Through Thick and Thin: Kinematic and Chemical Components in the Solar Neighbourhood

Abstract: We search for the existence of chemically-distinct stellar components in the solar neighbourhood using published data. Extending earlier work, we show that when the abundances of Fe, alpha elements, and the r-process element Eu are considered, stars separate neatly into two groups that delineate the traditional thin and thick disk of the Milky Way. The group akin to the thin disk is traced by stars with [Fe/H]>-0.7 and alpha/Fe<0.2. The thick disk-like group overlaps the thin disk in [Fe/H] but has higher abundances of alpha elements and Eu. Stars in the range -1.5<[Fe/H]<-0.7 with low [alpha/Fe] ratios, however, seem to belong to a separate, dynamically-cold, non-rotating component that we associate with tidal debris. The kinematically-hot stellar halo dominates the sample for [Fe/H]<-1.5. These results suggest that it may be possible to define the main dynamical components of the solar neighbourhood using only their chemistry, an approach with a number of interesting consequences. The kinematics of thin disk stars is then independent of metallicity: their average rotation speed remains roughly constant in the range -0.7<[Fe/H]<+0.4, a result that argues against radial migration having played a substantial role in the evolution of the thin disk. The velocity dispersion of stars assigned to the thin disk is also independent of [Fe/H], implying that the familiar increase in velocity dispersion with decreasing metallicity is the result of the increased prevalence of the thick disk at lower metallicities, rather than of the sustained operation of a dynamical heating mechanism. The substantial overlap in [Fe/H] and, probably, stellar age, of the various components might affect other reported trends in the properties of stars in the solar neighbourhood.

\section{Introduction}
\label{SecIntro}

The discovery that the vertical distribution of stars in the solar
cylinder is best approximated by two exponential laws suggested the
presence of two components of different scaleheights and ushered in
the concept of the Galactic thick disk \citep{Gilmore1983}. The
concept of separate ``thin'' and ``thick'' disk components in the
Milky Way, however, is useful insofar as they refer to different types
of stars; i.e., distinct in ways other than kinematics or spatial
distribution.  Since there is no {\it a priori} reason why the
vertical structure of galaxy disks cannot be more complex than a
single exponential, confirming the identity of the thick disk as a
component truly distinct from the thin disk requires additional
evidence.

In that regard, the finding that thick disk stars are substantially
older and more highly enriched in $\alpha$ elements than their thin
disk counterparts supports the two-component nature of the Galactic
disk
\citep{Gratton1996,Fuhrmann1998,Prochaska2000,Bensby2003,Gilmore1985,Reddy2006,Bensby2007,Fuhrmann2008}. The
thin and thick disks have metallicity distributions that overlap in
[Fe/H] but that differ, {\it at given} [Fe/H], in their kinematics,
age, and $\alpha$ content. This dichotomy in properties at fixed
metallicity requires adjustments to traditional models of chemical
evolution, which have invoked violent accretion events, as well as
episodic hiatus in star formation, to explain the data \citep[see,
e.g.,][]{Chiappini1997,Reddy2006}.  Such events may reset selectively
the heavy-element abundance of the ISM, disrupting the monotonic
trends with [Fe/H] expected in simple models of chemical evolution and
enabling better fits to the data.

The price to pay is one of increased model complexity. Did accretion
events supply mostly gas or stars to the disk? Were stars in the thick
disk brought into the Galaxy during the event or is the thick disk the
stirred-up remnant of an early thin disk? How many accretion events
took place? What were the masses of the accreted dwarfs? When did
these events take place?  Accretion models provide only rudimentary
answers to these key questions and, as a result, there is little
consensus in the community regarding the origin of the thick disk.

This state of affairs has been highlighted by a number of recent
papers, which argue that the chemo-dynamical evidence for accretion
events is weak and that all relevant data can be explained by
reconsidering the importance of radial migration of both gas and stars
during the evolution of the disk
\citep[][]{Haywood2008,Roskar2008,Schoenrich2009a}. Inspiration for
this work came from the realization by \citet{Sellwood2002} that
inhomogeneities in the disk do not just perturb disk stars
diffusively, easing them gradually into more and more eccentric
orbits, but can also transport, resonantly, stars across the disk
without increasing their eccentricity. Stars on nearly circular orbits
in the solar neighbourhood could therefore have formed at different
radii in the Galactic disk. The properties of local thin disk stars
may thus reflect large-scale gradients in the Galaxy rather than
different conditions in the solar neighbourhood at the time of their
formation.  Using a simple but plausible model that includes radial
migration, \citet{Schoenrich2009b} demonstrate that most available
data for the thin and thick disks can be accommodated without invoking
a violent accretion event at all.

