What Separates Science from Non-Science?

| RealClearScience Page 1 of 4

https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2012/05/30/what_separates_science_from_non-s... 4/19/2019
What Separates Science from Non-Science? | RealClearScience Page 2 of 4

What Separates
Science from Non-
Science?

By Alex B. Berezow & Tom Hartsfield

May 29, 2012

Editor’s Note: This article is a follow-up to one previously written by Tom Hartsfield titled, "NSF
Should Stop Funding Social 'Science'".

The term “science” carries a centuries-long aura of legitimacy and respectability. But not every field
of research can rightly call itself scientific.

Traditionally, fields such as biology, chemistry,

physics and their spinoffs constitute the “hard sciences” while social sciences are called the “soft
sciences.” A very good reason exists for this distinction, and it has nothing to do with how difficult,
useful or interesting the field is. Instead, it has to do with how scientifically rigorous its research
methods are.

What do we mean by scientifically rigorous? Let’s start by discussing what we don’t mean.

Using statistics doesn’t make a field scientifically rigorous. Baseball players and gamblers use
statistics everyday. They are not scientists. Even using extremely complicated math and statistics
doesn't make a field scientific.

The mathematically intensive field of economics is largely preoccupied with determining correlation
and causation. In order to do so, economists employ a statistical technique, multiple regression
analysis, which is every bit as complicated as it sounds. But, as the authors of Freakonomics write,
“[R]egression analysis is more art than science.”

So, if mind-bending statistical analysis doesn’t make a field scientifically rigorous, what does? Five
concepts characterize scientifically rigorous studies:

Clearly defined terminology. Science should not use ambiguous terminology or words with
arbitrary definitions. Microbiologists all agree on what constitutes a cell, and chemists all agree on
what constitutes a molecule. But this is not always the case in other fields. How does one precisely

https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2012/05/30/what_separates_science_from_non-s... 4/19/2019
What Separates Science from Non-Science? | RealClearScience Page 3 of 4

define a particular political ideology? Or life satisfaction? Or sexism? These ideas, though
commonly studied in other fields, have vague definitions that can change over time, across
geography, or even between different cultures.

Quantifiability. Rigorous science is quantifiable. Planets are measured in density and orbital
velocity. Toxicity is measured in lethal dosages. But how do you measure happiness? Can a person
put a reliable number on how happy he is feeling today? Lord Kelvin expressed the importance of
measurability when he said:

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in
numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your
knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge,
but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the
matter may be.

Highly controlled conditions. This is probably the most important characteristic, and it is precisely
here where many fields fall short. A scientifically rigorous study maintains direct control over as
many of the factors that influence the outcome as possible. The experiment is then performed with
such precision that any other person in the world, using identical materials and methods, should
achieve the exact same result. A scientist testing bacterial growth in France should get the same
result as a microbiologist in Australia.

The ability to create highly controlled conditions is simply nonexistent for many soft sciences.
Instead, they rely on observational studies in uncontrolled, often chaotic environments. To tease
apart correlation from causation, they apply fancy math – like the regression analysis mentioned
above – but this isn’t a sufficient substitute for a highly controlled environment.

Let us turn once again to the authors of Freakonomics, who succinctly summarize why economics is
not a scientific field:

In a perfect world, an economist could run a controlled experiment just as a physicist or a

biologist does: setting up two samples, randomly manipulating one of them, and measuring
the effect. But an economist rarely has the luxury of such pure experimentation.

Reproducibility. Having control over conditions allows experiments to be carefully repeated. A

rigorous science is able to reproduce the same result over and over again. Multiple researchers on
different continents, cities, or even planets should find the exact same results if they precisely
duplicated the experimental conditions. Remember the controversy over faster-than-light neutrinos?
Reproducible conditions allowed subsequent experiments to disprove this finding. Inaccurate results
can be decisively and quickly removed from the canon of scientific truth.

Predictability and testability. A rigorous science is able to make testable predictions. One of the
most beautiful examples of this is the periodic table of elements. Dmitri Mendeleev, a Russian
chemist, successfully predicted the properties of missing elements on the table – that is, elements
that had not been discovered yet. While fields like economics and psychology might be able to
explain existing behavior, they do not often do well in predicting future outcomes – if they dare to
make predictions at all.

https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2012/05/30/what_separates_science_from_non-s... 4/19/2019
What Separates Science from Non-Science? | RealClearScience Page 4 of 4

https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2012/05/30/what_separates_science_from_non-s... 4/19/2019