Science and Larry
The scientific method is a method of doing science.
Umm, you did not define the term; you just reworded it.
Fine. The scientific method is the process scientists use for experimentation. Are you happy now?
Yes. So let me get this straight. The scientific method is a procedure of doing science.
I hate you.
I can live with that.
All experiments begin with a question, such as Does exercise increase heart rate? However, not all questions are testable; therefore, not a part of science.
Huh?
The scientific method only works within the physical realm, where a prediction can be supported or not supported by empirical data. For example, we can test whether exercise increases heart rate because it is a physical measurement. Science cannot test for the existence of a deity or any other metaphysical entity because they are outside the realms of science.
So does that mean that the metaphysical does not exist?
No. Science currently does not have the ability to test the metaphysical; therefore, the empirical answer to its existence is unknown.
Can you give an example of a testable and untestable prediction?
Sure. Here is a testable prediction:
If 50 subjects do five minutes of jumping jacks, then their heart rate will increase compared to their resting heart rate.
Here is an untestable prediction:
If 50 subjects stare up at the sky for an hour and then the ground for an hour, then more subjects become one with Larry while staring at the sky than staring at the ground.
Wait, what’s a Larry?
It’s a metaphysical force of Larryness.
What does it do?
Well, why don’t you experiment on what a Larry is and what it does?
How am I supposed to experiment if I have no idea what a Larry is or what it does? I mean, is it a sky deity or ground deity?
I don’t know. Test it.
Fine. I’m going to stare at the sky and then the ground. I’ll be back tomorrow.
24 hours later . . .
I did not see a Larry or become one with a Larry. So, does that prove it does not exist?
First of all, science does not prove anything; it tests the likelihood of something occurring. Second of all, not observing something does not mean it does not exist. Third of all, ancodotal evidence is not good science
So how do I test for Larry?
I don’t know, and science does not know because Larry is untestable. Therefore, Larry is based on belief.
So, is science better than belief?
No. One is not better than the other. It’s a matter of perspective. For example, if you want to know what causes thunder and lightning, then you are more likely to find the answer via the scientific method. However, if you want to know if there is life after death, belief is more likely to give you a meaningful answer. But even these distinctions vary. Finding meaning in life is a personal experience that can include both science and belief. And doing science requires a certain level of belief.
Variables
There are there major types of variables in experimentation:
- The independent variable is the thing you are testing. Each experiment can have only ONE independent variable. For example, if you are testing if exercise increases heart rate, then exercise is the independent variable.
- The dependent variable is the results from the experiment and is dependent on the independent variable. Usually, there is one dependent variable, but some experiments may have more than one. For example, if you are testing if exercise increases heart rate, heart rate is the dependent variable because it is dependent on exercise.
- Control variables are variables that do not change in the experiment. Any variable that is not an independent variable or a dependent variable must be a control variable. For example, if you are testing is exercise increases heart rate, the type of exercise, the environment, the length of the exercise, the shoes the subject is wearing, etc. are control variables.
Data Tables
Data tables are where the experimental data (results) are recorded. A data table needs to be created before experimentation so data recording is done accurately. For example, if you are testing if exercise increases heart rate, you do NOT want to record the experimental results as follows:
Resting HR, 68 bpm; Minute 1, 121 bpm; minute 2, 134 bpm; minute 3, 142 bpm; minute 4, 145 bpm; minute 5, 152 bpm
The data above is correct, but it is arranged confusingly and more likely to record errors. Here is the proper way to record scientific data:
The Effects of Exercise on Heart Rate
| Minutes of Exercise | Heart Rate (bpm) |
|---|---|
| Resting | 68 |
| 1 | 121 |
| 2 | 134 |
| 3 | 142 |
| 4 | 145 |
| 5 | 152 |
Now is that easier to read and less error-prone?
Yes. Yes, it is.