Deciding between migration or accretion scenarios requires identifying
patterns in stellar properties that point to the presence of truly
distinct stellar component and assessing whether their properties are
the result of secular evolution or accretion events. In general,
secular evolution mechanisms such as radial migration should lead to
increased mixing, blurring the boundaries between components and
leaving dynamical and chemical imprints different from those predicted
by accretion scenarios.

Take, as an example, the wide range in metallicity spanned by stars on
nearly-circular orbits (the thin disk) in the solar neighbourhood. In
migration-based scenarios the metal-poor tail of the local thin disk
is populated by stars that formed further out in the Galaxy, while the
opposite holds for stars in the metal-rich tail. Stars at these two
extremes were born with very different angular momenta, and this
difference would be preserved in local samples even after their orbits
have migrated to the solar neighbourhood \citep{Schoenrich2009b}.
Therefore very metal-rich (poor) stars would be found in the solar
neighbourhood at relatively low (high) rotation velocities. A
relatively clean prediction of migration models is, then, the presence
of a negative correlation between mean rotation speed and metallicity
for stars in the thin disk.

Such correlations have been difficult to study because of the
widespread practice of assigning stars to the thick or thin disk
according to their kinematics. Although this may be an expeditious
procedure, it imposes an obvious bias that precludes searching for
correlations of the kind alluded to in the preceding paragraph. It
would be much more useful to devise a {\it purely chemical}
characterization of the various components in the Galaxy. After all,
chemistry is a relatively stable property of a star that relates it to the
conditions at the time/place of its birth, whereas its distance to the
center, vertical height, or spatial velocity are far less durable
features.

We explore these ideas here using a compilation of data for stars in
the solar neighbourhood with good estimates of their spatial motions
and reliable measurements of their heavy-element abundances. We focus on
spectroscopic samples where the abundance of individual elements, such
as Fe, Mg, Ti, and Ca, are also available. We use these data to apportion
stars to separate components on the basis of chemistry alone, and use
their kinematics to place constraints on their possible origins.

\section{Dataset}
\label{SecData}

We have used the compilation of \citet{Venn2004}, which includes
abundance data for solar neighbourhood stars with good spatial
motions, supplemented by data in the more recent papers of
\citet{Reddy2006}, \citet{Bensby2005} and \citet{Nissen2010}. This is
a heterogeneous compilation of data from many different sources.  We
have gone carefully through this compilation in order to remove
repeated stars and to bring all velocities to a consistent reference
frame, taking into account the fact that some papers use either right-
or left-handed UVW frames.  The sample spans a wide range in
metallicity ($-4<$[Fe/H]$<+0.5$), and there are reliable abundance
measurements of [Fe/H] and of the $\alpha$ elements Mg, Ti, and Ca,
for $743$ stars. Abundance measurements of the $r$-process element Eu
are also available for $306$ of those stars. We shall use these two
subsamples in what follows. As in \citet{Venn2004}, the spatial
velocities assume that the Sun moves in a Galactic reference frame
with (U,V,W)=($9$,$232$,$7$) km/s and that the LSR has $V_{\rm
  LSR}=220$ km/s.

