Where To Study Natural Sciences

Last Updated on December 28, 2022

Collegelearners will provide you with all the relevant information you are looking for on natural science branches, natural sciences jobs, methods of natural science, bsc natural science subjects and so much more

Natural sciences form the basis for applied science subjects and focus on the study of the universe and the rules of nature. Biology, chemistry and physics are among the major study areas of the discipline, but study fields such as biochemistry and geophysics are also considered natural sciences. Sub-disciplines also include earth science, astronomy, behavioural science, anthropology, geology and others.

Due to their high interdisciplinary structure, natural sciences degrees will be especially appealing to students interested in studying science, while keeping their study options open. Natural sciences graduates benefit from a broad range of general scientific knowledge, as well as skills in communication, numeracy and information technology. They will also be able to solve complex problems and make best use of personal and material resources available.

Bachelors and Masters related to natural sciences will place a strong emphasis on the practical application of theoretical knowledge and will include specialised laboratories. Some natural sciences programmes also focus on solving global and local environmental issues to contribute to a healthier population.

Graduates are well qualified for a wide variety of scientific careers such as research and development, marketing and management in biotechnology. Students can find jobs as environmental engineers, actuarial technicians, landscape architects, commercial food trainees and more.

methods of natural science

Scientists try to “map” the natural world. This map tries to describe, predict and explain different essential aspects of the natural world. To produce knowledge about the natural world, scientists currently use a particular method: the scientific method. This method is based on observation and hypothesis, which is tested (through experimentation). Scientists may formulate a law and/or a theory, both of which explain things about the natural world. A scientific law “predicts the results of certain initial conditions” (Matt Anticole at TEDed). In short, it predicts and explains what will happen. A scientific theory, on the other hand, “provides the most logical explanation as to why things happen as they do”. In short, it explains why things happen. Sometimes scientific laws stand the test of time, whereas theories don’t. Kepler’s laws of planetary motions, for example, are still used today, whereas his theory of musical harmony has now been replaced with the theory of gravity to explain why the planets move the way they do (see TED ed, theory versus law). 
To verify the reliability of your hypothesis, you (and others) should ideally be able to repeat your experiments. Repeating experimentation may help us accept that something is right. In theory, this seems feasible within the natural sciences, because the natural world can arguably be verified empirically. However, some great scientific hypotheses cannot be tested through experiments based on observable data. Our sense perception is not perfect, and despite the enormous advancements in technology, we cannot observe as much as we would like to. It is also practically impossible to repeat experiments infinitely. In that sense, Popper proposed that scientists try to falsify (prove wrong) each others’ ideas and findings. For example, if a scientist claims that metals expand when heated, other scientists are invited to actively prove that this is not true. They could look for situations in which metals do not expand when heated. This process of falsification aims to ensure the validity of scientific knowledge. It may also lead to the improvement of scientific knowledge, as theories can be refined, for example. Nevertheless, the processes of falsification as well as verification are limited. This is partly due to problems with induction, reasoning and observation, which all play an important role within the scientific method.
Reason and observation (through sense perception) are very much key to the scientific method. We use inductive reasoning to come up with a hypothesis. We observe things around us and pick up patterns. From these patterns we may form a hypothesis that explains what happens or even why things happen. We need reason to do this. We can evaluate the validity of scientific knowledge by verifying whether the rules of mathematics and reason have been respected. We can also verify whether findings are empirically correct. But sometimes empirical data contradicts a theory and vice versa. In a way, it is very difficult to offer ultimate proof of scientific knowledge. This is especially the case if we want to create knowledge about things that cannot easily be observed. Sometimes we have to observe the effects of something rather than the thing we want to observe, sometimes the tools we use to observe (such as is the case of fMRIs) are quite far removed from a simple act of observing. Extensions such as telescopes and magnifying glasses are arguably mere extensions. But there is more at hand with fMRIs. In addition, sometimes observing is not as passive as what may appears to be the case. If we were to stick with what was easily observed and verified, our scientific knowledge would be limited. In addition, by relying merely on reason and sense perception, we may well be able to explain what happens, but we would probably be less successful at explaining why this happen.

About the author

Study on Scholarship Today -- Check your eligibility for up to 100% scholarship.