biologist makes observations and records them. These data can be qualitative (descriptive) or quantitative (consisting of numbers), and the raw data can be supplemented with drawings, pictures, photos, or videos. From many observations, the scientist can infer conclusions (inductions) based on evidence. Inductive reasoning involves formulating generalizations inferred from careful observation and the analysis of a large amount of data. Brain studies often work this way. Many brains are observed while people are doing a task. The part of the brain that lights up, indicating activity, is then demonstrated to be the part controlling the response to that task.<\/p>\n

        Deductive reasoning or deduction is the type of logic used in hypothesis-based science. In deductive reasoning, the pattern of thinking moves in the opposite direction as compared to inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning<\/strong> is a form of logical thinking that uses a general principle or law to forecast specific results. From those general principles, a scientist can extrapolate and predict the specific results that would be valid as long as the general principles are valid. For example, a prediction would be that if the climate is becoming warmer in a region, the distribution of plants and animals should change. Comparisons have been made between distributions in the past and the present, and the many changes that have been found are consistent with a warming climate. Finding the change in distribution is evidence that the climate change conclusion is a valid one.<\/p>\n

        Both types of logical thinking are related to the two main pathways of scientific study: descriptive science and hypothesis-based science. Descriptive<\/strong> (or discovery) science<\/strong> aims to observe, explore, and discover, while hypothesis-based science<\/strong> begins with a specific question or problem and a potential answer or solution that can be tested. The boundary between these two forms of study is often blurred, because most scientific endeavors combine both approaches. Observations lead to questions, questions lead to forming a hypothesis as a possible answer to those questions, and then the hypothesis is tested. Thus, descriptive science and hypothesis-based science are in continuous dialogue.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<\/section>\n

        \n

        Hypothesis Testing<\/h2>\n
        <\/figure>\n
        \n
        \"Painting<\/p>\n

        Figure 1. Sir Francis Bacon is credited with being the first to document the scientific method.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

        \n<\/div>\n

        Biologists study the living world by posing questions about it and seeking science-based responses. This approach is common to other sciences as well and is often referred to as the scientific method. The scientific method was used even in ancient times, but it was first documented by England\u2019s Sir Francis Bacon (1561\u20131626) (Figure 1), who set up inductive methods for scientific inquiry. The scientific method is not exclusively used by biologists but can be applied to almost anything as a logical problem-solving method.<\/p>\n

        The scientific process typically starts with an observation (often a problem to be solved) that leads to a question. Let\u2019s think about a simple problem that starts with an observation and apply the scientific method to solve the problem. One Monday morning, a student arrives at class and quickly discovers that the classroom is too warm. That is an observation that also describes a problem: the classroom is too warm. The student then asks a question: \u201cWhy is the classroom so warm?\u201d<\/p>\n

        Recall that a hypothesis is a suggested explanation that can be tested. To solve a problem, several hypotheses may be proposed. For example, one hypothesis might be, \u201cThe classroom is warm because no one turned on the air conditioning.\u201d But there could be other responses to the question, and therefore other hypotheses may be proposed. A second hypothesis might be, \u201cThe classroom is warm because there is a power failure, and so the air conditioning doesn\u2019t work.\u201d<\/p>\n

        Once a hypothesis has been selected, a prediction may be made. A prediction is similar to a hypothesis but it typically has the format \u201cIf . . . then . . . .\u201d For example, the prediction for the first hypothesis might be, \u201cIf<\/em> the student turns on the air conditioning, then<\/em> the classroom will no longer be too warm.\u201d<\/p>\n

        A hypothesis must be testable to ensure that it is valid. For example, a hypothesis that depends on what a bear thinks is not testable, because it can never be known what a bear thinks. It should also be falsifiable<\/strong>, meaning that it can be disproven by experimental results. An example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis is \u201cBotticelli\u2019s Birth of Venus<\/em> is beautiful.\u201d There is no experiment that might show this statement to be false. To test a hypothesis, a researcher will conduct one or more experiments designed to eliminate one or more of the hypotheses. This is important. A hypothesis can be disproven, or eliminated, but it can never be proven. Science does not deal in proofs like mathematics. If an experiment fails to disprove a hypothesis, then we find support for that explanation, but this is not to say that down the road a better explanation will not be found, or a more carefully designed experiment will be found to falsify the hypothesis.<\/p>\n

        Scientific inquiry has not displaced faith, intuition, and dreams. These traditions and ways of knowing have emotional value and provide moral guidance to many people. But hunches, feelings, deep convictions, old traditions, or dreams cannot be accepted directly as scientifically valid. Instead, science limits itself to ideas that can be tested through verifiable observations. Supernatural claims that events are caused by ghosts, devils, God, or other spiritual entities cannot be tested in this way.<\/p>\n

        \n

        Practice Question<\/h3>\n

        Your friend sees this image of a circle of mushrooms and excitedly tells you it was caused by fairies dancing in a circle on the grass the night before. Can your friend\u2019s explanation be studied using the process of science?<\/p>\n

        \"There<\/p>\n

        Show Answer<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n
        In theory, you might try to observe the fairies. But fairies are magical or supernatural beings. We have never observed them using any verifiable method, so scientists agree that they cannot be studied using scientific tools. Instead, science has an explanation supported by strong evidence: \u201cfairy rings\u201d result when a single colony of fungus spreads out into good habitat over a period of many years. The core area is clear of mushrooms because the soil nutrients have been partly depleted there. This idea can be evaluated with repeated observations over time using chemical soil tests and other verifiable measurements.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

        Each experiment will have one or more variables and one or more controls. A variable<\/strong> is any part of the experiment that can vary or change during the experiment. A control<\/strong> is a part of the experiment that does not change. Look for the variables and controls in the example that follows. As a simple example, an experiment might be conducted to test the hypothesis that phosphate limits the growth of algae in freshwater ponds. A series of artificial ponds are filled with water and half of them are treated by adding phosphate each week, while the other half are treated by adding a salt that is known not to be used by algae. The variable here is the phosphate (or lack of phosphate), the experimental or treatment cases are the ponds with added phosphate and the control ponds are those with something inert added, such as the salt. Just adding something is also a control against the possibility that adding extra matter to the pond has an effect. If the treated ponds show lesser growth of algae, then we have found support for our hypothesis. If they do not, then we reject our hypothesis. Be aware that rejecting one hypothesis does not determine whether or not the other hypotheses can be accepted; it simply eliminates one hypothesis that is not valid (Figure 2). Using the scientific method, the hypotheses that are inconsistent with experimental data are rejected.<\/p>\n

        \n

        Practice Question<\/h3>\n
        \n
        <\/figure>\n
        \n
        \"A<\/p>\n

        Figure 2. The scientific method is a series of defined steps that include experiments and careful observation. If a hypothesis is not supported by data, a new hypothesis can be proposed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

        In the example below, the scientific method is used to solve an everyday problem. Which part in the example below is the hypothesis? Which is the prediction? Based on the results of the experiment, is the hypothesis supported? If it is not supported, propose some alternative hypotheses.<\/p>\n

          \n
        1. My toaster doesn\u2019t toast my bread.<\/li>\n
        2. Why doesn\u2019t my toaster work?<\/li>\n
        3. There is something wrong with the electrical outlet.<\/li>\n
        4. If something is wrong with the outlet, my coffeemaker also won\u2019t work when plugged into it.<\/li>\n
        5. I plug my coffeemaker into the outlet.<\/li>\n
        6. My coffeemaker works.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n