Logo for M Libraries Publishing

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Theme 2: How Does Blood and Organ Donation Work?

2.9 The Process of Science

Like geology, physics, and chemistry, biology is a science that gathers knowledge about the natural world. Specifically, biology is the study of life. The discoveries of biology are made by a community of researchers who work individually and together using agreed-on methods. In this sense, biology, like all sciences is a social enterprise like politics or the arts. The methods of science include careful observation, record keeping, logical and mathematical reasoning, experimentation, and submitting conclusions to the scrutiny of others. Science also requires considerable imagination and creativity; a well-designed experiment is commonly described as elegant, or beautiful. Like politics, science has considerable practical implications and some science is dedicated to practical applications, such as the prevention of disease (see  Figure 1 ). Other science proceeds largely motivated by curiosity. Whatever its goal, there is no doubt that science, including biology, has transformed human existence and will continue to do so.

Scanning electronic micrograph depicts E. coli bacteria aggregated together.

The Nature of Science

Biology is a science, but what exactly is science? What does the study of biology share with other scientific disciplines?  Science  (from the Latin  scientia,  meaning “knowledge”) can be defined as knowledge about the natural world.

Science is a very specific way of learning, or knowing, about the world. The history of the past 500 years demonstrates that science is a very powerful way of knowing about the world; it is largely responsible for the technological revolutions that have taken place during this time. There are however, areas of knowledge and human experience that the methods of science cannot be applied to. These include such things as answering purely moral questions, aesthetic questions, or what can be generally categorized as spiritual questions. Science cannot investigate these areas because they are outside the realm of material phenomena, the phenomena of matter and energy, and cannot be observed and measured.

The  scientific method  is a method of research with defined steps that include experiments and careful observation. The steps of the scientific method will be examined in detail later, but one of the most important aspects of this method is the testing of hypotheses. A  hypothesis  is a suggested explanation for an event, which can be tested. Hypotheses, or tentative explanations, are generally produced within the context of a  scientific theory . A scientific theory is a generally accepted, thoroughly tested and confirmed explanation for a set of observations or phenomena. Scientific theory is the foundation of scientific knowledge. In addition, in many scientific disciplines (less so in biology) there are  scientific laws , often expressed in mathematical formulas, which describe how elements of nature will behave under certain specific conditions. There is not an evolution of hypotheses through theories to laws as if they represented some increase in certainty about the world. Hypotheses are the day-to-day material that scientists work with and they are developed within the context of theories. Laws are concise descriptions of parts of the world that are amenable to formulaic or mathematical description.

Natural Sciences

What would you expect to see in a museum of natural sciences? Frogs? Plants? Dinosaur skeletons? Exhibits about how the brain functions? A planetarium? Gems and minerals? Or maybe all of the above? Science includes such diverse fields as astronomy, biology, computer sciences, geology, logic, physics, chemistry, and mathematics ( Figure 2 ). However, those fields of science related to the physical world and its phenomena and processes are considered  natural sciences . Thus, a museum of natural sciences might contain any of the items listed above.

Some fields of science include astronomy, biology, computer science, geology, logic, physics, chemistry, and mathematics. (credit: "Image Editor/Flickr)"

There is no complete agreement when it comes to defining what the natural sciences include. For some experts, the natural sciences are astronomy, biology, chemistry, earth science, and physics. Other scholars choose to divide natural sciences into  life sciences , which study living things and include biology, and  physical sciences , which study nonliving matter and include astronomy, physics, and chemistry. Some disciplines such as biophysics and biochemistry build on two sciences and are interdisciplinary.

Scientific Inquiry

One thing is common to all forms of science: an ultimate goal “to know.” 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.

Inductive reasoning  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.

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  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.

Both types of logical thinking are related to the two main pathways of scientific study: descriptive science and hypothesis-based science.  Descriptive  (or discovery)  science  aims to observe, explore, and discover, while  hypothesis-based science  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.

Hypothesis Testing

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’s Sir Francis Bacon (1561–1626) ( Figure 3 ), 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.

Painting depicts Sir Francis Bacon in a long cloak.

The scientific process typically starts with an observation (often a problem to be solved) that leads to a question. Let’s 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: “Why is the classroom so warm?”

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, “The classroom is warm because no one turned on the air conditioning.” But there could be other responses to the question, and therefore other hypotheses may be proposed. A second hypothesis might be, “The classroom is warm because there is a power failure, and so the air conditioning doesn’t work.”

