1. Nature of Science
Running Head: NATURE OF SCIENCE
Describing the Nature of Science
[Author’s name]
[Instructor’s name]
[Name of Institution]
[Course]

2. Nature of Science
Describing the Nature of Science
Knowing about structure of man kind and Nature is the basic purpose of science. Science
means those ways that are utilized by the humans to safeguard the information about the nature
as well as structuring the information of such systems. Science has a lengthy and influencing past
which consist of innovative and energetic events. Information and progress of science has been
supported by many firms. Theories and laws about Nature have elaborated by the scientific
researchers in utilizing the major resources. Theories of science help us understand the processes
and characteristics of nature’s events and the laws of science are the result of these processes or
in other words the laws and theories are interconnected. The characteristics that must exert by the
laws and theories of science are they must be forecast errorless about the natural process and in
terms of provable data of nature it should compatible, correct and valid. The laws are made from
theories because it has to describe the logic. Different models are used by the science researcher
to verify and design their explanations like: surveillance, experiments, and mathematical and
theoretical models. The majority of science concepts are provable by the experiments and
observations but the rest of other concepts have flexibility in improvement, changing and
unreliability. These concepts do not anticipate change a lot in up coming time. Whenever the
scientific researchers conduct any experiment that is not supporting the previous explanation,
they become deformed in the concept.
Scientific knowledge has been enhanced by the knowing of the importance of its
objectives and suppositions, which also help in describing and progressing it (Buxton, 2001-
389) — by the past 100 years it has been demonstrated by the scientific learning. It is an existing

3. Nature of Science
document that it is the unchangeable fact of science and protection from the complete accepting
of pseudoscience and research papers analyzed. The information of Science will help to
understand there responsibility of everyone to make up their minds to solve the primary
problems of science, encouraging the learners to know the gravity of science field, traditional
objectives, and making distinct educational researches on other hand. It has been proven by the
research that many teachers and learners do not suitably understand the science nature. For
example those teachers and learners are considered undeveloped or not mature who thinks that
scientific researches are cleave to the same pattern of quantities like theories and laws of science.
(Lawson, 2005,726) the teachers not every time in their class introduce the nature of science
even they know the requirement and importance of it. Apart of this they depend on the mistaken
suppositions that researches will help the student know about the importance and knowledge of
science. To make both learns and teachers understand the natures of science formulated
techniques are required to teach both parties.
Nature of science Strength and limitations of different models
It is different and not included in the day to day routine of students that is why it can be seen as
confidential at its new expression. A long time of investigation on they ways teach and learned
on the science gathers the facts of few particular theories that makes the scientific studies more
attractive and powerful.
There is the flexibility in every field of science to transform in fresh facts and mind approach,
same as with science laws. If an idea is generated against the developed idea of science it have to
suffer the disbelieves. It is also seen that once a scientific knowledge is acceptable by all it
become stronger and lasts long. For many centuries these concepts have suffered the problems

4. Nature of Science
and result mostly untransformed. Even to know that these concepts and information have
possibility to transform in coming time, it is important and valid to belief these scientific
knowledge.
Everything has its strengths and weaknesses. But in science, the deficiency of absolute should
not be taken as its weakness, somewhat the unsure nature of science is one of the greatest
strengths — without uncertainty and examination of new and existing claims the development
toward genuine claims and away from incorrect ones would by no means is possible. Along with
the possibility of emending or rejecting those that fall short (Sagan, 1996). In the assorted fields
like medicine, agriculture, engineering and transportation (all fields that make extensive use of
the body of knowledge produced by science) it is important to consider only the advances for
confirmation that the science works. No other means of investigation to be more successful or
reliable is revealed by the history. One of the key characteristics that differentiate it from other
ways of experiencing and knowing the universe is the Change which is at the heart of science.
Science changes with the passage of time
Scientific knowledge is uncertain, sturdy and self-correcting.
Anti-science response is extensively common, regardless of our heavy confidence on science.
For example, the theory which is among our greatest supported scientific theories and is
acknowledged almost across the world within the scientific community and is named as
Evolutionary theory is discarded by a significant section of Americans, Canadians and British.
Quite the opposite, our identification of deficiencies in Darwin’s views reveal development in

