The fuel on which science runs is ignorance. Science is like a hungry furnace that must be fed logs from the forests of ignorance that surround us. In the process, the clearing that we call knowledge expands, but the more it expands, the longer its perimeter and the more ignorance comes into view. . . . A true scientist is bored by knowledge; it is the assault on ignorance that motivates him—the mysteries that previous discoveries have revealed. The forest is more interesting than the clearing.
—Matt Ridley, Genome: The Genome: The Autobiography
of a Species in 23 Chapters (1999), p. 271
Lighting the Candle
Do I Really Need to Know About Science?
Why do I need to know? Why should I care? Why should anyone care? Why should I or anyone else even think about it? Why discuss it? Why waste my time and energy . . . I am so busy doing other things—important things (updating my Facebook status, texting friends, playing video games). And simply, why for heaven’s sake, would anyone write a book about it?
These are not silly questions. In fact, we feel that there is no such thing as a silly question. Questions are good. The study of science and communicating what we know and don’t know based on science can’t be answered without someone asking the questions—and hopefully, someone will find the answers. The rest of this book will be an extended answer to these and other questions.
Before anyone can successfully make the transition to the scientific literate, it is important, of course, for that individual to have a basic understanding of what science is. So, what is it? In light of the famous words of Voltaire (French philosopher, 1694–1778), “if you wish to converse with me, please define your terms;” we define science, scientific thought and the scientific method.
However, before doing so it is important to point out that like many things we know or are familiar with today, science is relatively new to us. Before the age of Sir Isaac Newton (1642/43–1727), who was a great student and master of theology, physics, astronomy, mathematics, alchemy, and natural philosophy—the study of nature and the universe, and even during the Renaissance of the 14th and 17th centuries—humankind lived in a dark world. A world that Carl Sagan (1996) called the “Demon-Haunted World.” A world in which mysticism, witchcraft, magic, the occult, the supernatural, the unknown, and fickle, frequently harmful forces governed human comprehension.
Just imagine how early humans trembled in absolute terror when a volcano erupted, an earthquake occurred, or a total solar eclipse took place. They felt threatened; they did not know then what we generally know today about these occurrences. That is, we know that earthquakes are caused by natural, abrupt shifts of rocks along fractures (or faults) in the earth. We know that many volcanoes erupt because of the buoyancy and the pressure of the gas within the earth’s crust causing magma (hot, liquefied rock) to be released. We know that a solar eclipse occurs when a new moon passes between the sun and the earth and fully or partially fully or partially covers the sun. Early humans did not understand these natural phenomena; instead, they attributed such natural catastrophes and other events to the wrath of the gods. However, when humans discovered the actual, natural causal factors of such events, they changed their way of thinking about them. Unfortunately, even to this day, there are masses of people inhabiting various parts of the globe who are still living with pre-Newtonian ideas and/or witchcraft.
Science Defined
We have learned, by experience, to be careful (downright cautious in some instances) about what we ask our students to explain, and so forth. For example, in many undergrad science classes we may ask students if they can explain or define science. Undoubtedly, we would receive many different answers; some of which were actually pretty accurate. However, in one class it was asked “Where would you go or on whom or on what do you call to define science?” A young women sitting in front of the class immediately responded, “Ghostbusters!”
This response might be funny but it actually makes a good point. Just about any term has several different definitions; it can be defined differently by different sources. This certainly is the case when trying to definitively define the term science.
First look at the Latin derivative of the term science. In Latin, the term is derived from the term scientia, meaning knowledge. A practitioner of science is called a scientist. Merriam-Webster (2009) explains that science in its broadest sense is any systematic knowledge-based or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice. Trefil (2001) defines science as a complex web of ideas, facts, philosophical concepts, history, and serendipity.
For the purpose of this text, based on the tenets of these definitions we more concisely define science as referring to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method and on the organized body of knowledge gained through research and a process of investigation into the natural world. Moreover, science is dynamic in that it is a continuing effort to discover and increase human knowledge and understanding through disciplined research (Merriam-Webster, 2009; Popper 1959).
In our experience, we have found it true that the proverbial picture is worth a thousand words and/or that the proof (the test) of the pudding is in the eating, and so forth. In other words, you want me to understand? You want to convince me? Then show me! Stated differently, what has science ever done for me? In replying to this question, we could choose from an almost endless list of examples.
