Unit 2 · Natural Sciences · L3 — what the method can't reach

Where the method can't reach

Science can't see everything. Each case gives you a claim about where science hits a wall. Your job: test the claim, one observation at a time, and find out whether the wall is as big as it looks.

Worked example: read this first

Start here: the proton

Knowledge question: How do the methods of the natural sciences set the limits of what science can know?

You've already tried to pull a quark out of a proton, and you couldn't. Here is a claim about knowledge, tested with the proton. Your assessment paragraph will do the same thing with another case.

The claim about knowledge
"It is difficult for knowers to know something they can never observe directly."
It is difficult for knowers to know something they can never observe directly. Quarks show why. No one has ever observed a single quark on its own: pull two quarks apart and the energy between them turns into new quarks, so every attempt makes more particles, never a lone one. But the difficulty is not where we might expect. In 1968, physicists fired electrons at protons, and some bounced off at sharp angles, as if they had hit tiny, hard points inside. Nobody saw a quark. They saw what the quarks did to the electrons, and from effects like these they have since worked out features of quarks, such as their electric charge. Not being able to see quarks did not stop physicists from knowing about them. Yet one wall does not move. As far as physicists know, nature itself never lets a quark out on its own, so no better machine will ever give us a direct look at one. That is not a “not yet” but a “never,” like the inside of a black hole. So the claim needs two changes. Knowers can know the features of something they can never observe directly, by studying its effects. But when nature itself blocks the direct look, as it does with quarks, that knowledge will always rest on reasoning from evidence, never on seeing. Physicists can never check it by looking, so they keep testing the reasoning instead, and their certainty can only be as strong as those tests.
Claim before the testIt is difficult for knowers to know something they can never observe directly.
Claim after the testKnowers can know the features of something they can never observe directly, by studying its effects. But when nature itself blocks the direct look, that knowledge will always rest on reasoning, never on seeing.
Field notes: the proton
  • Read the claim at the start. Is it a claim about the proton, or about knowledge? How can you tell?
  • The pink part tests the claim twice. What did physicists observe in 1968, and what did they work out from it?
  • What is the second test? Why will no better machine ever give us a direct look at a quark?
  • Compare the claim before and after. Which part of the first claim survived, and which part changed?
  • How is the quark like the inside of a black hole? What does that tell you about where the reach of science ends?

How the paragraph is built

Now work through the three cases. Each one starts with a claim about the object. At the end, you will turn your claims into claims about knowledge.

Case 1 · the hardest one

Inside a black hole

The claim you are testing
"Science can never know anything about what is inside a black hole."

Before you start: do you agree? In your notes, write yes, no or partly, and one reason. Then click your answer.

What a black hole is: a place where gravity is so strong that nothing, not even light, can get out once it crosses a boundary called the event horizon. Scientists study black holes from the outside: how stars move around them, and how gas glows as it falls in.

Observation 1: Send the probe

Try to get a reading back from inside the event horizon. Launch the probe and watch the signal as it falls. Then turn on the upgrades and try again.

event horizon mission control
upgrades:
// telemetry will appear here
0
Probes sent
0
Readings from outside
0
Readings from inside the horizon
Field notes: Observation 1
  • What happens to the signal as the probe gets closer to the black hole?
  • What happens when the probe crosses the dotted line (the event horizon)?
  • Turn on all three upgrades and launch again. Did anything change?
  • So far, does the tool agree with the claim?

Answer the claim at the top of the page to open Observations 2 and 3.

Observation 2: What we can measure from outside

Card 2

Everything that falls into a black hole stays inside it, so all of its mass is still in there. Scientists can measure that mass from outside: the more mass inside, the faster nearby stars swing around the black hole. By timing those stars, astronomers worked out that the black hole at the centre of our galaxy holds about 4 million times the mass of the Sun. They can also measure how fast a black hole spins.

According to Einstein's theory, that is all the outside can ever show: how much mass is inside, how fast it spins, and its electric charge. Two black holes made from completely different things, one from a collapsed star and one from a cloud of gas, would look exactly the same from outside if those numbers matched. Physicists sum this up as “black holes have no hair.”

Field notes
  • What can scientists measure about a black hole from the outside? How do they do it?
  • The mass that scientists measure is inside the black hole. So does science know nothing about what is inside? Explain.
  • Two black holes were made from completely different things, but they have the same mass, spin and charge. Could scientists tell them apart? How is this like the mystery boxes?
  • Rewrite the claim so that it is true.