5. Nature of Science
our perceptive of advancement since his time. But the media seems to love pointing out ways in
which ‘Darwin was wrong’ as if it disproves all of evolutionary biology.
Science is given an edge over the other knowledge systems because of the self-correcting nature.
The Catholic Church did not receive the discovery well that the Earth is not at the centre of the
universe. Faithfulness to factual interpretations of the bible in the face of irresistible ambiguous
confirmation is not yet behind us. But despite of the religious ideology most people now accept
that the earth orbits the sun.
Improvement is furnished by the practice of questioning and significantly examining our views
and practices, testing them and rejecting or revising them consequently. It won’t be called a sign
of weakness or cause for embarrassment -- if we change our views by taking into account the
new information. This is the reason of the advancement increasing every year now we see more
technologies then what we used to see in the past. The diseases which were once incurable are
now curable, the women can vote not and we no longer burn heretics. The process of
significantly examining and varying our views and positions should be celebrated. It lies at the
heart of the human progress.
It should be unmistakably noted that by definition, any scientific hypothesis must be refutable –
that is it can be contradicted in future testing. Anything other than this is either a superstition,
tautology, or a con job. This is the central part which separates the science from the religion.
Evidence is the main elements on which science relies completely and is subject to revision.
Religion relies on a leap of faith in the deficiency of evidence, and is normally too stiff in its
doctrine for reasonable revision to take place.

6. Nature of Science
Hypothesis
Fragile, easily continents could float or be pushed through the dense oceanic crust is said
by the Geophysics. The continents were once together was the idea of Wegener which was
further proved that it was probably right (but not as separate entities, but as part of a larger disk).
Nevertheless, these plates do not have a tendency to sink in the oceanic crust. As the plates carry
the continents were distributed on each side, the molten rock arose between them and formed a
new oceanic crust in its place. (Schwartz, 2008, 739)
The necessity of testability supposition clear is the one important thing and that is we
must eliminate supernatural explanations. If the supernatural as events or phenomena are
explained not by the physical senses and experimental can be perceived, this will clearly shows
that they are not following the rules of natural patterns and cannot be tested scientifically. It
would be difficult to test the speed of the mass of the angels or spirits, if they do not test in the
natural world for scientific tests. Although of course a lot of people have tried to find out
whether these companies are real and demonstrable, and cannot be disqualified that one day the
technology exist to test some “supernatural” phenomenon.
Experiment
According to the hypothesis was found, it is time to test.. The thing which sets science apart from
other disciplines is the process of experimentation and it leads to discoveries each and every day.
The reason of designing and experiment is to confirm or disprove the hypothesis. If your
prediction is accurate, it will not be able to reject the hypothesis. (Sadler, 2004, 407) Common
people may believe so on the picture when you think of scientific experiments. This may be true
in some disciplines but not the entire. Einstein depended on the mathematics, "project" their

7. Nature of Science
assumptions about the nature of space and time in the universe. The physical space-time, exact,
sometimes years later are what this hypothesis had accurately forecasted about, made with the
development of technology to the test. The test results must be reproducible and to measure the
check. For determining whether the analysis is impartial and just, the data is available.
Evaluation
To examine all the evidences and conclusions and to confirm that it does not led to be wrong
conclusions due to unsatisfactory efforts. Qualitative and quantitative analysis can also be
applied mathematics. Scientific explanations must always be made publicly available in printed
or offered at scientific meetings. Hear Read phonetically it should also claim that scientific
explanations are uncertain and subject to change. The importance of gaze review in science and
the force with which it is made cannot be extended enough. At full academic battles were
stimulated in scientific journals, many scientific journals articles submitted will be rejected in
truth. (Erkenntnis, 1981, 69) To be particular, inventive and complete is what the scientists
should really be for the evaluation of science. To better understand the nature of scientific
theories or laws, to comprehend that students have the following definitions.
Conclusion
Based on new evidence, scientific theories are falsifiable and may be revised or extended.
The concepts of past events that cannot be tested are particularly important. Let’s take an
example, explain the Big Bang Theory or the theory of biological evolution in relation to the
past. Both are theories, which collected all the information in the past but cannot be
demonstrated as absolute truth because we cannot return to the Go to trial. Additional and better
data will be collected on anyone either confirm or disprove their own. Scientific method is the