For convenience and ease of understanding, however, we will use an American example of science at work that allows us to live the so-called good life. We further reduce the expansive field of these things or items contributing to the good life by narrowing the scope of our singular illustration to the advent of and advancements made in household appliances from the early part of the 19th century to present. Most of these appliances and/or conveniences are used by many of us without thinking too much about them—without giving them a second thought.
Let’s look at a progressive summary of some of these household appliance inventions and innovations (early scientific advancements) that have made many of our lives better.
Place: United States of America
Time: Prior to 1850
Description of typical American household: Average homes were much smaller, and usually built around a fireplace that provided warmth in winter, hot water for baths and a place to cook. Modern day conveniences like central heating, hot water, garbage disposals, dishwashers, vacuums, and light bulbs simply didn’t exist. Cleaning had to be done by hand.
Time: 1850s
Invention/Innovation: Gas jets used to heat a bath; this was a prelude to the modern hot water heater.
Time: 1860
Invention/Innovation: First carpet cleaner (precursor to the vacuum cleaner) patented.
Time: 1868
Invention/Innovation: The Geyser water heating system is first used in Europe; this gas-powered device is the first to heat water as it enters a tub.
Time: 1869
Invention/Innovation: The Whirlwind vacuum cleaner becomes the first vacuum cleaner in commercial production (required constant hand cranking to operate).
Time: 1876
Invention/Innovation: Bissell Vacuum Cleaner Company founded, becoming the leading vacuum manufacturer.
Time: 1880
Invention/Innovation: Thomas Edison develops a general-use light bulb.
Time: 1889
Invention/Innovation: First electric water heater.
Time: 1893
Invention/Innovation: First toaster invented.
Time: 1901
Invention/Innovation: First powered vacuum cleaner invented.
Time: 1905
Invention/Innovation: Nichrome wire created, which paved the way for efficient toasters.
Time: 1907
Invention/Innovation: Vacuum cleaner that uses bags to capture dust and debris is created; Hoover Company bought the patent.
Time: 1909
Invention/Innovation: General Electric sells first commercially marketed toaster.
Time: 1919
Invention/Innovation: First pop-up toaster invented.
Time: 1925
Invention/Innovation: First fully automatic pop-up toaster invented.
Time: 1926
Invention/Innovation: Hoover introduces the agitator, which drastically improves the efficiency of vacuum cleaners.
Time: 1927
Invention/Innovation: Garbage disposal invented.
Time: 1938–1991
Invention/Innovation: Several innovations to garbage compactors are developed.
We could go on, but we think the point is clear. The inventors, the early scientific innovators of their time, created our modern conveniences, transforming our way of life, making larger homes possible and freeing people from the daily chores that consumed large amounts of time. Simply, as is apparent from the timeline presented above, the material things that define our lives are all relatively recent results of scientific advancements. Moreover, many of these scientific advancements were the result of what can be called blind, hunt-and-peck discoveries, raw inventiveness, serendipity, luck, or, the inventor actually knew what he or she was doing. That is, the inventor had in mind the raw concept of what they were trying to invent; it was in the mind but they had to play around (experiment) with this and that to make it happen. Thankfully, for those of us who enjoy the good life, many inventors’ ideas did come to life.
Some readers may be wondering if the examples above are a result of real science, or something else. The inventions and innovations listed above pretty much look like technological or engineering breakthroughs and not scientific breakthroughs. Moreover, many of the household appliances were the results of accidents. For example, some might point to the accidental discovery of cornflakes in 1894; the microwave oven in 1940; the World War II accidental discovery of Silly Putty (how could we survive without that!); the accidental discovery of Post-it Notes in 1974; the 1879 discovery of saccharin; the 1853 discovery of potato chips; the 2,000 year old discovery of fireworks; and we certainly do not want to forget the accidental discoveries of the Slinky in 1943 and Play-Doh in 1955.