\section{Results}
\label{SecRes}

Fig.~\ref{FigFeAEu} shows, as a function of the iron content, [Fe/H],
an index measuring the average abundance of the $\alpha$ elements Mg,
Ti, and Ca, plus the $r$-process element Eu for all stars in our
sample.  The index is constructed by simply averaging the Mg, Ti, Ca,
and Eu abundances. As usual, all quantities are shown in log$_{10}$
units normalized to solar values.  Like the $\alpha$ elements, Eu is
thought to form mainly in massive stars, and it therefore may be
combined with the $\alpha$ elements to define an index that gauges
the importance of massive-star nucleosynthesis in a given stellar
component.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth,clip]{feh_mgticaeuh.ps}
\end{center}
\caption{Iron abundance vs an index constructed by averaging the
  abundance of the $\alpha$ elements (Mg, Ti, and Ca) plus the
  $r$-process element Eu. Note the presence of two well-defined
  ``families'' of stars each spanning a wide range in [Fe/H]. Stars in
  the family plotted in red (i.e., those with $[\alpha/{\rm Fe}]<0.2$,
  see Fig.~\ref{FigFeA}) are those traditionally assigned to the thin
  disk. Those in green are $\alpha$-enhanced stars ($[\alpha/{\rm
    Fe}]>0.2$) usually associated with the thick disk. Counterrotating
  stars unlikely to belong to either the thin or thick disks are shown
  in cyan.\label{FigFeAEu}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth,clip]{fe_a.ps}
\end{center}
\caption{{\it Top panel:} Same as Fig.~\ref{FigFeAEu}, but for the
  $\alpha+$Eu index normalized to Fe. The presence of the two families
  of stars hinted at in Fig.~\ref{FigFeAEu} is confirmed by the
  $[(\alpha+{\rm Eu)/Fe}]$ histogram.  We identify the bottom
  sequence, shown in red, with the thin disk, and the top sequence, in
  green, with the thick disk. The conditions used to define the thin
  disk are (i) ${\rm [Fe/H]}>-0.7$ and (ii) $[(\alpha+{\rm
    Eu)/Fe}]<0.2$. Stars in the region defined by [Fe/H]$>-1.5$
  and $[(\alpha+{\rm Eu)/Fe}]>0.2$ are those traditionally associated
  with the thick disk. Note that this condition allows in some
  counterrotating stars (${\rm V}<0$, shown in cyan) unlikely to be
  true members of the thick disk; the remainder are shown in
  black. {\it Bottom panel:} Same as top panel but for the index
  without Eu. Stars with available Eu are shown here using the same
  red and green colours as in the top panel. Stars in cyan are
  counterrotating ($V<0$) stars, unlikely to belong to either the thin
  or thick disks.  Note that counterrotating stars in the range
  $-1.5<$[Fe/H]$<-0.7$ have lower [$\alpha/$Fe] values than those of
  the thick disk. These stars appear to belong to a component (``D'')
  separate from the thin and thick disk or the traditional stellar
  halo, which we link to tidal debris. See text for further
  details.\label{FigFeA}}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth,clip]{vel_feh_thin.ps}
\end{center}
\caption{Mean rotation velocity and velocity dispersion as a function
  of [Fe/H] for stars identified as belonging to the thin disk
  component in Fig.~\ref{FigFeA}. Filled circles correspond to stars
  with measured Eu abundances (top panel of Fig.~\ref{FigFeA}); open
  circles to all stars in the region labelled ``Thin'' in the bottom
  panel of Fig.~\ref{FigFeA}. Error bars indicate one-sigma bootstrap
  error estimates. Note that, although they span more than a decade in
  [Fe/H], {\it the average rotation velocity and velocity dispersion
    of thin disk stars is roughly independent of metallicity}. The
  open squares shows the $\sigma$-[Fe/H] correlation for all stars in
  our sample and illustrates the familiar increase of the total
  velocity dispersion ( $\sigma$) with
  decreasing [Fe/H].\label{FigFeVThin} }
\end{figure}
\subsection{A chemical definition of the thin disk}

Fig.~\ref{FigFeAEu} suggests that stars with measured Fe, $\alpha$ and Eu
abundances separate into two ``families'', one with high [Fe/H] and
low [($\alpha+$Eu)/Fe] (shown in red) and the other with lower
[Fe/H] and high [($\alpha+$Eu)/Fe] (green).  This separation is
confirmed in the top panel of Fig.~\ref{FigFeA}, which is identical to
Fig.~\ref{FigFeAEu} but for the index normalized to Fe. The
$[(\alpha+{\rm Eu})/{\rm Fe}]$ histogram, which should be relatively
free from selection biases, hints strongly at the presence of two
distinct components. This separation highlights the well-known $\alpha$
enhancement of thick disk stars relative to the thin disk, accentuated
by the addition of Eu to the $\alpha$ index. The data suggest that a
plausible boundary between the two families may be drawn at
[($\alpha+$Eu)/Fe]$=0.2$, the value that roughly marks the ``valley''
in the histogram.

