The Difference Between Science And… uh… Not Science

I try not to work blue where it can be picked up in the search engines.

As you know I’m a big fan of science and I’m well aware of the difference between science and not science.

One type of science is observational, think of the work James Audubon did with the birds of North America or Darwin did with beetles. Basically cataloging in ways useful for other researchers. As simple as this act may seem a real scientist uses transparent methodology and produces results that are replicable if you want to take the time to do it.

Another type of science is experimental. While usually paired with theoretical science (which we will get to) fundamentally it’s observation under controlled conditions. Perhaps you’re interested in the solubility of sugar, simple enough you think- how much sugar before the solution is saturated? Well, not that simple, how pure and what type is your sugar? How pure and what type of liquid? What temperature is the reaction taking place? What’s the atmospheric pressure or for that matter the atmosphere?

Not so simple is it? All of those things can have a profound effect on your results but once again the keys are transparent methodology and replicability. If I perform the same actions under the same conditions I can expect the same results within a certain (small) degree of error. Maybe my measuring instruments are differently calibrated a tad. Maybe quantum variations have suddenly made apples fall up (that hardly ever happens you know and can mostly be disregarded).

Also there is theoretical science. You speculate that there is an underlying pattern to observed phenomena and posit a mechanism that accounts for it. You then make disprovable predictions about behavior under untested conditions, perform your experiments, and examine the results. If they are not what you expected you have to refine your model of reality or come up with a new one.

That is Science.

Then there is Not Science-