8. Nature of Science
main force for change in a theory. Karl Popper said that the philosopher’s famous 20 th Century is
one that can be wrong like “the sun always rises in the east.” According to Popper, law of
science are never proved, it can be used to disagree with a prediction that can be tested, with the
possibility. (MartinusNijhoff, 1985, 74) For example, as the renowned biologist J.B.S. Haldane
replied when asked what might disprove evolution, “Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian.” Up to
now this does not happen, and without a doubt a testament to the "theory" of evolution is
massive, consisting of hundreds of thousands of synchronized observations these are coming
from areas such as geology, paleontology, comparative biochemistry, physiology, anthropology,
anthropology, anatomy embryology and molecular genetics. Like the Evolution, the most
extensively acknowledged scientific theories that have stood the test of time and falsifiability to
be the backbone of the new scientific studies. Scientific methods are the methods about which
the scientists or others cannot say about it. No scientific work when she sees a laboratory
experiment, wondered if not appropriately mechanical, nor is he interested in any technique can
be used as a method. If companies the work of a researcher's scientific social group who criticize
are not rare, it is not base his criticism on these remarkable generalities as opposing to the
“scientific method" to follow, but his criticism is specific, based on definite characteristics of the
function of the particular situation. The scientific work is always too busy to serious things to be
ready to spend his time on generalities. But to the working scientist himself all this appears
obvious and corny. What he perceives as the real meaning is the situation that he was not
conscious of after a approved course of action, but feels free to use any method or device at all,
which in the particular situation before him seems probable to give the right answer. In his attack
together with his precise problem he suffers no inhibitions pattern or authority, but is completely
free to any courses that adopt his genius in a position to proffer it. In conclusion, there is the

9. Nature of Science
human element of science. It is possibly the most basic yet most often abandoned the nature of
science. Human creativity and human subjectivity is involved in the development of scientific
knowledge. The observations like the creativity and subjectivity are on which scientists continue
to make observations and conclusions. Scientists to appraise and assess the reliability of the
claims of scientific knowledge through testing laws and theories, change in the light of new
confirmation or compelling a rethinking of the existing confirmation. Even though some
scientific developments happen quickly and are considered revolutionary, most developments in
the scientific results from the continuous advances in scientific knowledge. On the whole,
scientists and technicians on the principle that laws and scientific theories are concrete and
durable.

10. Nature of Science
References
Buxton. C. A. (2001) Modeling science teaching on science practice? Painting a more accurate
picture through an ethnographic lab study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
Volume 38, Issue 4. Pages 387-407.
Kang, N. H., & Wallace, C. S. (2005). Secondary science teachers’ use of laboratory activities:
Linking epistemological beliefs, goals, and practices. Science Education, 89(1), 140–165.
Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of
science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education,
26(4), 387–409.
Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on
learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(5), 634–656.
Schwartz, R. S. & Lederman, N. (2008). What scientists say: Scientists’ views of nature of
science and relation to science context. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6),
721-771.
G. Currie and A. Musgrave, Martinus Nijhoff, (1985). ‘Methodological Individualism:
An Incongruity in Popper’s Philosophy’ in Popper and the Human Sciences, 73-87.
Erkenntnis, (1981).‘Rationality is Wonderful: Lakatos’s Half-Theory of the History of Science’,
167-76

11. Nature of Science
Lawson, A.E. (2005). What is the role of induction and deduction in reasoning and scientific
inquiry? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 716-740.
Reid, A. D. and Scott, W.A.H., 2006. Researching Education and the Environment:
Environmental Education Research, 571-588.
Reid, A. and Nikel, J., 2003. Reading a Critical Review of Evidence: Environmental Education
Research, 149--165.