Pic 1: One of these |
You have some food colouring
Pic 2: One of any of these |
Out of interest, you add a drop of food colouring
into the glass of water, then another one and another one. You
realise that the water is changing colour, it's taking on the colour
of the food colouring. You stir the water and the colour change is
uniform, all the water in the glass is the same shade. You become
intrigued and write out a hypothesis (a practical argument that
attempts to answer the question "what is happening here?")
to explain what is happening. Your hypothesis is that as food
colouring spreads through the water it changes the colour of the
water and the colour change gets stronger as more food colouring gets
added. Stirring the water makes the change uniform because the food
colouring becomes evenly distributed. Now you are ready to set up an
experiment to test your hypothesis.
You arrange many glasses of water in a row, all the
same size and shape and temperature, and you arrange measured tubes
of food colouring, again all the same, above the water so that the
food colouring drops out at the same rate all along the row (chemists
and chem students should know this as a titration set-up).
Pic 3: Lots of these |
Behind each glass of water you place a colour chart so you can track the colour change. In this way you can carry out many experiments at the same time that are the exact same as each other. You find that every glass of water reaches the same colour saturation at, or close around the same amount of food colouring and that in every case, stirring the water makes the change uniform. You find this same result in hundreds of glasses of water. You are happy.
Pic 4: Yes, that happy |
You describe your experiments in such a way that
anyone in the world can set up the same kind of equipment and
materials and get the same result. To this you add your hypothesis,
your results, and your conclusions (conclusions being what happens
when you compare your original hypothesis to your results). You send
off the paper (as this is what you have written) to a scientific
journal to be reviewed. The journal sends copies of your paper to
several other scientists so they can check what you have written.
After testing your results by following the instructions you gave in
the paper, the answer is "Yes, the experiment is sound, the
results match what we got, we agree with the conclusion, this paper
is fit to print." You are now a published scientist and you are
delighted.
Pic 5: However you wish to celebrate |
You continue your work on food colouring and water,
testing all of different factors that can have an impact like changes
in temperature, pressure, salinity, chemical composition etc., etc.,
publishing more papers and working with different groups as you go.
You are not the only one doing this anymore. Many scientists all over
the world read your original paper and are not only closely following
your work and progress but are also doing their own experiments on
the premise of food colouring and water. Some have taken different
dyes than food colouring, some have taken different liquids than
water, but they and you are all pursuing the same goal; how does it
work? What makes this happen? What are the mechanics of the process?
Pic 6: Pondering... |
Over time the original hypothesis become hypotheses
(plural) and they get more and more defined and specialized to
explain the results that come from more and more specialized
experiments and better instruments that can track the change to a much finer degree. But the original premise of
dye + liquid = colour change remains the same because no-one has been
able to come up an experiment that proves it wrong. (This, by the way
is what you actually do in a scientific experiment, you try to prove
things wrong.) Over time, there is enough evidence that you
can form a General Theory of Colour Change in Liquids and it is
accepted by the general scientific community as it appears to explain
what's going on on a large scale.
Now, here comes a new paper that describes an
experiment carried out that shows the basic mechanism to be something
different than what everyone thought. A research lab working with a
new machine with a different detector method has carried out
experiments to show that it is not just the dye but how that dye
interacts with the oxygen in the liquid to change the liquid's
colour. These new results show that while the original and accepted
observation is correct, the mechanics of the process
were misunderstood because the observational machinery was not able
to get to the lowest layers where the action was taking place. In
other words, the liquid changes colour, but not for the reasons
everyone thought.
Pic 7: WTF Meatloaf?! |
Every lab that has this new machine and new detector
copies and expands on these new experiments and the results come
back, "Yes, we agree. This is actually how it works." You
yourself run the same experiments and come up with the same results
and draw the same conclusions. Your theory is proven to be
fundamentally flawed. What is your reaction now?
Pic 8: Well....no. |
A real scientist would
be happy. Happy because the mechanism of food colouring changing the
colour of water is being more accurately described. Because the point
of science is to make our knowledge match what is in the real
world. If you spend time trying to chase down the wrong idea, you
are wasting your time. Your accepted theory on how dyes change
the colour of liquids was not accurate, it did not reflect what
really happened at the atomic level. Thanks to these new results, you
don't have to waste any more of your time running experiments under
the old theory. You can go on to something else.
Pic 9: Yep |
This is why real
science is different from any other discipline. Scientists are
expected to chase knowledge, wherever it lies and whatever it leads
to. In return, scientists demand proof. They demand replicable
experiments and will dismiss anything else. No anecdotes, no personal
experiences, no heart-stirring stories. Proof.
Pic 10: Because he says it best... |