Observation Provides Data on Problems, but Cannot Solve Them

A good illustration of the scientific method, in which observations are made for the purpose of identifying difficulties and analyzing situations, is the procedure followed by a physician when he makes a diagnosis. A doctor does not write a prescription solely on the basis of what his patient tells him; he uses instruments to take the patient’s temperature to examine his feces, and to analyze his urine. It is only after he has made these examinations that he writes his prescription; without them he could not be sure about the nature of the patient illness.

Modern science is like traditional science in attaching great importance to observation, but differs from it sharply in recognizing that observation alone cannot solve a problem. It is a mistake to seek a solution to a problem merely by observation; observation is merely the means of supplying needed information, of locating and identifying the problem. In other words, observation can bring the problem into focus, but cannot solve it.

Traditional science explained a falling body by saying that it was heavy, a floating one by saying that it was light. The traditional scientist arrived at his interpretation of events on the basis of his sense perception. But when a modern scientist investigates falling or floating bodies, he recognizes that heaviness and lightness are results, not causes, and that the cause is the law of gravitation. He understands enough about gravitation to know that the weight of an object will change if it is projected beyond the gravitational field of the earth, and that on Mars or Venus it would have a different weight because the force of gravity on those planets is different. The same thing is true when he deals with light. The ancients treated light as a problem, but we have discovered that it is a form of energy, and that the speed with which it moves can be measured. Observation points the way to problems and helps us to know what they are; it does not provide answers.