Observation 3: Who can't know?

Card 3

The nearest black hole we know of is more than 1,500 light-years away. Even travelling at the speed of light, a trip there would take more than 1,500 years.

According to Einstein's theory of gravity, an astronaut falling into a very large black hole would cross the event horizon without feeling anything special at that moment. For a while, she could look around inside. But nothing she sends, not even light, could ever get back out to anyone else.

Field notes
  • Could a person ever travel to a black hole? What stops us now?
  • Suppose an astronaut does reach one and falls in. What could she see that no one on Earth can see?
  • Could any information about what she saw get back out to Earth? Use what happened to your probe to explain.
  • If only the astronaut could ever know what is inside, and no one could check it, does it count as scientific knowledge? Why or why not?
  • Getting there and getting information back out are two different problems. Which one is a “not yet,” and which one is a “never”? Explain.
  • Write your final claim.

Your new claim

In your notes, write your first claim and your new claim side by side. What changed? Which observation changed it most? Then check your thinking.

One way to say itFrom the outside, science can measure a few features of what is inside a black hole, like how much mass is in there, but it can never know what the black hole is made of. Nothing from inside can ever get out. Getting to a black hole is a “not yet”; getting information back out is a “never.”TakeawayThe black hole shows both kinds of limit. Like the mystery boxes, we can know features of what is inside, but not which thing it is. And like the origin of life, the thing itself sends us no evidence, so we can only study what is around it.

Now write the paragraph on your sheet, built like the proton paragraph.

Case 2

The Earth's core

The claim you are testing
"From the surface, we can never know what is at the centre of the Earth."

Before you start: do you agree? In your notes, write yes, no or partly, and one reason. Then click your answer.

How scientists see inside the Earth: nobody has ever been there. The deepest hole ever drilled is about 12 km deep; the core starts about 2,900 km down. So scientists use earthquakes. Earthquake waves travel right through the planet, and they speed up, slow down and bend depending on what they pass through. So the time a wave takes to reach a sensor tells you something about what's inside.

What scientists still argue about: the very centre. There are two ideas:

Interior AThe solid inner core has no separate centre.
Interior BThe solid inner core has a smaller, different centre inside it.

Observation 1: Place sensors, set off quakes

Click the surface of either Earth to place a sensor (up to 8). Drag a sensor to move it; double-click it to remove it. Choose a quake size, set it off, and compare the readings from A and B in the table.

Interior A no separate centre Interior B inner core with an innermost core what the sensors record (arrival time after the quake)
quake size:

Click the surface of either Earth to place a sensor, then set off a quake.

0
Sensors placed
0
Quakes set off
2
Interiors that fit the readings
0
Measurements that tell them apart
Field notes: Observation 1
  • Place three sensors anywhere and set off a quake. Compare the readings from A and B. What do you notice?
  • Try a bigger quake. Then move your sensors and try again. Does anything tell A from B?
  • So far, does the tool agree with the claim?

Answer the claim at the top of the page to open Observations 2 and 3.

Observation 2: What earthquakes already found

Card 2

Earthquake waves are how scientists found the core in the first place. In 1906, Richard Oldham noticed that waves travelling deep through the Earth arrived late, as if they had passed through something different. One kind of earthquake wave can't travel through liquid, and it never comes out the far side of the core, so scientists worked out that the outer core is liquid. In 1936, Inge Lehmann spotted faint waves arriving where none should be, and worked out that there was a separate inner core inside it.

Field notes
  • Did anyone have to go to the centre of the Earth to find out the core was there?
  • Look at the claim again. Which parts of the inside of the Earth do we already know?
  • Rewrite the claim so it is only about the part that is still unknown.

Observation 3: Same evidence, two explanations

Card 3

Waves that pass through the very centre of the Earth come out on the opposite side from the quake. Scientists agree on what these waves show: some arrive a few seconds earlier or later, depending on which direction they travelled through the centre.

What scientists disagree about is what those few seconds mean. Some teams say the times show a separate innermost core (interior B). Other scientists say the same times can be explained another way, without a separate centre (interior A). They are looking at the same evidence and interpreting it differently.

The argument is hard to settle because very few waves cross the very centre where sensors can catch them: most earthquakes happen in a few zones, and most sensors are on land. In 2023, a team in Australia tried a new trick: they used waves that bounced back and forth through the whole Earth up to five times. They say this supports interior B. Other scientists are not convinced yet.