Guided by this, we have chosen arbitrary but plausible boundaries to
define the two components in Fig.~\ref{FigFeAEu} and the top panel of
Fig.~\ref{FigFeA}, which we color in green and red, respectively. The
simple criteria: (i) [Fe/H]$>-0.7$, and (ii) [($\alpha$+Eu)/Fe]$<0.2$,
distinguishes well one of the two families of stars. This family
(coloured red) contains the Sun (which would be at the origin of the
plot) and contains mostly stars associated with the thin disk
as usually conceived. The minimum [Fe/H] boundary is suggested by the
fact that the most metal-rich counterrotating star in the sample
(certainly not a member of the thin disk) has [Fe/H]$\sim -0.7$.

The distinction between components blurs when including stars for
which Eu abundances are not available (see bottom panel of
Fig.~\ref{FigFeA}), but the sample more than doubles. In order to take
advantage of this larger sample, we {\it define the thin disk} by the
same criteria as above, namely
\begin{itemize}
\item (i) [Fe/H]$>-0.7$; and
\item (ii)  [$\alpha$/Fe]$<0.2$.
\end{itemize}
We emphasize that the criteria above are purely chemical. This differs
from the traditional practice of selecting thin disk stars by their
kinematics and might therefore include stars not expected in kinematic
definitions of the ``thin disk''. We shall hereafter call them ``thin
disk stars'', but this caveat should be kept in mind when comparing
our results with other work on the topic.

Both panels of Fig.~\ref{FigFeA} show the wide range in [Fe/H] spanned
by thin disk stars, as well as the strong correlation between the
abundance ratio and metallicity in this population; [$\alpha$/Fe]
and [($\alpha$+Eu)/Fe] decrease slightly but steadily with increasing
[Fe/H].

This trend suggests two possible interpretations. In standard chemical
evolution models it is reminiscent of a self-enriched population whose
star formation timescale is long compared with the lifetime of stars
that end their lives as supernovae type Ia (SNIa). These supernovae
return mostly Fe and little $\alpha$ to the ISM, and therefore the
ratio [$\alpha$/Fe] of successive generations of stars declines
steadily as [Fe/H] increases.

In this interpretation, the formation of the metal-poor tail of the
thin disk precedes that of the metal-rich one since [Fe/H] is assumed
to march roughly monotonically with time.  One difficulty with this
interpretation is that the wide range in metallicity spanned by the
thin disk ($-0.7<$[Fe/H]$<+0.4$; see top panel of Fig.~\ref{FigFeA})
requires a protracted star formation history and implies a strong
correlation between age and metallicity.  This seems at odds with the
relatively weak age-[Fe/H] relation observed for thin disk stars.  One
must note here that stellar ages are notoriously difficult to
estimate, and that the strength of the predicted correlation depends
on assumptions about infall and star formation efficiency that are
difficult to pin down accurately. Despite these caveats, a number of
authors have concluded that the lack of a strong age-metallicity
relation signals the need to consider a different mechanism to explain
the properties of the thin disk \citep[see, e.g.,][and references
therein]{Haywood2008}.

These difficulties are circumvented in a second, different
interpretation of the properties of the local thin disk. As shown by
\citet{Schoenrich2009b}, radial migration can populate the vicinity of
the Sun with ``thin disk'' stars that formed either inside or outside
the Solar circle. The properties of local thin disk stars might not
trace the chemical history of the solar neighbourhood, but rather
reflect the spread in birth radii of such stars.  Given the
metallicity gradient in the Galaxy, this could explain naturally the
wide range in metallicity of thin-disk stars found today in the solar
neighbourhood.  The same modelling predicts that, once a steady state
is reached, additional enrichment at different radii would be balanced
by the infall of fresh metal-poor gas from the IGM. Because of higher
densities, star formation progresses nearer the center more intensely
relative to the amount of available gas, leading to lower
metallicities and higher [$\alpha/$Fe] ratios with increasing
Galactocentric birth radius. These gradients are today reflected
locally in the observed correlation between [Fe/H] and [$\alpha/$Fe].