Once a hypothesis has been selected, a prediction may be made. A prediction is similar to a hypothesis but it typically has the format “If . . . then . . . .” For example, the prediction for the first hypothesis might be, “ If  the student turns on the air conditioning,  then  the classroom will no longer be too warm.”

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 , meaning that it can be disproven by experimental results. An example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis is “Botticelli’s  Birth of Venus  is beautiful.” 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.

Each experiment will have one or more variables and one or more controls. A  variable  is any part of the experiment that can vary or change during the experiment. A  control  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 4 ). Using the scientific method, the hypotheses that are inconsistent with experimental data are rejected.

A flow chart shows the steps in the scientific method. In step 1, an observation is made. In step 2, a question is asked about the observation. In step 3, an answer to the question, called a hypothesis, is proposed. In step 4, a prediction is made based on the hypothesis. In step 5, an experiment is done to test the prediction. In step 6, the results are analyzed to determine whether or not the hypothesis is supported. If the hypothesis is not supported, another hypothesis is made. In either case, the results are reported.

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.

  • My toaster doesn’t toast my bread.
  • Why doesn’t my toaster work?
  • There is something wrong with the electrical outlet.
  • If something is wrong with the outlet, my coffeemaker also won’t work when plugged into it.
  • I plug my coffeemaker into the outlet.
  • My coffeemaker works.

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.

Basic and Applied Science

The scientific community has been debating for the last few decades about the value of different types of science. Is it valuable to pursue science for the sake of simply gaining knowledge, or does scientific knowledge only have worth if we can apply it to solving a specific problem or bettering our lives? This question focuses on the differences between two types of science: basic science and applied science.

Basic science  or “pure” science seeks to expand knowledge regardless of the short-term application of that knowledge. It is not focused on developing a product or a service of immediate public or commercial value. The immediate goal of basic science is knowledge for knowledge’s sake, though this does not mean that in the end it may not result in an application.

In contrast,  applied science  or “technology,” aims to use science to solve real-world problems, making it possible, for example, to improve a crop yield, find a cure for a particular disease, or save animals threatened by a natural disaster. In applied science, the problem is usually defined for the researcher.

Some individuals may perceive applied science as “useful” and basic science as “useless.” A question these people might pose to a scientist advocating knowledge acquisition would be, “What for?” A careful look at the history of science, however, reveals that basic knowledge has resulted in many remarkable applications of great value. Many scientists think that a basic understanding of science is necessary before an application is developed; therefore, applied science relies on the results generated through basic science. Other scientists think that it is time to move on from basic science and instead to find solutions to actual problems. Both approaches are valid. It is true that there are problems that demand immediate attention; however, few solutions would be found without the help of the knowledge generated through basic science.

One example of how basic and applied science can work together to solve practical problems occurred after the discovery of DNA structure led to an understanding of the molecular mechanisms governing DNA replication. Strands of DNA, unique in every human, are found in our cells, where they provide the instructions necessary for life. During DNA replication, new copies of DNA are made, shortly before a cell divides to form new cells. Understanding the mechanisms of DNA replication enabled scientists to develop laboratory techniques that are now used to identify genetic diseases, pinpoint individuals who were at a crime scene, and determine paternity. Without basic science, it is unlikely that applied science would exist.

Another example of the link between basic and applied research is the Human Genome Project, a study in which each human chromosome was analyzed and mapped to determine the precise sequence of DNA subunits and the exact location of each gene. (The gene is the basic unit of heredity; an individual’s complete collection of genes is his or her genome.) Other organisms have also been studied as part of this project to gain a better understanding of human chromosomes. The Human Genome Project ( Figure 5 ) relied on basic research carried out with non-human organisms and, later, with the human genome. An important end goal eventually became using the data for applied research seeking cures for genetically related diseases.

The human genome project’s logo is shown, depicting a human being inside a DNA double helix. The words chemistry, biology, physics, ethics, informatics and engineering surround the circular image.

While research efforts in both basic science and applied science are usually carefully planned, it is important to note that some discoveries are made by serendipity, that is, by means of a fortunate accident or a lucky surprise. Penicillin was discovered when biologist Alexander Fleming accidentally left a petri dish of  Staphylococcus  bacteria open. An unwanted mold grew, killing the bacteria. The mold turned out to be  Penicillium , and a new antibiotic was discovered. Even in the highly organized world of science, luck—when combined with an observant, curious mind—can lead to unexpected breakthroughs.

