2
Perspectives on Science

I have spent my life in science pursuing the magic of chemistry. In attempting to give some perspectives and thoughts on science, it is first necessary to define what science really is. As with other frequently used (or misused) terms such as “God” or “democracy” that have widely differing meanings to different people at different times and places “science” does not seem to be readily and uniformly defined. Science, derived from the Latin “scientia,” originally meant general knowledge both of the physical and spiritual world. Through the ages, however, the meaning of science narrowed to the description and understanding (knowledge) of nature (i.e., the physical world). Science is thus a major intellectual effort of man, a search for knowledge of the physical world, the laws governing it, and its meaning. It also touches however on fundamental, ageless questions as to our existence, origin, purpose, intelligence, etc., and, through these, the limits of how far our understanding can reach. In many ways the scientists' intellectual efforts expressing their thoughts and quest for general knowledge and understanding are similar to other intellectual efforts in areas such as the humanities, arts, etc., although they are expressed in different ways.

In discussing science we also need to define its scope, as well as the methods and views (concepts) involved in its pursuit. It is also useful to think about what science is not, although this can sometimes become controversial. Significant and important studies such as those concerned with the fields of sociology, politics, or economics increasingly use methods that previously were associated only with the physical and biological sciences or mathematics. However, I believe these are not in a strict sense “hard sciences.” The name “science” these days is also frequently hyphenated to vary other fields (from animal-science to culinary science to exercise science, etc.). Such studies indeed may use some of the methods of science, but they hardly fall under the scope of science. There is a Dutch proverb that says “Everything has its science, with the exception of catching fleas: This is an art.” It may overstate the point, but sometimes to make a point it is necessary to overstate it.

When we talk about knowledge of the physical world we generally refer to facts derived from systematic observation, study, and experimentation as well as the concepts and theories based on these facts. This is contrasted with belief (faith, intuition) of the spiritual or supernatural.

Scientists use methods in their pursuit of knowledge that frequently are referred to collectively as the “scientific method.” Originally credit goes to Francis Bacon's ideas at the end of the sixteenth century. Bacon believed that the facts in any given field can be collected according to accepted and prearranged plans and then passed through a logical intellectual process from which the correct judgments will emerge. Because phenomena (facts) were so numerous even then, he suggested that they must be chosen (selected), which is a subjective act of judgment. This process is however hardly compatible with what we now associate with the scientific method.

This also brings up the essential relationship of science and its historical perspective. We can never talk about science, without putting it into its time frame. August Comte wrote, “L'histoire de la science c'est la science meme” – “The history of science is science itself.” For example, when we look back in time early scientists (savants) long believed that the earth is the center of the universe and that it is flat. They even warned that approaching its edges would put one at risk of falling off. However strange this may seem to be for us today, they were interpreting the limited knowledge they had at the time. We may pride ourselves on what we consider our advanced knowledge in the twenty-first century, but I am sure future generations will look back at us and say how ignorant and naive we were. As Einstein said, “One thing I have learned in a long life is that all of our science, measured against reality, is primitive and child-like and yet it is the most precious thing we have.” I hope that it will also be remembered that we tried our best. Scientific knowledge by its nature continuously changes and expands. Only through its historical time frame can science be put into its proper perspective. It is thus regrettable that the history of science is generally not taught in our universities and colleges. This probably is also due to the fact that the interactions between scientists and historians (philosophers), and the mutual understanding of the significance of their fields, are frequently far from satisfactory.

The days are long gone when friends of Lavoisier, one of the greatest scientists of the time, during the terror of the French revolution, were pleading for his life before the revolutionary tribunal. It, however, ruled that “la revolution n'a pas besoin de la science” (the revolution does not need science). His head was guillotined off the same day. Since that time it has however become clear that the world needs very much science for a better future. Science does not know national, racial, or religious distinctions. There is no separate American, European, Chinese, or Indian science; science is truly international. Although scientific results, like anything else, can also be misused (the study of atomic energy is still frequently condemned because its development was closely related to that of the atom bomb), we cannot be limited and must look at the broader benefits of science.

The scientific method, as mentioned before, involves observation and experimentation (research) undertaken to discover or establish facts. These are followed by deduction or hypothesis, establishing theories or principles. This sequence, however, may be reversed. The noted twentieth century philosopher Karl Popper, who also dealt with science, expressed the view that the scientist's work starts not with collection of data (observation) but with selection of a suitable problem (theory). In fact, however, both of these paths can be involved. Significant and sometimes accidental observations can be made without any preconceived idea of a problem or theory and vice versa. The scientist, however, must have a well-prepared, open mind to be able to recognize the significance of such observations and must be able to follow them through. Science always demands rigorous standards of procedure, reproducibility, and open discussion that sets reason over irrational belief.

Research is frequently considered to be either basic (to build up fundamental knowledge) or applied (directed to specific practical goals). I myself, however, have never believed in such strict dividing line. Whenever I made some new finding in chemistry I never could resist also exploring whether it might have a practical use. The results of scientific research can subsequently be developed into technology (research and development). It is necessary however to differentiate science from technology, because they are frequently lumped together without clearly defining their differences. To recapitulate: science is the search for knowledge; technology is the application of scientific knowledge to provide for the needs of society (in a practical as well as economically feasible way).

“In the pursuit of research or observation many would see what others have seen before, but it is the well-prepared one who (according to Albert Szent-Györgyi, Nobel Prize winner in medicine 1937) may think what nobody else has thought before” and achieve a discovery or breakthrough. Mark Twain once wrote that “the greatest of all inventors is chance.” Chance, however, will favor only those who are prepared for it and capable of recognizing the significance of an unexpected invention and explore it further.

Thomas Kuhn, the science philosopher, in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions, called “normal science” research that is based upon established and accepted concepts (paradigms) that are acknowledged as providing the foundation for the future. This is the overwhelming part of scientific research. It is also considered “safe” to pursue because it is rarely controversial. Following Yogi Berra's advice, it allows the scientists “not to make the wrong mistakes.” Consequently, it is usually supported and peer approved. Some scientists, however, point out occasionally unexpected and unexplained new findings or observed anomalies. These always are “high risk” and controversial and frequently turn out to be wrong. But on occasions they can lead to new fundamental scientific discoveries and breakthroughs that advance science to new levels (paradigm changes). Kuhn called this “revolutionary science,” which can lead to groundbreaking discoveries which cannot be accommodated by existing paradigms.

Science continuously develops ever more rigorous standards of procedure and evaluation for setting reason aside from irrational belief. However, with passing time and accumulated knowledge many accepted concepts turn out to be incorrect or need reevaluation. An example mentioned is the question of earth as the center of our universe. Others come to mind from Euclidean geometry to the nature of the atom.

Euclid's...