One disadvantage of this scenario is that it requires a steeper
metallicity gradient in the ISM than is usually accepted
\citep[see][and references therein]{Maciel2007}, as well as careful
balancing of the timescales of star formation, radial migration, and
gas infall at different radii in order to explain the observed slope
of the [$\alpha/$Fe]-[Fe/H] correlation. Another potential challenge
may arise from the fact that at least some metal-rich stars in the
inner Galaxy seem to be $\alpha$-enriched \citep{Melendez2008} whereas
those in the solar neighbourhood are not.

One potential test of the migration scenario was discussed in the
Introduction, and concerns the prediction of a negative correlation
between metallicity and rotation speed {\it in the thin disk}. Reading
off from Fig. 4 in \citet[][]{Schoenrich2009b}, the mean rotation
speed is expected to change from roughly $250$ to $160$ km/s as the
metallicity in the thin disk increases from [Fe/H]$=-0.7$ to $+0.5$.

As shown in Fig.~\ref{FigFeVThin}, this prediction finds some support
in the data.  Filled circles here refer to the $\alpha+$Eu data shown
in the top panel of Fig.~\ref{FigFeA} whereas open symbols correspond
to the much larger sample of stars without Eu data (bottom panel of
Fig.~\ref{FigFeA}).  The mean rotation speed of the thin disk (defined
by the above conditions) decreases somewhat with [Fe/H] in the
$\alpha+$Eu dataset but the trend is weaker than expected from
\citet[][]{Schoenrich2009b} and the error bars are large.

Furthermore, when the larger sample without Eu is considered (open
circles) the mean rotation speed is actually {\it independent} of
metallicity.  It appears as if the mean rotation speed, as well as the
velocity dispersion, remain roughly constant over the whole range in
[Fe/H] spanned by the thin disk.  The constant velocity dispersion of
the thin disk should be contrasted with the familiar increase in
$\sigma$ with decreasing [Fe/H] \citep{Stroemgren1987}; this is shown
by the open squares in Fig.~\ref{FigFeVThin} which corresponds to {\it
  all} stars in our compilation.

The kinematic invariance of the thin disk with metallicity is a
somewhat surprising result for either of the two scenarios advanced
above. The absence of a $\langle$V$\rangle$-[Fe/H] correlation
disfavours the migration scenario; on the other hand, {\it in-situ}
self-enrichment scenarios would predict the velocity dispersion to
rise with decreasing [Fe/H] since metal-poor stars would be, on
average, older, and therefore exposed for longer to gravitational
heating by inhomogeneities in the Galactic potential. The data in
Fig.~\ref{FigFeVThin} disfavours such gradual heating; if present, the
heating mechanism must operate promptly and saturate quickly, as has
been suggested in the past
\citep{Stroemgren1987,Freeman1991,Quillen2000,Soubiran2008}.
Inefficient heating would actually be easier to reconcile with
theoretical models, which have struggled to explain the rapid increase
in velocity dispersion with age inferred from earlier observations
\citep[see, e.g.,][]{Wielen1977,Lacey1984,Jenkins1990,Aumer2009}.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth,clip]{vhisto.ps}
\end{center}
\caption{{\it Top panel:} The open histogram shows the distribution of
  the rotation velocity (V component) for all stars in the
  sample. (Units are number of stars per bin.) The shaded histogram
  corresponds to those in the thin disk, as defined in the bottom
  panel of Fig.~\ref{FigFeA}. The remainder are shown by the open
  histogram. {\it Bottom panel:} V-distribution of stars in the
  metal-poor tail, i.e., [Fe/H]$<-1.5$.  This illustrates the velocity
  distribution of the slowly-rotating, dynamically-hot stellar
  halo. The blue curve illustrates the best fitting gaussian, with
  $\langle V \rangle=-60$ km/s and $\sigma_V=144$ km/s. {\it Middle
    panel:} V-distribution of stars with [Fe/H]$>-1.5$ but {\it
    excluding} the thin disk. The distribution is strongly
  non-gaussian, and shows two well-defined peaks; one at $V\sim 0$
  km/s and another at $V\sim 160$ km/s. The latter is well traced by
  stars in the ``thick disk'' component identified in the top panel of
  Fig.~\ref{FigFeA} (with Eu; filled green histogram).  Including
  stars without Eu measurements but of comparable [$\alpha/$Fe] ratios
  (the ``Thick'' region in the bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{FigFeA})
  results in the shaded green histogram.  Note that stars near the
  $V\sim 0$ peak are almost exclusively those in the debris (``D'')
  region of Fig.~\ref{FigFeA}. They define a non-rotating,
  dynamically-cold component distinct from either the thick disk and
  the stellar halo.  Both the debris and thick disk components are
  relatively cold dynamically; the V-distribution can be well
  approximated by the sum of two gaussians with similar velocity
  dispersion, of order $\sim 40$ km/s (see green and magenta solid
  curves).
  \label{FigVhisto} }
\end{figure}

