How Science Knows: Facts, Beliefs, and Experiments

Amy Mackensen

Hey everyone! Welcome to Science ch1. I’m Amy Mackensen, super stoked you’re joining us today, and as always, I’ve got John Shephersd here with me.

John Shephersd

Hey Amy, and hey to all our listeners. We’re diving into the big questions—like, what is science, really? I know that sounds basic, but it's actually way trickier than people think.

Amy Mackensen

Totally! I mean, when you hear “science,” you sorta imagine people in white coats mixing stuff in beakers. But at its core, science is, like, a branch of knowledge. It’s about collecting facts, and basically figuring out the rules or laws about how, you know, the world functions.

John Shephersd

And when we say “facts,” we’re not talking about just anything you hear—these are things backed up with hard evidence. Data. The stuff you can point to and say, “Yep, this is real under these conditions.” That’s especially true in natural science, which is all about using measurable facts, or data, to make explanations we can actually test.

Amy Mackensen

Yeah! And I wanna jump in with this—there’s a difference between what we call a fact, and just a belief. Okay, here’s an embarrassing one… I used to believe that lightning never strikes twice in the same place. I don’t even remember where I picked that up, but, like, one day I saw a ton of photos of the Empire State Building being hit by lightning—multiple times! Turns out, that was just a belief I had, no evidence behind it, just a story. Facts? The photos prove otherwise!

John Shephersd

I love that, Amy, because it shows how what we believe doesn’t always line up with what’s actually true. If something can’t be scientifically proven, it’s a belief, not a fact. Like, “Bigfoot exists”—you can believe that, but unless there’s concrete evidence, science can’t call it a fact.

Amy Mackensen

Right. And science is obsessed with the difference. That’s why it’s based on measurements, on evidence—on things we can check and test and re-test if we want.

John Shephersd

Which brings us to how we actually observe things in science. There’s these two kinds: quantitative and qualitative. Uh, I always mess this up—so quantitative, that’s with numbers, right?

Amy Mackensen

You got it. If you’re counting apples—like, “There are five apples over there”—that’s quantitative. It’s “how many?” Anything with a number. But if you’re saying, “The apple is red,” that’s qualitative. That’s about—what, John, the characteristics that you see or feel or taste, right?

John Shephersd

Exactly, yeah, and no numbers with qualitative. It’s more sensory. The shape, color, how it smells, stuff like that. Both types help us make sense of the world, but in different ways. Like, if I say “The apple is smooth and green,” that’s qualitative; if I say “I have three apples weighing 150 grams each,” that’s quantitative.

Amy Mackensen

I love how those two work together. And honestly, there’s something kind of cool about being able to swap between measuring with our senses and measuring with actual data. It just—I dunno, it feels very “sciencey.”

John Shephersd

Now, not every observation is created equal. And this is important: science needs us to be objective, not subjective. So, an objective observation is straight-up, it’s gotta be a fact. But a subjective observation? That’s just your opinion sneaking in.

Amy Mackensen

You see this in, like, classroom examples all the time, right? If you say, “The countertops in class are black,” that’s objective. You’re… you’re just saying what’s directly there, based on fact. But saying “Well done, the french fries taste good”—that’s totally subjective! I mean, what if you hate fries? Or your idea of “well done” is different from mine?

John Shephersd

Ha! Yeah, food preferences—don’t get me started. But, seriously, the difference really matters in science. One time, back when I was in college, we were doing this chemistry lab. There was this color change—looking for, uh, a pink tinge? Everyone was supposed to record when the color changed. And I said, “It looks kind of pink to me.” That was subjective—my opinion. Turns out, everyone else waited for a much clearer pink. I completely messed up my data because I relied on a judgment call instead of a clear, objective cue.

Amy Mackensen

That’s such a classic science mistake, though! Because when you let your opinion decide what’s happening, things get all muddled. Like, “Vacation was too short!” That’s not science. “There are sixty seconds in a minute”? Now that, you can prove a zillion ways. Science wants those solid, testable facts, not how we feel about them.

John Shephersd

It’s kind of wild how easy it is to slip into subjective territory without even realizing. Science just can't work if we're making calls based on “I think” or “I feel.” And, honestly, keeping that line clear—that’s what helps keep science honest, right?

Amy Mackensen

Yeah, exactly! Alright, we're out of time for today, but we'll get deeper into the scientific method and how scientists actually test stuff next episode. John, you signing off with me?

John Shephersd

Absolutely, Amy! Thanks everyone for hanging out. Catch you next time on Science ch1—don't forget to bring your curiosity! Bye, Amy.

Amy Mackensen

Bye, John. And bye everybody. Stay curious!