Introductory Chemistry: A Foundation - Zumdahl S.S., DeCoste D.J. 2019
Chemistry: An Introduction
The Scientific Method
Objective
· To describe the method scientists use to study nature.
In the last section we began to see how the methods of science are used to solve problems. In this section we will further examine this approach.
Science is a framework for gaining and organizing knowledge. Science is not simply a set of facts but also a plan of action—a procedure for processing and understanding certain types of information. Although scientific thinking is useful in all aspects of life, in this text we will use it to understand how the natural world operates. The process that lies at the center of scientific inquiry is called the scientific method . As we saw in the previous section, it consists of the following steps:
Steps in the Scientific Method
1. State the problem and collect data (make observations). Observations may be qualitative (the sky is blue; water is a liquid) or quantitative (water boils at ; a certain chemistry book weighs pounds). A qualitative observation does not involve a number. A quantitative observation is called a measurement and does involve a number (and a unit, such as pounds or inches). We will discuss measurements in detail in Chapter 2.
2. Formulate hypotheses. A hypothesis is a possible explanation for the observation.
3. Perform experiments. An experiment is something we do to test the hypothesis. We gather new information that allows us to decide whether the hypothesis is supported by the new information we have learned from the experiment. Experiments always produce new observations, and this brings us back to the beginning of the process again.
Chemistry in Focus A Mystifying Problem
To illustrate how science helps us solve problems, consider a true story about two people, David and Susan (not their real names). David and Susan were healthy 40-year-olds living in California, where David was serving in the U.S. Air Force. Gradually Susan became quite ill, showing flu-like symptoms including nausea and severe muscle pains. Even her personality changed: she became uncharacteristically grumpy. She seemed like a totally different person from the healthy, happy woman of a few months earlier. Following her doctor’s orders, she rested and drank a lot of fluids, including large quantities of coffee and orange juice from her favorite mug, part of a -piece set of pottery dishes recently purchased in Italy. However, she just got sicker, developing extreme abdominal cramps and severe anemia.
During this time David also became ill and exhibited symptoms much like Susan’s: weight loss, excruciating pain in his back and arms, and uncharacteristic fits of temper. The disease became so debilitating that he retired early from the U.S. Air Force, and the couple moved to Seattle. For a short time their health improved, but after they unpacked all their belongings (including those pottery dishes), their health began to deteriorate again. Susan’s body became so sensitive that she could not tolerate the weight of a blanket. She was near death. What was wrong? The doctors didn’t know, but one suggested she might have porphyria, a rare blood disease.
Desperate, David began to search the medical literature himself. One day while he was reading about porphyria, a phrase jumped off the page: “Lead poisoning can sometimes be confused with porphyria.” Could the problem be lead poisoning?
We have described a very serious problem with life-or-death implications. What should David do next? Overlooking for a moment the obvious response of calling the couple’s doctor immediately to discuss the possibility of lead poisoning, could David solve the problem via scientific thinking? Let’s use the three steps described in Section 1.3 to attack the problem one part at a time. This is important: usually we solve complex problems by breaking them down into manageable parts. We can then assemble the solution to the overall problem from the answers we have found “piecemeal.”
In this case there are many parts to the overall problem:
What is the disease?
Where is it coming from?
Can it be cured?
Let’s attack “What is the disease?” first.
Observation: David and Susan are ill with the symptoms described. Is the disease lead poisoning?
Hypothesis: The disease is lead poisoning.
Experiment: If the disease is lead poisoning, the symptoms must match those known to characterize lead poisoning. Look up the symptoms of lead poisoning. David did this and found that they matched the couple’s symptoms almost exactly.
This discovery points to lead poisoning as the source of their problem, but David needed more evidence.
Observation: Lead poisoning results from high levels of lead in the bloodstream.
Hypothesis: David and Susan have high levels of lead in their blood.
Experiment: Perform a blood analysis. Susan arranged for such an analysis, and the results showed high lead levels for both David and Susan.
This confirms that lead poisoning is probably the cause of the trouble, but the overall problem is still not solved. David and Susan are likely to die unless they find out where the lead is coming from.
Observation: There is lead in the couple’s blood.
Hypothesis: The lead is in their food or drink when they buy it.