\subsection{A chemical definition of the thick disk}

If our interpretation is correct, then the increase in velocity
dispersion with decreasing metallicity for stars in the vicinity of
the Sun must result from the increased prevalence of the thick disk at
low metallicity. Indeed, as mentioned in Sec.~\ref{SecIntro}, it is
generally agreed that the thick disk is metal-poor; lags the thin disk
in rotation speed; and has a higher velocity dispersion. This is shown
in the top panel of Fig.~\ref{FigVhisto}, where we compare the
distribution of the rotation speed (V component) of all stars in our
sample with that of the thin disk.

The V distribution of stars {\it not} in the thin disk is complex, and
hints at the presence of distinct dynamical components. It shows two
well defined peaks, one at V$\sim 160$ km/s and another at $V\sim 0$
km/s, as well as a tail of fast counterrotating stars at
highly-negative values of V. The first peak corresponds to a
rotationally-supported structure: the traditional thick disk. Stars
belonging to this rotating component seem to disappear from our sample
when only metal-poor stars with ${\rm [Fe/H]} < -1.5$ are considered
(bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{FigVhisto}). The latter trace the
classical, kinematically-hot, metal-poor stellar halo: the V distribution is
consistent with a gaussian with velocity dispersion $\sigma_V\sim 144$
km/s (shown in the bottom panel with a blue curve).

Interestingly, the V distribution of non-thin-disk stars with ${\rm
  [Fe/H]}>-1.5$ (middle panel of Fig.~\ref{FigVhisto}) shows even more
clearly the double-peak structure noted above. The peak at ${\rm V}
\sim 160$ km/s is well traced by the stars identified with the thick
disk in the $\alpha+$Eu panel of Fig.~\ref{FigFeA}, shown by the
solid-shaded histogram in the middle panel of Fig.~\ref{FigVhisto}.

Indeed, the peak is traced almost exclusively by stars with high
values of [$\alpha$/Fe]. This is shown by the shaded green histogram,
which corresponds to all stars in the region labelled ``Thick'' in the
bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{FigFeA}. The V distribution of these stars
is well approximated by a gaussian with $\langle$V$\rangle=145$ km/s
and $\sigma_V=40$ km/s that accounts for nearly all stars with $V>100$
km/s.

The association between the thick disk and ``high-$\alpha$'' stars is
reinforced by inspecting the location of counterrotating stars in
Fig.~\ref{FigFeA} (shown in cyan). These stars, which clearly do not
belong to a rotationally-supported structure like the thick (or thin)
disk, are evenly distributed among stars with ${\rm [Fe/H]}<-1.5$ but
shun the ``high-$\alpha$'' region in the range $-1.5<{\rm
  [Fe/H]}<-0.7$. Of the $38$ counterrotating stars in our sample with
$-1.5<{\rm [Fe/H]}<-0.7$, only $3$ lie above the dotted line that
delineates the ``Thick'' region in the bottom panel of Fig~\ref{FigFeA}.

 It is tempting therefore to adopt a
purely chemical definition of the thick disk in terms of ${\rm [Fe/H]}$ and
$[\alpha/{\rm Fe}]$:
\begin{itemize}
\item (i) ${\rm [Fe/H]}>-1.5$;

\item (ii) $[\alpha/{\rm Fe}]>0.2-({\rm [Fe/H]}+0.7)/4$ for
$-1.5<[{\rm Fe/H}]<-0.7$;

\item (iii) $[\alpha/{\rm Fe}]>0.2$ for ${\rm [Fe/H]}>-0.7$.
\end{itemize}

If ou analysis is correct, then the thick disk emerges as a
chemically and kinematically coherent component that spans a wide
range in metallicity ($-1.5<$[Fe/H]$<-0.3$) and contains mainly stars
highly enriched in $\alpha$ elements. Stars in this component have
($\langle$U$\rangle$,$\langle$V$\rangle$,$\langle$W$\rangle$)$=(10,133,-2)$
km/s, and ($\sigma_U$,$\sigma_V$,$\sigma_W$)$=(95,61,61)$ km/s.

