Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
perimortem trauma frompostmortem trauma when bones are subjected to fire?” is a question
that results from the problem of how a phenomenon such as fire can affect bone postmortem
(
Moore, 2008; Schmidt and Symes, 2008
).
Scientific inquiry is designed based on certain assumptions scientists have about nature
itself. These assumptions are: a physical universe exists, the principles that govern it can
be discovered through science, and our knowledge of the universe is constantly growing
and changing when new knowledge is discovered (
Graziano and Raulin, 2000
). What we
know about the natural world grows exponentially as our level of knowledge expands
and new questions arise. To use an example from modern technology, the first computer
capable of performing rapid calculations was functional in 1945 and took up the space of
a small house (
Rojas, 2001
). Today, due to the fact that discoveries in computer science and
engineering have continually built upon each other, many of us carry around very powerful
computers that fit in our pockets in the form of our smart phones. An example that further
illustrates this rapid growth of technology in an almost astonishing way is the fact that in
terms of processing speed and memory, the laptops we are writing this chapter on are millions
of times
more
powerful
1
than the computer on the first shuttle that went to the moon! All of
the advances in just this one area of science have occurred in the span of only seven decades.
Furthermore, one new discovery, while answering one question, often poses several more
unanswered questions, and can lead to several different lines of new inquiry. For example,
when
Todd (1920)
showed that the human pubic bone is useful in age estimation of the skel-
eton, this served to pose the question, “Which other bones reflect chronological age?” Today,
over 90 years later, skeletal biologists continue exploring this question for a number of
different bones and features (refer to Uhl [Chapter 3], this volume).
Natural versus Supernatural
“A set of ideas that cannot
be falsified is not science.”
(
Gould, 1981a
:35)
.
Note that a key part of the definition of science is the phrase “natural world”
d
this phrase
is the cornerstone of what science is. Science has the capacity to inform us about this natural
world. However, there is a limitation to what science can do: it cannot inform us about the
supernatural world. The very definition of “supernatural” is “of or relating to an order of exis-
tence beyond the visible observable universe; departing from what is usual or normal especially
so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature”(
Merriam-Webster definition, 2003
; emphasis
added). As science is defined as dealing with the natural world, it
cannot by definition
make inquiries into the supernatural world.
Therefore, while we can use science to learn about things such as evolution, fossils, the age
of the universe, etc. (all natural things), we cannot use it to learn about the existence of super-
natural beings or phenomena. The reason for this is that science can only
test
things in the
observable world. By “test” we are referring to the methods we use to seek scientific informa-
tion (refer to hypothesis testing section, later in this chapter). There is no way to scientifically
1
Hall (1963)
lists the Apollo Guidance Computer characteristics, which when compared to modern
computers, had five million times less memory and 250 million times less processing capability!
(G. Westerwick, personal communication, 2012).
