"Is Everything Science?" - Amanda Ali Taha Computer Science Major University of Wisconsin - Fox Valley

Ali Taha 1

    “Is Everything Science?”

                  Amanda Ali Taha

       Computer Science Major
  University of Wisconsin – Fox Valley

I hereby affirm that this is an original essay and my own work.

Ali Taha 2

                                       Is Everything Science?

       What comes to our minds when we think of science? A scientist running around his lab in

a white coat and safety glasses shouting things like “eureka!” or “I’ve done it!”? Or perhaps we

envision a scientist with a singed beard who just had a minor explosion. Is this what constitutes

science? How is this mental image that far different from a chef in his kitchen? A stereo-typical

chef wears a white coat, mixes things together in certain ratios, and puts his pots on fire for a

specific period of time. Is this also science?

       Is it possible to draw a line between the humanities and the sciences? I would argue that

the separations of the two are much fuzzier than we have commonly believed. With the rise of

the social sciences and differing opinions on what constitutes something as a “science”,

sometimes it is hard to make a clear distinction. I believe that whether your chosen discipline is a

humanities or a science, it all boils down to critical thinking. They just appear to be very

different on the surface.

       Throughout my college career I thought I had a pretty good handle on what was a science

class and what was a humanities class. I have taken humanities classes such as, English, Music

Theory and Painting. I have also taken social science classes like Anthropology, History and

Psychology. Furthermore, I took typical science classes like Animal Biology and Chemistry. I

never once thought to reflect on how scientific ways of thinking were prevalent in my art and

music classes, and I never recognized that science has an artistic side. That is, not until I enrolled

in a Philosophy of science class.

       When I took Philosophy of Science, all my pre-conceived notions of what I thought

science is and what it is not started to become scrambled. I started to reflect on all the classes that

I have taken while I’ve been at college. After some contemplation I now believe two things:

Ali Taha 3

First, every discipline or good academic has their own set of critical thinking skills that are

applied to create their own scientific process. And second, even scientists are concerned with the

aesthetics of their theories and models, and their ability to write an interesting and well-written

scientific article.

        In order to give us an outside perspective we had frequent guest lecturers in my

Philosophy of science class. One notable guest lecturer was Tammy J. Ladwig, Ph.D. She is an

associate professor at UW Fox Valley who specializes in teaching Education. She described this

as “teaching teachers to be good teachers.” Professor Ladwig outlined the methods of research

used in education. The methods they use such as case studies, ethnographic, critical and social

researches, to name a few, are very much scientific thinking. In order to give teachers the tools

necessary to educate students in the most effective way possible, researchers in her field use

observational data to form hypothesis, make predictions and perform experiments. Professor

Ladwig began to open a window in my mind revealing that many disciplines not labeled

“science” do in fact practice scientific methods.

        Another guest lecturer that really made an impact on me was Professor Jill Halverson.

She is an assistant professor also teaching at UW Fox Valley who specializes in Business. My

preconceived notion of business was that it had nothing to do with science. I couldn’t have been

more wrong. According to Professor Halverson, business has what is called “the marketing

research process” which goes as follows: problem – plan – collect info – analyze info – present

findings – make a decision or recommendation. I would argue that this is exactly like the

scientific method of observation, hypothesis, prediction, and experimentation. The way a good

business approaches a problem is exactly the way any scientist would approach a problem. The

subject matter is just different.

Ali Taha 4

       Moving on to my personal experience within the humanities, I recall a class I took in

music theory. It was never just random notes on a page. Music, much like science, has its own

set of general rules or laws to abide by. Musicians have their own scientific method of

observation, hypothesis, prediction, and experimentation. For example, there is always a key in

which music is being written. A key is essentially notes with prescribed intervals between one

other, that sound good together in which have a sense of start and rest. Furthermore, music

doesn’t have haphazard rhythmic patterns. It, much like the tempo, has some sense of control.

These basic rules have some leeway but are the foundation to most music.

       What’s more, I have taken my share of art classes. No one says art has to be done a

certain way, but there are still basic rules or principles to follow. For example, artists have

studied how people perceive art and how their eyes naturally follow around a page. The “rule of

thirds” was developed through observation, hypothesis, prediction, and experimentation to give

artists a basic guideline on how to compose so-called “good” art.

       So why do music and art have rules? I believe it is all in the study of how people react to

and perceive them. Understanding why one work is perceived as good and another as bad can be

very subjective. Moreover, why is music written in a minor key typically perceived as sadder

than its major key counterpart? Why are certain colors perceived as happy or sad? The social

sciences study human reactions and behavior. A parallel can be drawn between the social

sciences with their study of human behaviors and how people perceive music and art.

       On the other hand I remember taking animal biology. We had to work together in groups

to make an insect display. I remember we wanted to make it aesthetically pleasing. Also, with

the construction of models or diagrams I can now see how science can be very artistic.

Ali Taha 5

       In an article by Hans Christian Von Baeyer called “The Aesthetic Equation” science is

revealed to have an artistic side. Scientists sometimes see beauty in the natural world, and by

investigating this beauty it can lead them to new discoveries. Moreover, scientists often come up

with theories because they are “pretty theories.” This means the theories sound good, look good,

and make sense to them. Von Baeyer points out that Einstein’s theory of relativity did not have

much empirical evidence at the time, but they were “pretty” numbers. Von Bayer shows us that

throughout history many mathematically attractive theories pre-dated observations. Although,

interestingly enough, once observations were able to be made they cohered with the theories. He

goes further to explain that scientists often look for simplicity. They seek to simplify a wide

variety of things down to commonalities since often the simpler answer is most likely the right

one.

       Throughout history the definition on what makes something a science or a non-science is

ever changing. Several great thinkers put their definitions of science forward only to be refuted

by the next guy to come along with a new idea of what science is. For example, according to

Karl Popper legit science is falsifiable. A proper scientific hypothesis must be formed in a way

that it can be tested to be either corroborated or disproven. Also according to Popper, science is

never 100% proven. It is either disproven or not yet disproven. On the other hand, philosopher

Thomas Kuhn argues that real world science doesn’t happen according to Popper’s ideals. Kuhn

discusses the concept of a scientific paradigm, which is a set of theoretical assumptions shared

by scientific community at any given time. He argues that scientists are not out to try to falsify

commonly held theories. They just assume the theories are right. But why do they just make that

assumption? Hasn’t the history of science shown us they are almost never 100% right? Is it

because of our educational system? Are they not taught to intellectually challenge the status quo?

Ali Taha 6

        There are many instances where humanities and sciences merge and meld. So why does it

matter? Why do musicians, artists, or writers have to care about the science behind why

something looks or sounds good? Why do scientists have to concern themselves with

aesthetically pleasing models, or well written scientific articles? I attest that if scientists pay

attention during their required humanities classes and vice versa artists and writers do the same,

they will have the critical thinking skills that are necessary to excel in their chosen fields. If we

try to understand the main concepts behind the humanities and the sciences and the history of

each, we will pave the way for a brighter future.

Ali Taha 7

                                         Works Cited

Halverson, Jill. UW Fox Valley, Philosophy of Science Class. 30 Oct. 2014. Lecture.

Ladwig, Tammy J., Ph. D. "Education and the Science behind It." UW Fox Valley, Philosophy

       of Science Class. 16 Oct. 2014. Lecture.

Okasha, Samir. Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford, 2002.

       Print.

Von Baeyer, Hans Chrisrian. "The Aesthetic Equation." Sciences 30.1 (1990): 2-5. Print.