The average V lags below the $\sim 160$ km/s peak because the chemical
definition allows in a few stars with discrepant velocities (some with
negative V) more closely associated with the ${\rm V}\sim 0$ peak than
with a rotationally supported structure like a thick disk. This
suggests that the chemical definition of the thick disk proposed above
is not perfect, and that it includes spurious stars belonging to a
different, non-rotating component. We turn our attention to that
component next.

\subsection{Tidal debris in the stellar halo}

The last feature of note in the top and middle panels of
Fig.~\ref{FigVhisto} is the peak centered at V $\sim 0$. These are
stars with no net sense of rotation around the Galaxy and with a
surprisingly low velocity dispersion. (The gaussian fit to the low-V
tail shown in magenta in the middle panel of Fig.~\ref{FigVhisto} has
a dispersion of just $40$ km/s.) Their vertical (W) velocity
distribution (computed for stars with ${\rm V}<50$ km/s to better
isolate the peak\footnote{Lifting this restriction has only a small
  impact on the dispersion; $\sigma_W\sim 90$ km/s for {\it all} stars in
  the ``D'' region of Fig.~\ref{FigFeA}.}) is also indistinguishable from that of the thick
disk component discussed above, with $\langle$W$\rangle\sim 0$ km/s
and $\sigma_W\sim 72$ km/s.  On the other hand, their U velocity
dispersion is large ($\sim 180$ km/s). Further, the U distribution
(not shown) is rather flat, with hints of two, symmetric peaks, one at
${\rm U}\sim -250$ km/s and another at ${\rm U} \sim +250$ km/s.

As discussed by \citet{Meza2005}, this is the kinematic structure
expected for a tidal stream originating in a dwarf galaxy whose
orbital plane at the time of disruption was coincident with the plane
of the Galaxy. The low V and W velocity dispersions are easily
explained in this scenario, since such stream would be, locally,
kinematically cold and confined to the orbital plane. The
double-peaked U distribution also arises naturally in this scenario if
stream stars have apocentric radii outside the solar circle and
pericentric radii inside the solar circle. Stream stars in the solar
neighbourhood are therefore either going to their apocenter with
large, positive U or coming from their apocenter, with symmetric
$-{\rm U}$.

This suggests that most non-thin-disk stars with [Fe/H]$>-1.5$ and
low, but still enhanced relative to solar, [$\alpha$/Fe] (previously
thought to belong to the classical halo) belong to this new
component. Guided by \citet{Nissen2010}, we inspect the Na and Ni
content of such stars for supporting evidence of this conclusion. This
is shown in Fig.~\ref{FigNaNi}, where we show [Na/Fe] vs [Ni/Fe] for
all stars in our sample with ${\rm [Fe/H]}<-0.7$. Blue squares
correspond to the very metal poor stars in our sample (${\rm
  [Fe/H]}<-1.5$); green open circles are stars in the $\alpha$-rich
``Thick'' region of Fig.~\ref{FigFeA}, and magenta filled circles
denote stars in the $\alpha$-poor ``debris'' (``D'') region of
Fig.~\ref{FigFeA}. The three groups separate clearly in the Na-Ni
plane, supporting our claim that the ``debris'' component is truly
distinct from the thick disk and from the metal-poor ``classical''
halo.

Using the same ${\rm [Fe/H]}$ and $[\alpha/{\rm Fe}]$ parameters as above, we can characterize
``debris'' stars in the [$\alpha$/Fe] vs [Fe/H] plane (region labelled
``D'' in Fig.~\ref{FigFeA}) by
\begin{itemize}
\item (i) $-1.5<{\rm [Fe/H]}<-0.7$; and