Reporting Scientific Work

Whether scientific research is basic science or applied science, scientists must share their findings for other researchers to expand and build upon their discoveries. Communication and collaboration within and between sub disciplines of science are key to the advancement of knowledge in science. For this reason, an important aspect of a scientist’s work is disseminating results and communicating with peers. Scientists can share results by presenting them at a scientific meeting or conference, but this approach can reach only the limited few who are present. Instead, most scientists present their results in peer-reviewed articles that are published in scientific journals.  Peer-reviewed articles  are scientific papers that are reviewed, usually anonymously by a scientist’s colleagues, or peers. These colleagues are qualified individuals, often experts in the same research area, who judge whether or not the scientist’s work is suitable for publication. The process of peer review helps to ensure that the research described in a scientific paper or grant proposal is original, significant, logical, and thorough. Grant proposals, which are requests for research funding, are also subject to peer review. Scientists publish their work so other scientists can reproduce their experiments under similar or different conditions to expand on the findings. The experimental results must be consistent with the findings of other scientists.

There are many journals and the popular press that do not use a peer-review system. A large number of online open-access journals, journals with articles available without cost, are now available many of which use rigorous peer-review systems, but some of which do not. Results of any studies published in these forums without peer review are not reliable and should not form the basis for other scientific work. In one exception, journals may allow a researcher to cite a personal communication from another researcher about unpublished results with the cited author’s permission.

Section Summary

Biology is the science that studies living organisms and their interactions with one another and their environments. Science attempts to describe and understand the nature of the universe in whole or in part. Science has many fields; those fields related to the physical world and its phenomena are considered natural sciences.

A hypothesis is a tentative explanation for an observation. A scientific theory is a well-tested and consistently verified explanation for a set of observations or phenomena. A scientific law is a description, often in the form of a mathematical formula, of the behavior of an aspect of nature under certain circumstances. Two types of logical reasoning are used in science. Inductive reasoning uses results to produce general scientific principles. Deductive reasoning is a form of logical thinking that predicts results by applying general principles. The common thread throughout scientific research is the use of the scientific method. Scientists present their results in peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scientific journals.

Science can be basic or applied. The main goal of basic science is to expand knowledge without any expectation of short-term practical application of that knowledge. The primary goal of applied research, however, is to solve practical problems.

Human Biology Copyright © by Sarah Malmquist and Kristina Prescott is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

The Nature and Logic of Science

  • First Online: 24 September 2016

Cite this chapter

logic of hypothesis based science

  • Garland E. Allen 3 &
  • Jeffrey J. W. Baker 4  

Part of the book series: Springer Texts in Education ((SPTE))

750 Accesses

This chapter provides the basic foundation for understanding the logic involved in scientific/biological reasoning. Topics include: inductive and deductive logic, hypothesis formulation ( if … then reasoning), the concept of “proof” in science, and the difference between truth and validity. The interplay of these elements are illustrated by the “dissection” of a specific set of investigations by Italian biologist Lazzaro Spallanzani in the eighteenth century concerning what elements of the male semen were causally involved in fertilization and embryonic development in animals. The chapter then moves to a discussion of the way in which hypotheses are formulated as different kinds of explanations in biology, such as teleological versus causal explanations, all illustrated by the question of why warblers begin to migrate south from New England in the fall. This section also examines some of the recent philosophical studies on the nature of mechanisms in biology, and what elements are necessary for a mechanism to be successful as part of a scientific explanation. After discussing the nature of cause-and-effect in biology, and how causal relationships can be distinguished from simply correlations or accidental coincidences, the nature of bias in science is introduced to emphasize that science cannot eliminate all bias, and indeed that sometimes biases (or points of view) are extremely fruitful. The final part of the chapter is devoted to philosophical issues in biology: the nature of paradigms and paradigm shifts in biology, the materialist (as opposed to idealist) foundations of modern biology, and a review of both the strengths and weaknesses of science.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

logic of hypothesis based science

Explanation in Biology: An Introduction

logic of hypothesis based science

Biological Explanation

logic of hypothesis based science

Introduction: Grounding Then and Now

That many of his contemporaries saw the comparison as apt is reflected in the fact that Darwin is buried next to Newton in Westminster Abbey.

There are certain processes in biology that are teleological in the sense that from the initial events the end-point is pre-determined. The most obvious example is embryonic development, in which from the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg the subsequent course of events (barring outside disturbance) leading eventually tp the final goal, the formation of the adult organism.

Kammerer’s life and work has been treated a number of years ago sympathetically by writer Arthur Koestler in The Case of the Midwife Toad , and more recently, and critically by historian of science Sandor Gliboff.

At one point, Pasteur even ran for the French Assembly (analogous to the United States Congress) as a member of the Conservative Party.