In earlier times, technology and innovation grew out of personal experience with the properties of things and materials and with techniques for manipulating them. Many improvements in things and materials also resulted from experience or know-how that was handed down from masters (experts) to apprentice craftsmen over many generations. The difference today is that know-how handed down is not only the craft of single craftsmen but also a vast compilation of data (words, numbers, drawings, etc.) that describe and give directions. It is difficult to place value on accumulated knowledge. However, technological advancement that comes from understanding the principles that underlie how things react—that is, from scientific understanding— is valuable and, if life-saving (i.e., the polio vaccine), priceless. If accumulated knowledge leads to even more important technological advancements, such as saving more lives, then it is beyond priceless.
With regard to accumulating knowledge, consider the old days (before the personal computer, Internet, email etc.) Back then, when a college student was assigned a paper, thesis or dissertation, he or she had to spend countless hours in the library praying first, that source material was available, second that it was on-site, and third, that it was available for use. You need research material to cite for whatever purpose, just bring up a website and ask the right question. Within seconds you have an entire library of subject matter at your fingertips. Today, what a difference science and its subsets, technology, and engineering make.
The bottom line: Science is based on obtaining and accumulating knowledge built upon the principles of the scientific method and other proven models.
The Scientific Method
The scientific method (the scientist’s toolbox) is an orderly method—a set of techniques (we call them tools)—used in scientific research generally to investigate natural phenomena. The method consists of identifying the problem, gathering data, formulating hypotheses, performing experiments, interpreting results, and reaching a conclusion. Generally speaking, the scientific method is often used to define science. We have no problem with this approach, provided that when illustrating or describing the scientific method to the uninitiated we point out and make clear that the methodology won’t necessarily fit perfectly into any round or square hole; it is not a perfect cookie cutter mold (Trefil, 2008). This makes sense when you consider our earlier definition of science where we pointed out that it is an investigation into the natural world and the knowledge gained through the process—science is not a collection of facts or a fact-finding methodology. The scientific method is classically portrayed as the linear set of steps shown in below (Carpi and Egger, 2009).
Classic Representation of the Scientific Method
Observation → Question →Hypothesis → Experiment → Data Collection → Conclusion
The problem with the scientific method portrayed directly above is that the reader may assume that this representation, because of its linearity, is written in stone and therefore is to be followed step by step. In the real world, however, this is not the case. Science is not a linear process because it does not have to start with an observation or a question. Moreover, science often does not include experiments. Science is more fluid and dynamic (never static) and revolves around input obtained from the natural world, from studying the work of others, from interfacing with colleagues, or from experience (Capri & Egger, 2009).
Earlier we stated that in our opinion the scientific method is the scientists’ toolbox. So, the obvious question is what is in the toolbox? Not only are the standard tools diagrammed in above included—observations, questions, hypotheses, experiments, data collection and conclusions—but also several others. These additional tools include facts, deductive inferences, inductive inferences, theories, multiple working hypotheses, evidence, Ockham’s razor, natural law, paradigm, serendipity, luck, the unknown, the unanticipated, and the unexpected.
Wow! Sounds like a heavy toolbox doesn’t it? Well, it is heavy, but skill gained through experience lightens the load, and makes lifting it easier. Let’s take a closer look at these tools and see how they are applied by the scientist in the performance of his or her endeavors.
Scientists’ Toolbox: Additional Tools
Fact—a truth known by actual experience or observation. The luster of gold, the electrical conductivity of copper, the number of bones in the human spine, the existence of fossil dinosaurs, are all facts.
Is it a fact that an atom consists of protons, neutrons, and electrons? Is it a fact that Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa? Is it a fact that the sun will set tomorrow? None of us has observed any of these things. The first is an inference from a variety of different observations. The second is reported by those who lived close enough in time and space to the event that we trust their account. And, the third is an inductive inference after repeated observations.
Deductive inference—process by which a conclusion is logically inferred from certain premises.
This is an important tool in the scientific method toolbox because it is often more accurate than the six major tools of the scientific method alone; it allows for mistakes to be quickly detected and corrected. The great mathematician Euclid developed many mathematical proofs with mistakes in them that have been detected and corrected, but the theorems of Euclid, all of them, have stood the test of time for more than two thousand years (Euclid 1956).
Inferences are valid or invalid—never both!
Greek philosophers defined a number of three-part inferences, syllogisms, which can be used as building blocks for more complex reasoning. Many readers may be familiar with the examples given below. You may have seen syllogisms on college entrance examinations. We begin with the most famous of them all.
