The Fundamental Values of Science and Biology ( sensu Zeiglar, 2009)

1. The Fundamental Values of Science and Biology (sensu Zeiglar, 2009) • Curiosity is good and should be encouraged • Basic research (the quest for knowledge for its own sake) has been the driving force behind the vast majority of scientific discoveries that have benefited mankind • Knowledge itself is good – it is good to acquire knowledge (regardless of any pragmatic use) • We are born “little scientists”, and are life-long learners • It is wrong to falsify or fabricate the data on which knowledge is based • Good scientists appreciate the scientific endeavor and the scientific community (past and present) • It is good to keep an open mind, tempered by a vigilant level of skepticism • Scientists should be willing to examine and consider new evidence and arguments based on objective evidence (not necessarily those based on subjective or irrational opinions, however) Zeiglar, 2009. Conveying the Values of Science and Biology. Bioscience 59: 198-199.

2. What is Science? What is NOT Science? • Science is NOT an attempt to answer so-called “ultimate questions” (i.e., “What’s the Meaning of Life”? “Why are we here”?) • It is an attempt to discover truths regarding the physical universe via methodological naturalism • Uses natural explanations and empirical observations (made using our senses or various instruments) • Supernatural / Paranormal events are NOT usable for scientific explanations • Provides evidence (vs. proof) and seeks to disprove; always open to changes based on new discoveries (not dogmatic) • Check on nature vs. rely on authorities (Bacon, 1620) • Science “is what scientists do” (Judge William Overton, 1982) and see Quotations Handout

3. What Qualities Characterize Good Science? • “Bottom Line”: quality of evidence(“follow the evidence”) • Correlations weaker than causative mechanisms • Inference: arriving at a decision or conclusion by reasoning from known facts or evidence (note frozen waterfall, Pangea examples) • Objectivity: hopes and expectations kept “in check” • Statistical tests like a “watch dog”; significance is NOT subjective • Proposals: well-designed plans reviewed by others before work • “Blind” trials: especially common in medical experiments and in contentious issues • Repeatable: subjected to replication • If unable, more subject to question • Peer Review and Publication Process: findings critically evaluated by experts prior to final publication • Tentative, conservative regarding initial interpretations

4. Fig. 1.1

5. What is “Bad Science”? *(*Negative/Confusing/Frustrating Aspects of Science) • Lack of a “final answer” is normal, and often frustrating • No absolute proof, only quality and quantity of evidence • “Needs more study”; “Needs more money” • “Coffee is good for you; no it’s bad for you…” • Often related to relationship with press/media • Mars meteorite example (1996): press release prior to peer review • Fraud (Cheating, Deception) • Rare, but becoming more frequent (journals must retract papers) • Likely related to pressure to publish: quantity of publications often criteria for promotions, etc. • Unpopular decisions (value judgments) can be based on findings (ex., shooting exotic goats on Catalina Island) • Public confusion regarding Correlation and Causation • Correlations often reported in media • Correlations often first indication of relationships; strengthened by causative explanations

6. What are Scientific Theories? • Theory: a broadly conceived, logically coherent, and very well-supported explanation (arrived at via induction) • NOT a confirmed hypothesis, simple guess, educated guess, myth, or opinion (although these are often meant in general language) • Analogous to a prosecutor’s case in law (few cases go to trial with support of only one line of even high-quality evidence) • Falsifiable: can (potentially) be disproved (Karl Popper) • Guide predictions for further research (via deduction) • Can be revised or “recycled” • Example: Continental drift (1915)  Plate tectonics (1960s) • Major Examples of Well-Supported (Embedded) Theories • Modern theory of biological evolution • Global warming theory • Germ theory of disease • Cell theory of life • Plate Tectonics • DNA as Hereditary Material

7. Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution (Dobzhansky, 1973) • Why do all organisms share DNA, RNA, ribosomes, and the same genetic code for producing proteins? • Why do many organisms possess physical features that help them live in their particular environments? • Why are beetles the most diverse group of organisms? • Why do antibiotics gradually lose their effectiveness? • Why have some species (ex. mammoths) gone extinct? • Why do we have a tailbone? • Why do native species often suffer when exotics are introduced? • Why does infanticide exist among lions and other animals? • Why are fossils of marine organisms found on mountain- tops? • Why are marsupials found mainly in Australia?

8. Fig. 1.12 Fig. 1.13

9. Fig. 1.14

10. Fig. 1.15

11. What are the Shared Characteristics of all Living Things? • Organization of Organic Materials – the cell is the basic unit of living things • Acquisition of Materials and Energy • Homeostasis – maintaining an internal balance • Response to Stimuli • Reproduction • Growth and Development • Adaptation to Environment (Evolution) • Exists in Populations

12. Table 1.1

13. Fig. 1.5

14. Fig. 1.7 Fig. 1.6

15. Fig. 1.8

16. Fig. 1.9