The scientific method of the future

Despite Newton’s noteworthy articulation, the scientific method actually had its origins much earlier, stretching back to the days of antiquity and the philosopher Aristotle.

Though scientific inquiry was nothing new, even in the days of Aristotle, he is considered the first to have formalised the epistemic process of the scientific method via induction and deduction, taking observations and drawing conclusions from them to be tested against future observations. The core loop of the scientific method in the millennium that followed evolved out of that pendulum process of induction and deduction.

From Aristotle, the scientific method had many caretakers and guardians, each of whom helped to develop the way it guided the discovery of knowledge. It was Ibn Al-Haytham who truly pioneered the concept of experimentation in the scientific method, going beyond an observational methodology and championing the rule of empirical scepticism in the pursuit of truth. For a scholar best known for work on human vision, it is perhaps ironic that Al-Haytham’s vision for empiricism would be so influential on the scientific method.

For many, the modern scientific method is inseparable from the use of hypotheses, for which the work of two famous ‘Bacon’s was responsible. By the 13th Century, the scientific method was robust enough that Roger Bacon could provide a full account of it: from observation to hypothesis to experimentation, and iterating beyond. 

By providing detailed accounts of methodology, Bacon was able to ensure the reproducibility of his experiments. Through interrogation of the hypotheses Bacon posed, he could ensure that his work proved the logical conclusions he was contending. These are early ancestors of the modern virtues of reliability and validity, each fundamental to the robustness of science, though the true concept of reliability would not be formalised in the philosophy of the scientific method until much later.

Two centuries after Roger Bacon, it was Francis Bacon who produced the Baconian Method, an attempt to forge a new method beyond Aristotle’s initial construction. Known for the phrase “knowledge is power”, Bacon contended that many of the theories of the past were built upon ill-formed logic or conjecture, and that only through building up from proven axioms could we unlock the power of that knowledge to uncover the secrets of the world. The difference, fundamentally, spoke to the construction of hypotheses: that they should be evidence-based and not merely conjectures to observe against.

In modern science, the same kind of scrutiny to the philosophies of the past was put by Karl Popper, who is chiefly responsible for the philosophy of falsifiability: the idea that a theory is not a scientific theory unless it could have the potential to be proven false by evidence. 

Challenging the rise of pseudo-scientific ideas in the early 1900s, Popper observed that many of them would retroactively claim to have predicted events. However, when such a theory’s predictions were incorrect, its proponents would simply use the ambiguity of the theory to claim it still held true. 

Popper’s response was simple; if a theory is to have merit as a scientific theory, it must be able to make predictions, those predictions must be able to be tested through observation, and must have the potential to be proven false. If they cannot be proven false, the claim is not a theory. If they are proven false, the theory is disproven. 

Ultimately, Popper’s analysis underpins a truth inherent to science: our best understandings of the world can always be challenged with new knowledge, so the endeavour of science is not to create infallible regimes of knowledge, but to establish through logic the best possible understanding of the world until that understanding is challenged.

Indeed, that principle holds true to the method of science as well. It should be plain to see that, despite its robustness and rigour, the scientific method has continued to evolve alongside human knowledge and scientific understanding, transforming but nonetheless maintaining the spirit of rational, empirical logic in the face of the complex and unfathomable secrets of the universe.

In an era of global crises, it may be unsurprising that the face of modern science is seen in global bodies like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or in the expertise given to governments on the COVID-19 pandemic. Underpinning that expertise are two trends in the scientific method: the internationalisation of science and the rigour invested in deeply-interdisciplinary and interconnected research.

Newton would never have seen his work subject to the same level of scrutiny put into each line of a single IPCC report, nor could he have anticipated the ability to test hypotheses in real time with partner institutes around the world. Global cooperation for research and development has led to the evolution of the scientific method from a process carried out by individuals or in a single institute to a collective endeavour undertaken across the globe.