Syllogism 1
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal.
To be valid, it must be impossible for both its premises to be true and its conclusion to be false (a fallacy). An argument can be valid even though the premises are false. Note, for example, that the conclusion of the following argument would have to be true if the premises were true (even though they are, in fact, false):
Syllogism 2
Everyone who eats lobster is from Maine.
Alice eats lobster.
Therefore, Alice is from Maine.
The argument is not sound. In order for a deductive argument to be sound, it must not only be valid, the premises must be true as well.
Inductive inference—a conclusion based on (i.e., inferred from) multiple observations. Shoot a particular kind of artillery shell on a particular target at a particular barrel elevation numerous (n) times, and you can, by induction from those examples, make an inference and a prediction about what will happen the next time you fire the artillery piece. However, your prediction is not a fact, in that you won’t know by actual observation the result of the n+1th drop until it has happened.
Hypothesis—a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method (the toolbox) requires that one can test it. Two important words in the definition of hypothesis are observed and testable. If you want to know about something, you need to look at it (if possible) and see how it operates. If you are able to observe the operation of something, will it always operate in this manner? It must be testable; others must observe and test and come to the same conclusion that you did. Otherwise, it did not occur as you assumed it did. After shooting the artillery piece from the same barrel elevation several times, you may think shooting it from a greater barrel elevation will lead to a different response, and you may predict that different response. Your response is a hypothesis, and you can test it by changing the elevation of the barrel and observing the result. At that point you will have conducted an experiment to test your hypothesis.
Multiple working hypotheses—method of research where one considers not just a single hypothesis but instead multiple hypotheses that might explain the phenomenon under study. Each hypothesis is then tested. The development of multiple hypotheses prior to the research lets one avoid the trap of narrow-mindedly focusing on just one hypothesis. However, absence of an alternative explanation is no assurance that the truth has been discovered. For example, your boat is missing from where you docked it.
What happened to the boat?
It sank.
It drifted out to sea.
It was stolen.
Your friend borrowed it.
Everyone loves dinosaurs so let’s use them as an example of multiple working hypotheses.
Extinction of the dinosaurs
Asteroid impact?
Disease?
Climate change?
Volcanic eruptions?
Competition with mammals?
Theory—a coherent set of propositions that explain a class of phenomena supported by extensive factual evidence, and that may be used for prediction of future observations. For our artillery piece example, a theory would emerge only after a large number of tests of different kinds of artillery shells at different elevations. The theory would try to explain why assorted varieties of shells strike the target differently (wind affect, aerodynamics, etc.), and it ought to be useful in predicting how different shells would behave if fired at different elevations the same way. Over time, scientists have predicted lots of familiar theories:
• Darwin’s theory of natural selection
• Copernicus’s theory of the heliocentric solar system
• Newton’s theory of gravity
• Einstein’s theory of relativity
In regards to theories, seems like everyone has one. Because of our tendency to state our opinion on just everything and anything, we often hear “That’s just a theory.” For example, when the Washington Redskins beat their hated rivals, the Dallas Cowboys, everyone has a theory (sometimes presented in heated prostrations) why the Skins so easily trashed the Cowboys. In discussions about evolution, natural selection, predicted sea level rise, global climate change, and global warming “that’s just a theory” is stated even more forcefully—sometimes vehemently.
At least, that is our theory.
Evidence—one of the principal underpinnings of a theory, it consists of the physical observations and measurements made to understand a phenomenon. Keep in mind that opinions and theories are not evidence.
Ockham’s Razor—for those familiar with the 1950s classic television show Dragnet, Joe Friday’s standard saying of “Just the facts, ma’am” is the gist of Ockham’s razor. William of Ockham, an English monk who died in 1349 developed, in regards to theories and hypotheses, the following philosophical statement:
“Our explanations of things should minimize unsupported assumptions.”
