Being completely honest. Scientists are not unique in stressing honesty in their profession. This norm, however, is particularly strong in scientific research. Researchers are expected to be honest in what they report. A research report provides only a brief description of the many actions that occur in the course of an investigation. Data are almost always presented in summarized form. Other scientists reading the report assume that what they read presents an honest, accurate description of the methods used and how the data were collected and analyzed. Any cheating or misrepresentation, when discovered, is viewed as a major violation of the scientific ethic.

Commitment to communicate. Scientists are expected to share their results with other scientists in their area of interest and for broad public use. Reporting on research is most often done by publication of short articles in scientific and professional journals. Articles, however, are not accepted in most journals until reviewed and accepted by other qualified scientists. This process of peer review applies the norm of skepticism and helps assure publication of only quality research. Today, research results are often made available over the   Internet, a worldwide means of electronic communication. Results published in this way or in books are also subject to peer review by other scientists.

Keeping an open mind. Finally, scientists remain open-minded. As we mentioned earlier, all knowledge is considered tentative, subject to change as new findings emerge from the international scientific community. Periodically, new results emerge that are contrary to what scientists in some field had accepted as established knowledge. One example occurred a few decades ago when researchers began to discover that young children had greater intellectual abilities than was commonly accepted.   When these results were first announced, they created a controversy among researchers who study early childhood development. Additional research was conducted; the results of various studies were compared; in time, the results clearly indicated that young children are capable of more advanced intellectual processes than had been earlier believed. These debates can go on for years until one side of the argument builds up a convincing set of data. The outcome may be acceptance of a new view, as was the case of the early learning ability of children. But when additional studies fail to produce similar results, the new findings remain questionable or may be rejected. By this process, science produces an open, growing, changing body of knowledge.

The scientific method of inquiry has proved to be the most powerful, reliable way of establishing knowledge about the natural world. There are, however, limits to the kind of questions that can be answered by scientific inquiry.

Limits of scientific inquiry

Scientific inquiry and the research process can be applied only to things we can observe. Scientific inquiry cannot be used to answer questions for which we cannot obtain observations. Questions regarding ultimate existence, whether there is life after death, or whether a certain behavior is morally right or wrong, cannot be answered by scientific inquiry. The reason is that questions like these cannot be stated in a way that observations can be made to answer them. Persons can argue about them and offer reasons for one answer versus others, but there is no way to offer empirical evidence that one answer is more truthful or correct than another.

Also, scientific inquiry cannot be used to answer questions based on value judgments. These are statements that simply assert that one thing is "better" or "preferable" to something else. As the name implies, these judgments are based on one's values - what we think is "right" or "wrong" or "good" or "bad." There is no way, for example, to test the statement: "Men are more important than women." This is simply a judgment made on the belief that men are more important than women. Persons believing in such a position can argue it; persons with contrary views can argue back, but there is no objective way of settling the issue. Whether one   thing or group is more important than another depends on how "important" is defined and this usually depends on who is offering the definition of importance.

When this kind of issue is argued, however, one side or the other will frequently give reasons for their position. Many times, these reasons offer a basis for scientific inquiry. If, for example, a person says men are more important because they are more intelligent, we now have a statement that can be tested by observation. We can subject this statement to scientific inquiry. We could have a large number of men and women take a standardized intelligence test and compare the results to see if, in fact, men score higher than women. Adding the "because" pointed to something that could be measured and compared. This little change makes the statement a basis for scientific inquiry. When the statement or question can be answered by obtaining data of some sort, it can become the basis of scientific inquiry; if not, the statement or question remains in the realm of philosophy, religion, or plain argument.

PREV       NEXT

---