Experiment: Find out whether anyone else who shopped at the same store was getting sick (no one was). Also note that moving to a new area did not solve the problem.
Observation: The food they buy is free of lead.
Hypothesis: The dishes they use are the source of the lead poisoning.
Experiment: Find out whether their dishes contain lead. David and Susan learned that lead compounds are often used to put a shiny finish on pottery objects. And laboratory analysis of their Italian pottery dishes showed that lead was present in the glaze.
Observation: Lead is present in their dishes, so the dishes are a possible source of their lead poisoning.
Hypothesis: The lead is leaching into their food.
Experiment: Place a beverage, such as orange juice, in one of the cups and then analyze the beverage for lead. The results showed high levels of lead in drinks that had been in contact with the pottery cups.
After many applications of the scientific method, the problem is solved. We can summarize the answer to the problem (David and Susan’s illness) as follows: the Italian pottery they used for everyday dishes contained a lead glaze that contaminated their food and drink with lead. This lead accumulated in their bodies to the point where it interfered seriously with normal functions and produced severe symptoms. This overall explanation, which summarizes the hypotheses that agree with the experimental results, is called a theory in science. This explanation accounts for the results of all the experiments performed.*
We could continue to use the scientific method to study other aspects of this problem, such as
What types of food or drink leach the most lead from the dishes?
Do all pottery dishes with lead glazes produce lead poisoning?
As we answer questions using the scientific method, other questions naturally arise. By repeating the three steps over and over, we can come to understand a given phenomenon thoroughly.
See Problem 1.7
To explain the behavior of a given part of nature, we repeat these steps many times. Gradually we accumulate the knowledge necessary to understand what is going on.
Once we have a set consisting of hypotheses that agree with our various observations, we assemble the hypotheses into a theory that is often called a model. A theory (model) is a set of tested hypotheses that gives an overall explanation of some part of nature (Fig. 1.1).
Figure 1.1.
The various parts of the scientific method.
It is important to distinguish between observations and theories. An observation is something that is witnessed and can be recorded. A theory is an interpretation—a possible explanation of why nature behaves in a particular way. Theories inevitably change as more information becomes available. For example, the motions of the sun and stars have remained virtually the same over the thousands of years during which humans have been observing them, but our explanations—our theories—have changed greatly since ancient times.
Critical Thinking
· What if everyone in the government used the scientific method to analyze and solve society’s problems, and politics were never involved in the solutions? How would this be different from the present situation, and would it be better or worse?
The point is that we don’t stop asking questions just because we have devised a theory that seems to account satisfactorily for some aspect of natural behavior. We continue doing experiments to refine our theories. We generally do this by using the theory to make a prediction and then doing an experiment (making a new observation) to see whether the results bear out this prediction.
Always remember that theories (models) are human inventions. They represent our attempts to explain observed natural behavior in terms of our human experiences. We must continue to do experiments and refine our theories to be consistent with new knowledge if we hope to approach a more nearly complete understanding of nature.
As we observe nature, we often see that the same observation applies to many different systems. For example, studies of innumerable chemical changes have shown that the total mass of the materials involved is the same before and after the change. We often formulate such generally observed behavior into a statement called a natural law . The observation that the total mass of materials is not affected by a chemical change in those materials is called the law of conservation of mass.
You must recognize the difference between a law and a theory. A law is a summary of observed (measurable) behavior, whereas a theory is an explanation of behavior. A law tells what happens; a theory (model) is our attempt to explain why it happens.
In this section, we have described the scientific method (which is summarized in Fig. 1.1) as it might ideally be applied. However, it is important to remember that science does not always progress smoothly and efficiently. Scientists are human. They have prejudices; they misinterpret data; they can become emotionally attached to their theories and thus lose objectivity; and they play politics. Science is affected by profit motives, budgets, fads, wars, and religious beliefs. Galileo, for example, was forced to recant his astronomical observations in the face of strong religious resistance. Lavoisier, the father of modern chemistry, was beheaded because of his political affiliations. And great progress in the chemistry of nitrogen fertilizers resulted from the desire to produce explosives to fight wars. The progress of science is often slowed more by the frailties of humans and their institutions than by the limitations of scientific measuring devices. The scientific method is only as effective as the humans using it. It does not automatically lead to progress.