Some have reduced Ockham’s razor to the acronym KISS—keep it simple stupid! Others have interpreted Ockham’s razor as stating “the simplest explanation is the best explanation.” Both of these interpretations are incorrect. The easiest or simplest explanation is not always accurate. Let’s say we see a large house standing in the middle of a river. One of our hypotheses for the presence of the house might be that the Abominable Snowperson picked it up off its foundation, carried it to the river and set it down in the middle of the river. Another hypothesis might be that the river overflowed its banks, flooded the floodplain, floated the house and set it down in the middle of the river. Ockham’s razor tells us to reject the first and retain the second for further consideration. Because we have no evidence for the Abominable Snowperson—he/she is an unsupported assumption. We do have modern evidence that overflowing rivers can transport large houses.
Another classic example often used to make the same point concerns Devils Tower in Wyoming (see figure 2.1). Native American legend (20 tribes have potential cultural affiliation with Devils Tower) tells that this landform originated when a huge bear claws scraped away the sides of the mountain when the bear tried to attack an Indian maiden. A simple explanation, for sure, but it assumes the existence of a huge bear capable of clawing the sides of a mountain (see figure 2.2) to carve something like Devils Tower. We reject the Native American story as nothing more than folklore or myth because the existence of such a bear is an unsupported assumption.
Figure 2.1 Devils Tower, Wyoming. Photograph by Frank R. Spellman.
Figure 2.2 Shows columnar sides of Devils Tower, Wyoming. Native Americans assumed the columns and grooves symbolized a giant bear’s claws ripping away at the mountain as the bear tried to climb it in pursuit of an Indian maiden. This June 20, 2009 photo shows two young women climbing the Tower.
Natural law—is based on nineteenth-century science which presumed it could arrive at absolutely true, immutable, and universal statements about nature (natural laws). For example, Newton’s studies and conclusions about gravity led to what were considered “laws of gravity.” However, in the twentieth century Einstein’s theory of relativity showed that Newton’s findings needed slight corrections. Thus it became apparent that it would be wisest to treat even our most trusted ideas, of which Newton’s had been one, as theories rather than absolute laws. It may very well be that another genius, the likes of Newton and/or Einstein, will come along in the future to prove many of our other most trusted scientific ideas or findings incorrect.
Paradigm and Paradigm Shift—we view paradigm as a model, exemplar, prototype, or way of thinking so ingrained in people’s thoughts and behavior that they aren’t even conscious of it. In science, historian Thomas Kuhn (1996) gave the word paradigm its contemporary meaning when he adopted it to refer to the set of practices that define a scientific discipline during a particular period of time. In his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Kuhn defines a scientific paradigm as:
• what is to be observed and scrutinized?
• the kind of questions that are supposed to be asked and probed for answers in relation to this subject
• how these questions are to be structured?
• how the results of scientific investigations should be interpreted
• how is an experiment to be conducted, and what equipment is available to conduct the experiment.
How do paradigms and the scientific method interrelate or mix? Keep in mind that in our opinion a paradigm is just one of the tools in the scientific method’s toolbox. This makes sense when you consider that paradigm is a more specific approach (a tool) to viewing reality than the much more generalized scientific method (the toolbox).
With time, experiment, accident, and experience things change. Science, like life, is dynamic, constantly changing or adapting. So, when in 1900 Lord Kelvin famously stated, “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement,” he was a bit premature. Just five years later, Albert Einstein published his paper on special relativity, which challenged the very simple set of rules laid down by Newtonian mechanics, which had been used to describe force and motion for over two hundred years. Einstein’s special relativity paper is an example of a paradigm shift. Other paradigm shifts in science, according to Kuhn (1996) include:
• the transition from a Ptolemaic cosmology (earth is the center of the universe) to a Copernican one (the sun is the center of the universe).
• the unification of classical physics by Newton into a coherent mechanical worldview.
• the transition between the Maxwellian Electromagnetic worldview and the Einsteinian Relativistic worldview.
• the transition between the worldview of Newtonian physics and the Einsteinian Relativistic worldview.
• the development of quantum mechanics, which overthrew classical mechanics.
• the development of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, which overturned Lamarckian theories of evolution by inheritance of acquired characteristics.
• the acceptance of plate tectonics as the explanation for large-scale geologic changes.
You might think the scientist’s toolbox, the scientific method, is for scientists only. Not true! We all use the toolbox all the time. For instance:
• Observe: The car won’t start.
• Think of a question: What is wrong with the car?
• Predict the answer (hypothesis): The car won’t run because the battery is dead.
• Plan the experiment: I will have the battery tested.