Further Reading

Conant, J. B. (Ed.) (1957). Harvard case histories in experimental science (Vol. 2). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (The Harvard Cast Histories have been extremely useful in teaching the nature of science by selecting a series of controversies in the physical and life sciences. The cases include explanatory material setting the context (mostly intellectual rather than social or political) in which the controversy took place with extended excerpts from the writings of the scientists involved. This approach provides students with the chance to learn how to read and analyze material from primary sources as well as understand the scientific issues of earlier times in their own terms. Cases range from the verthrow of the phlogiston theory by Lavoisier’s oxygen theory, to the nature of plant photosynthesis in the work of Joseph Priestly and others in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and Pasteur’s and John Tyndall’s work on spontaneous generation in the 1860s and 1870s. ).

Google Scholar  

Geison, G. L. (1995) The Private Science of Louis Pasteur. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ( One of the most recent, and controversial biographies of Pasteur, because it questions some of the most cherished myths about Pasteur as a scientist), Geison’s book provides ample evidence of Pasteur’s political and religious biases in the spontaneous generation controversy. The specific Pasteur-Pouchet controversy has been summarized in Garland E. Allen, “That Louis Pasteur Disproved Spontaneous Generation on the Basis of Scientific Objectivity,” in Kostas Kampourakis (ed) Myths in Science Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015, pp ____. ).

Farley, J. (1977). The spontaneous generation controversy from Descartes to Oparin. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. ( This book is a very readable introduction to the history of ideas of spontaneous generation from the seventeenth to the twentieth centuries. It includes discussions of Spallanzani, Redi and Pasteur-Pouchet. ).

Grinnell, F. (1987). The scientific attitude . Boulder, CO: Westview Press. ( Written by a practicing scientist for undergraduates and graduate students in science, this book is a simple, straightforward introduction to many aspects of science as a process. Topics include problems of observation, experimental design and interpretation, science as a collective activity and “thought-style,” how scientific ideas are perpetuated and become entrenched. ).

Kuhn, T. S. (2012) The structure of scientific revolutions (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. ( This edition contains revisions and was published on the 50th anniversary of the original appearance of the book in 1962. Kuhn’s work has had a powerful effect on scientists, historians and philosophers of science alike, as well as in realms of social science and literary studies. In this book, Kuhn lays out his concepts of paradigm, normal science, puzzle-solving, anomalies and describes the development of science as a series of paradigm replacements, (shifts) or what he calls “scientific revolutions.” ).

Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ( A clear introduction to problems of science as a social process, the author steers a solid course between the stereotype of science as objective truth and the view that it is nothing but subjective social construction. Longino deals with such issues as sex bias in research, the nature of evidence, values in science and science as social knowledge. ).

Mayr, E. (1961). Cause and effect in biology. Science 134,1502–1506.( An elaboration of the example of the causes of bird migration discussed in Section 2.6. ).

Numbers, R. L., & Kostas Kampourakis (Eds) (2015). Newton’s apple and other myths about science . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ( Contains a number of case studies of how science has been traditionally mythologized, and thus presented in an unrealistic way. Among other myths covered is a more detailed version of the Pasteur-Pouchet controversy. ).

Varmus, H. (1987, September). Reverse transcription. Scientific American 257 (3), 56–64. ( A detailed account of the discovery and process of reverse transcription and the action of the enzyme reverse transcriptase as originally postulated by Howard Temin. ).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Biology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA

Garland E. Allen

Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT, USA

Jeffrey J. W. Baker

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Allen, G.E., Baker, J.J.W. (2017). The Nature and Logic of Science. In: Scientific Process and Social Issues in Biology Education. Springer Texts in Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44380-5_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44380-5_2

Published : 24 September 2016

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-44378-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-44380-5

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Publish with us

Policies and ethics

  • Find a journal
  • Track your research

IMAGES

  1. Why “The Great Replacement Theory” is not a Theory, and why that Matters

    logic of hypothesis based science

  2. How Does One Form a Scientific Hypothesis

    logic of hypothesis based science

  3. #35

    logic of hypothesis based science

  4. Hypothesis Testing Logic

    logic of hypothesis based science

  5. Logic hypothesis

    logic of hypothesis based science

  6. PPT

    logic of hypothesis based science

VIDEO

  1. The logic of frequentist hypothesis testing

  2. Hypothesis Tests: Logic of a test

  3. Logic of Hypothesis Testing

  4. Difference Between Hypothesis, Theory, Fact (Stages of Science)

  5. The Scientific Method

  6. 16. Benefits of the Hypothesis #3