Equally, a number of challenges have arisen with the modern era of science. Phenomena in the scientific community such as ‘publish or perish’ have shifted the focus of the scientific method away from empirical discovery towards publication for the sake of publication, sometimes at the expense of the rigour of the scientific method. In some places, they have also reversed the trend of interdisciplinarity, encouraging silos of knowledge and atomistic conceptions of the natural world. Meeting the challenge of the interconnected global crises facing humanity is achievable, but doing so will rely on the ingenuity, creativity, and innovation which are stifled by a 'publish or perish' culture.

The concentration of scientific expertise within research institutions and centres of excellence has also created challenges for the relationship between the process of science and the community at large. While phenomenally important to the development of modern environmental science, these focal points have distanced the public from scientific endeavour in some instances, posing challenges for the public opinion of research.

At the same time, much of the practical execution of modern environmental science is done by practitioners on the ground, creating a scientific landscape where the collectivisation of research in the environmental space is at times detached from the decentralised collection of data. Many of the observations which could fuel the endeavour of environmental science are not fully-utilised, nor are they universally brought together for the common good.

Many of these developments of modern science mean that scientific endeavour, particularly in the environmental space, is stronger than it has ever been. However, to achieve the potential of those developments, the future will need to see further developments to the scientific method to make the most of a new era of discovery.

In the years to come, the accessibility of data brought about by technological developments and globalisation is likely to influence the process through which environmental science takes place. Along with the potential benefits of accessible and transparent data, this may bring new challenges for the scientific method as traditional project-level data is replaced by infrastructure-level data, citizen science, and other novel forms of evidence.

Already we are beginning to see another challenge for the future of science: the loss of faith in the scientific method by society at large. For many, science has come to be seen as a herald of bad news or a problematic ally in public engagement for change. They may view the scientific method as too intrinsically linked to negativity, or too mired in the particularities and caveats of empiricism to bring meaning to its constituents across the population. 

That trend cannot be allowed to arc forwards into the future. If science is to remain relevant to society and to support the transformative change away from environmental degradation, then communities must regain their faith and trust in the scientific method. 

Once there was a time when scientific discovery was an end unto itself – not merely a tool for the creation of information but an inherent urge; the now-forgotten quest to look up at the stars and ask ‘why?’ To regain trust in science and to put it back at the helm of driving our response to environmental challenges, society must rediscover that fundamental belief in the scientific method’s power to capture the imagination and create the future we dream of seeing.

To see a better future for the relationship between science and society, we must see another evolution to the scientific method: not only must it be more robust than ever to handle the complexity of modern challenges, it must also ensure the legitimacy and relevancy of science to a global public. Four ways forward can help us achieve that goal:

1. Systems thinking: In the modern world, and especially so in environmental science, the challenges we face are deeply interwoven with complex social, economic, and natural systems. In that context, systems thinking must be the new empiricism of scientific understanding. If the progress of the scientific method has historically been to overcome the spectres of frail logic and conjecture, then the challenge for the next generation of scientists will be to expose that logic to the complexity of the systems which underpin the phenomena science seeks to examine.
    
2. Integrated interdisciplinary knowledge: Throughout the scientific method, we must take the best of recent developments to ensure that we expose our hypotheses and conclusions to other disciplines of science, making the scientific community more than the sum of its parts. Interdisciplinarity must be integrated in the future of the scientific method, such that the observations of the future are made from more than one perspective. Similarly, integrating the perspectives and support of the social sciences will be crucial to maximising the power of environmental science to discover and communicate truth.
    
3. Bridging the gap between theory and practice: If the theory of the scientific method is what instills within us the virtue of rigour, then the practice of science is what brings that virtue to life. We should rebuild the continuum between professional environmental science and environmental education in all its forms, from vocational education, to higher education, to lifelong learning, and across society. A robust skills pipeline will put the right people in the right places, and a strong relationship between practitioners, academia, and the public will ensure that we ask them the right questions and connect researchers with emerging evidence of what works on the ground.
    
4. Scientific literacy and public engagement: The process of science must engage with the global public in a more meaningful way, so better communication of science must come hand-in-hand with the scientific method. Equally, understanding of the scientific method and the meaning of scientific certainty must become widespread again, so scientific literacy will be a vital component of creating a society that embraces the virtue of science as a tool of discovery.