What is this thing called science?

As an introduction to science in this introductory course in research studies in biology we were all asked to read the introduction and first chapter of A.F. Chalmers' book "What is this thing called Science?". Obviously it is a deep philosophical question, as I mentioned previously, especially since Chalmers wrote a full book on it which also have been re-released in several editions.

It is initially stated that there is a fundamental issue in the understanding and interpretation of science and what we actually derive from it, and all of that comes down to observation.
Science are based on objective, unprejudiced observations that are used to determine facts of the world around us. At this very point Chalmers dig in and highlight the flaws of science. Be it modern or otherwise, it still has the same roots. The same underlying assumptions and issues.

The main issue here is with observations. That observations is based on more than just what our brain registers by use of our senses of the surrounding environment. It is also based on experience and our current state of knowledge. Chalmers has an example of a 3D image of a staircase which can be seen from either above or below. This image immediately reminded me of an old optical illusion of a spinning dancer which, depending on the observer, is spinning either clockwise or counterclockwise. You tell me.

This might seem like a poor example for the principles of modern science, but when it comes the practices of observation in for example microscopy, I have a direct experience of observer dependent "facts". In this case it was related to experience and previous knowledge, which is another vital part of statements and facts according to Chalmers. Being inexperienced with microscopy and the organisms of my new project, I looked at a slide of sample prepared by my supervisor. What I saw was more or less equivalent to a starry sky at night and the occasional cell that I actually recognised. My supervisor on the other hand could tell a story of the planktonic community by looking at the same slide.

The same story arose out at sea when me and my colleague were looking for the same cells but in a much more difficult setting, with a lot more other microbes on the slide. We observed very few of our target microbes and that was our fact of observation. However, when I later ran the same water on an instrument designed to quantify our target organisms, back at the lab, it gave us a very different result. Our initial observation based on previous experience was not even close to reality. At least we learned something from that. We somewhat gained more knowledge in our field and from that knowledge we can derive statements and hypotheses which can be tested to reach a fact.

Science is based on facts and from facts we can formulate theories. If the objectivity of observations in science is aided or not by technical development, I can't say for certain, but I would argue that it is aided. Because refining a technical innovation and method of observation follows the same principles as for science itself, and basically it is science. Knowledge about an observed phenomenon lead to a statement that could be tested, and as the quote I posted previously said, "many observations can prove me right, but it takes only one to prove me wrong".

Science is not a feeling or a belief. It is observable facts derived from previous knowledge. In my opinion it is both one of its greatest strengths but also its greatest weakness. Falsify one fact and the theory is flawed. By that said, not just anyone can do ground-breaking science, but everyone can appreciate good science with its theories formulated from facts. Unless it's steaming fresh data up for interpretation. I hate that word.