Skip to Main Content

CAJCS TOK RESOURCE WEBSITE: NATURAL SCIENCE

NATURAL SCIENCE IN TOK

The natural sciences are often seen to rely on evidence, rationality and the quest for deeper understanding. Observation and experimentation play a key role, and terms such as “theory” have a special meaning in the natural sciences compared to how they are used in daily life and in other areas of knowledge.

Key points

•    The success of the natural sciences has led some people to see them as the most important form of knowledge.
•    The main difference between science and pseudo-science is that scientific hypotheses can be tested, and pseudo-scientific ones cannot.
•    According to the traditional picture of the scientific method, science consists of five key steps: observation, hypothesis, experiment, law, and theory.
•    Among the problems that arise in applying the scientific method are that observation is selective and that you are more likely to notice things that confirm your hypothesis than those that contradict it.
•    Since scientific laws are based on a limited number of observations, we can never be sure that they are true.
•    According to Karl Popper, science should be based on the method
of conjectures and refutations, and scientists should try to falsify hypotheses rather than verify them.
•    In practice, a hypothesis can no more be conclusively falsified than it can be conclusively verified.
•    Thomas Kuhn drew attention to the role played by paradigms in science and argued that the history of science is punctuated by revolutionary jumps or 'paradigm shifts'.
•    Although scientific beliefs change over time, it could be argued that each new theory is closer to the truth than the previous one.
•    Despite the success of the natural sciences, they cannot give us absolute certainty, and there are many perplexing questions that lie beyond their scope.

SCOPE- KNOWLEDGE QUESTIONS

  • Why might some people regard science as the supreme form of all knowledge?
  • Should the natural sciences be regarded as a body of knowledge, a system of knowledge or a method?
  • Could there be scientific problems that are currently unknown because the technology needed to reveal them doesn’t exist yet?
  •  Is human knowledge confined to what the natural sciences discover, or are there other important inquiries that are not covered by the natural sciences?
  • What knowledge, if any, is likely to always remain beyond the capabilities of science to investigate or verify?
  • Do the natural sciences rely on any assumptions that are themselves unprovable by science? Is prediction the primary purpose of scientific knowledge?
  • How might developments in scientific knowledge trigger political controversies or controversies in other areas of knowledge?

METHODS AND TOOLS

  • Is there a single “scientific method”?
  • What is the role of imagination and intuition in the creation of hypotheses in the natural sciences?
  • What kinds of explanations do natural scientists offer?
  • Why are many of the laws in the natural sciences stated using the language of mathematics?
  • What is the role of inductive and deductive reasoning in scientific inquiry, prediction and explanation?
  • Does the scientific language have a primarily descriptive, explanatory or interpretative function?

PERSPECTIVES- KNOWLEDGE QUESTIONS

  • How can it be that scientific knowledge changes over time?
  •  What role do paradigm shifts play in the progression of scientific knowledge?
  •  How does the social context of scientific work affect the methods and findings
  • of science?
  •  In what ways have influential individuals contributed to the development of the natural sciences as an area of knowledge?
  •  Does the precision of the language used in the natural sciences successfully eliminate all ambiguity?
  •  Does the list of disciplines included in, or excluded from, the natural sciences change from one era to another or from one culture or tradition to another?
  • Does competition between scientists help or hinder the production of knowledge?

ETHICS

  • Is science, or should it be, value-free?
  • Should scientific research be subject to ethical constraints or is the pursuit of all scientific knowledge intrinsically worthwhile?
  • Do we tend to exaggerate the objectivity of scientific facts and the subjectivity of moral values?
  •  In what ways have developments in science challenged long-held ethical values? Can moral disagreements be resolved with reference to empirical evidence?
  • Do human rights exist in the same way that the laws of gravity exist?
  • Do scientists or the societies in which scientists operate exert a greater influence on what is ethically acceptable in this area of knowledge?