• Collect data: The car battery is dead.
• Analyze results: The car won’t start because the battery is dead.
Just as with mechanics and carpenters, scientists don’t always use the same tools. Individual scientific toolboxes are stocked to fit the situation and the person. Almost always, however, they contain the basic six ingredients—observation, forming the question, presenting the hypothesis, testing phase, results, analyzing the results—or modifications or variations of. Keep in mind, however, that observation and testing are the key tools in the scientist’s toolbox.
We all know that mechanical tools in the wrong hands can be dangerous to the operator or damaging to whatever is being worked on. The same is true when using tools in the scientific toolbox. To ensure that the results are valid to the natural world, the toolbox must be used objectively to remove personal and cultural biases. In addition, the tools must be used consistently and allow for observable and measurable results. All tools should be focused on describing and explaining observed phenomena. Finally, the test should enable researchers to prove it incorrect by observable data within the experiment and it must be reproducible.
Branches of Science
When one attempts to make a list of all of the branches of science, the person making the list quickly ascertains that more than one sheet of paper or more than one computer screen page is required. Simply, there are several branches of science, and any list put together from one person to another will vary in content. Why is this the case, you may ask? Well, give it a try; that is, make your own list. Then look up various listings of the branches of science. You may be surprised that you missed listing some, or maybe many branches. One of the problems with attempting to list the branches of science is that the branches consist of divisions within science with respect to the entity or system concerned. Consider, for example, the science of biology; it is the science devoted to the study of living organisms and their relationship to their environment. But if you ask a biology student, professional, or practitioner who is an epidemiologist (a branch of biology), if he or she is a biologist, the answer you receive might be rendered as: “Biologist? No way, I am an epidemiologist, thank you very much!” Why such a vigorous and pointed response? Is it because of pride, arrogance, conceit, smugness, or self-importance? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe (and rightfully so) the epidemiologist is just proud of his or her training, accomplishments, and profession.
Then there are the trees of science. There are various renditions such as the one shown in figure 2.3 whereby the trunk of the tree symbolizes science in general, and each branch of the trunk symbolizes a specific sub-sector of science. However, when you look at figure 2.3 you may ask, Where is the branch for biology? Why is it not included in the figure? And where are the branches for all of the other sciences? A better question might be, is it even possible to design a tree of science that includes all of its branches? The simple answer is no.
Figure 2.3 The Tree of Science.
The compound answer is probably not. You will notice that in figure 2.3 we include one branch labeled “Others.” This is how we cover those not listed. As is the case in science, every problem has a solution. Amen to that!
The viewer of figure 2.3 might ask another question: “Why is geography included as a branch of science? Isn’t it a social science?” Well, we believe geography is a science subject with a social element to it. Moreover, anyone who has studied geography, as we have, knows for certain that physical geography definitely qualifies as a science subject.
Did You Know?
One item that seems to be in the news quite often are the miraculous properties of aspirin. Touted as “the wonder pill,” “magical pill,” and “cure-all pill” by many, the fact is we don’t even know what we don’t know about aspirin. Actually, we can say this about most anything that we ingest.
Many believe that an aspirin per day keeps the doctor away and leads to a longer and healthier life. But, again, the published reports that surface every few months or so also point out that aspirin may not be what the doctor ordered for certain people. Ongoing research on aspirin and its benefits and/or detrimental consequences is what science is all about. The best science is science that continuously functions to discover more about all the things we take for granted, and miracle pills like aspirin.
In the interim, we will take our aspirin a day, thank you very much!
References and Recommended Reading
Carpi, A., and Egger, A. E., 2009. The Scientific Method. www.visionlearing.com/linraary/module_view.php?print=1&mid=45&mcid= (accessed September 3, 2009).
Clarke, T. and Clegg, S. (eds). 2000. Changing Paradigms. London: HarperCollins. Euclid, 1956. The Elements. New York: Dover.
Kuhn, T. S., 1996. The Structure of Scientific revolutions, 3rd ed. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Merriam-Webster, Online Dictionary. Science. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science (accessed September 3, 2009).
Popper, K., 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge Classics.
Sagan, C., 1996. The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. New York: Ballantine Books.
Trefil, J., 2008. Why Science? New York: Teachers College Press.