Field notes
  • Go back to the tool. Place a sensor on the opposite side of the Earth from the quake (the bottom of the circle) and set off a quake. What does the table say about that sensor?
  • According to Card 3, what do scientists agree on? What do they disagree about?
  • Why is the argument so hard to settle? Use the sensor at the bottom of the circle in your answer.
  • What would it take for scientists to decide between A and B?
  • How is “we can't tell yet” different from “we can never know”?
  • Write your final claim.

Your new claim

In your notes, write your first claim and your new claim side by side. What changed? Which observation changed it most? Then check your thinking.

One way to say itEarthquake waves have already shown what most of the inside of the Earth is like. For the very centre, scientists agree on the measurements but disagree about what they mean, because two explanations fit the same evidence. That is a “not yet”: more waves through the centre, or a new method, could rule one explanation out.TakeawayWhen two explanations fit the same evidence, knowers can't choose between them until they find evidence that only one explanation fits. “We can't tell yet” is not the same as “we can never know.”

Now write the paragraph on your sheet, built like the proton paragraph.

Case 3

The origin of life

The claim you are testing
"Lab experiments can show us how life began."

Before you start: do you agree? In your notes, write yes, no or partly, and one reason. Then click your answer.

What scientists think: life began from non-living chemicals on the early Earth, more than 3.5 billion years ago. To work out how, scientists recreate early-Earth conditions in the lab. There are several ideas about where it happened, from warm pools to deep-sea vents.

Observation 1: Run the scenarios

Pick a scenario for the early Earth and run it. Try at least three. Read the grey line under each run. Then press “Which one actually happened?”

a self-copyingchain forms early-Earth conditions

No runs yet. Pick a scenario below to begin.

run a scenario:
0
Scenarios run
1
Times the real event occurred — unobserved
Field notes: Observation 1
  • Pick a scenario and run it. What does the picture show at the end?
  • Run two more scenarios. What do you notice about the ending each time?
  • Read the grey line under each run. Did the lab actually get as far as the picture shows?
  • If every start gives the same ending, can the ending tell you which start really happened?

Answer the claim at the top of the page to open Observations 2 and 3.

Observation 2: How far the lab has got

Card 2

In 1952, a student named Stanley Miller filled a sealed flask with water and the gases he thought were in the Earth's early air: methane, ammonia and hydrogen. He sent electric sparks through it to copy lightning. After about a week, the water held amino acids, the building blocks of the proteins in every living thing. The flask in this tool is based on his experiment.

Since then, labs have made some of the building blocks of RNA (in 2009) and joined building blocks into short chains. But no experiment has gone all the way from simple chemicals to something alive.

Field notes
  • What did Stanley Miller's flask make? Did it make anything alive?
  • What have lab experiments shown so far? What have they not shown?
  • Explain the difference between “this could have happened” and “this did happen.” Use Miller's flask as your example.
  • Rewrite the claim so that it says what lab experiments really can show.

Observation 3: What the rocks left behind

Card 3

Nobody recorded how life began, but the early Earth left some clues. Tiny crystals called zircons suggest there was liquid water on Earth about 4.4 billion years ago. Layered rocks built up by microbes are about 3.5 billion years old.

Clues in very old rocks also suggest what the early air was like. Most scientists now think it was mostly carbon dioxide and nitrogen, not the methane, ammonia and hydrogen that Miller used in his flask (Card 2). When the experiment is run with carbon dioxide and nitrogen, it makes far fewer building blocks. So the rock clues made Miller's version of how life began less likely, even though nobody can go back and check.

Field notes
  • No one can replay how life began. What clues did the early Earth leave behind?
  • How did clues from old rocks make Miller's version of the story less likely?
  • What can clues like these tell us about how life began? What can't they tell us?
  • Write your final claim.

Your new claim

In your notes, write your first claim and your new claim side by side. What changed? Which observation changed it most? Then check your thinking.

One way to say itLab experiments can show how life could have begun, not how it did. But clues in old rocks can still make some stories more likely than others, so we can know some things about how life began even if we can't know exactly.TakeawayA model can show what could have happened. It can't show what did happen. But evidence can still make some possibilities more likely than others.

Now write the paragraph on your sheet, built like the proton paragraph.