Preamble

There are more than a few definitions of science out there. Every scientist you ask will give their favorite variation on a common theme. The whole business of science is built ideally around the concept of the scientific method. One of the better broad definitions of the scientific method is this-

The scientific method – the method wherein inquiry regards itself as fallible and purposely tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and improves itself.

Source: The Scientific Method, Wikipedia.

Wikipedia as a Source of Authoritative Information

First, a homily on Wikipedia as a resource. It’s been my observation that in areas that I am familiar with, i.e., chemistry, aviation, the history of science and a few others, the content I’ve encountered comports well with my general knowledge. The more links and references, the better. And, more often than not, the links actually reflect the content that referenced it. What’s more, Wikipedia encourages input and corrections by the broader community and if you go into edit mode, you can see the list of edits over time. I’ve contributed to a few edits myself. Are there errors or just simple BS in Wikipedia? Well, of course. It’s been said that a camel is a horse designed by committee. While Wikipedia may reveal some of this camel design in places, basically most everything we read or hear is subject to this shortcoming. The freedom to edit a Wikipedia entry is a type of “peer review” but the qualifications of the peers is unknown. Believe me, in science publishing, anonymous peer reviewing is populated with more than a few sanctimonious jerks whose motivations may not be pure.

I’ve spent my career diving into the primary chemical literature via Chemical Abstracts. Primary literature is crucial, but it is usually very narrow in scope and often subject to later revision. This is why review articles, books and monographs are so important. Someone has combed through the primary literature and brought together some structure in an area of study. Wikipedia has become a third tier of scientific information and access for anyone. While it seems quite accurate, we should always be using our best judgement as we read the content. Do the links support the statements? Are there enough links, etc.?

A great deal has been written about the scientific method by those more capable than I so I won’t attempt to blather through it. Instead, I will share an example of how asking a very basic question led me to a treasure trove of information expanding my understanding of the universe.

Back to the definition of science. From a Google search of “Science”: ”Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.” I’ve quoted it because I can’t improve on it.

Science is frequently regarded with excessive reverence, suggesting that it is solely the realm of “proper scientists” and embodies the ultimate truth. However, in reality, it is open to anyone armed with curiosity and resolve. Curiosity drives inquiry, but it is also enhanced by a prepared mind. Some questions illuminate, while others can deceive. A well-posed question can propel one towards the heart of a matter. A ready mind can recognize false trails early on and steer clear of them.

How or Why?

I favor “how” questions over “why” questions because they foster a more mechanistic inquiry into nature and adhere to established physical principles. “Why” questions often carry philosophical or religious connotations and can be laden with presupposed motives or assumptions. This doesn’t render “why” questions invalid; however, they may veer away from the realm of observable natural phenomena, the foundation of scientific inquiry. Asking “How did Stella move the lamp?” may differ from “Why did Stella move the lamp?”. The interchangeable use of ‘why’ and ‘how’ in everyday language can result in imprecise thinking and sloppy conclusions.

Obviously both how and why questions are useful is answering a question. Judicious use of ‘how’ and ‘why’ can lead to more focused thinking about either a mechanistic or motivational question. ‘How’ gets to physical causality whereas ‘why’ often seeks mechanist details but may also leave room for psychological motivation. Either entry into a question is valid depending on what a person wants to know: Physics or psychology.

Sharply pointed scientific inquiry requires the meticulous use of language to convey exact meanings. This scrupulous attention to language demands a precise vocabulary that narrows the scope of interpretation. While this may seem tedious, the benefit lies in getting quickly to the heart of a question. Similarly, lawyers have developed their specialized legalese for this very reason.

Being more precise in one’s use of language is very useful if you’re plagued with complex situations, incomplete information or the need to focus on a mechanistic pathway. ‘How‘ thinking helps with this.

>>> The best questions lead more directly to the best answers. <<<

As one accumulates a greater vocabulary over time, the ability to apply nuances into your thinking and communication increases as well since even synonyms can differ a bit in their meaning. As you spend more time in scientific pursuits, you start to realize the value of having good questions to ask. In fact, the skill with which you formulate questions can drive your research further into the unknown, which is where everyone wants to go.