\item (ii) $[\alpha/{\rm Fe}]<0.2-({\rm [Fe/H]}+0.7)/4$.
\end{itemize}
Our conclusion agrees with that of \citet{Nissen2010}, who studied a
large spectroscopic sample of ``halo'' stars and argued, in agreement
with our analysis, that most metal-rich ``$\alpha$-poor'' halo stars
are indeed tidal debris from disrupted dwarfs. Our debris population
is reminiscent of the population identified by \citet{Morrison2009}.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth,clip]{nani.ps}
\end{center}
\caption{[Na/Fe] vs [Ni/Fe] correlation for all stars in our sample
  with [Fe/H]$<-0.7$. Blue squares correspond to [Fe/H]$<-1.5$ ``classical halo''
  stars; green open circles to $\alpha$-rich ``thick disk'' stars with
  $-1.5<{\rm [Fe/H]}<-0.7$, and magenta filled circles to stars in the
  ``debris'' (``D'') region of Fig.~\ref{FigFeA}. Note how these three
  components separate neatly in the Na vs Ni   plane and, in
  particular, the tight scatter around the mean trend of ``debris''
  stars. This strengthens our conclusion that they correspond to three  components of distinct origin.
  \label{FigNaNi} }
\end{figure}

\section{Summary and Discussion}
\label{SecDisc}

The preceding analysis suggests that apportioning the various
components of the Galaxy according to purely chemical criteria is both
possible and fruitful. The definition of the thin disk in the
[($\alpha+$Eu)/Fe] vs [Fe/H] plane is particularly straightforward,
and suggests that the kinematics of the thin disk is invariant with
metallicity. This is an intriguing result  unexpected
in migration-based scenarios for the chemo-dynamical
evolution of the thin disk.  It implies that the familiar increase in
velocity dispersion with decreasing metallicity
\citep[][]{Stroemgren1987} is the result of the increased prevalence
of the thick disk at lower metallicities, rather than of the sustained
operation of a dynamical heating mechanism. If confirmed, the
kinematic invariance of the thin disk with metallicity will place
strong constraints on the formation of the Galactic disk and on the
role of accretion events, in situ formation, and/or migration.

The ``thick disk'' can also be charted in the [$\alpha$/Fe] vs
[Fe/H] plane. As reported in earlier work, it seems to contain mainly
stars highly enriched in $\alpha$ elements. It shows as a separate
dynamical component in rotation speed, with the bulk of its stars rotating
at ${\rm V} \sim 160$ km/s. A simple criterion in $\alpha$ content
isolates most of these stars, although a few outliers with nearly
zero, or negative, V velocities are also included. The latter might
very well be contaminants from a different population that a crude
boundary in the  $\alpha$-Fe plane  is unable to weed out.

The inclusion of additional heavy elements in the defining criteria
might enable a cleaner characterization of the thick disk. If that
were possible, questions such as whether the thick disk shows evidence
of self-enrichment, or whether correlations between metal content and
velocity dispersion are present, could be addressed. This would allow
us to distinguish between migration and accretion models and, among
the latter, between those where the bulk of thick disk stars were
either accreted or simply stirred.

A substantial fraction of stars in the range $-1.5<{\rm [Fe/H]}<-0.7$
seem to belong to a dynamically-cold, non-rotating component with
properties consistent with those of a tidal stream. These are mainly
stars of low-$\alpha$ content, comparable in that regard to individual
stars in many of the satellite companions of the Milky Way \citep[see,
e.g.,][]{Venn2004,Tolstoy2009}: the low-[Fe/H], $\alpha$-poor region
should be a good hunting ground for the remnants of accretion events.

The V-distribution associated with the stream or ``debris'' seems to
peak at slightly negative V ($\sim -10$ km/s). This implies that
most stars in the stream have angular momenta similar to that of the
globular cluster $\omega$Cen \citep{Dinescu1999}. It is therefore
tempting to associate these stars with the parent galaxy of this
massive cluster, long suspected to be the survivor of the disruption
of a dwarf galaxy in the Galactic potential
\citep{Freeman1993}. Supporting evidence comes from $\omega$Cen's low
vertical velocity, as well as from the overlap in metallicity between
$\omega$Cen and stars in the putative stream \citep[see][for a full
discussion]{Meza2005,Nissen2010}.

Although the orbital parameters of the stream might suggest a link
with the globular cluster $\omega$Cen, we caution that evidence of a
true relation between those stars and $\omega$Cen is circumstantial at
best. For example, the metallicity distribution in $\omega$Cen peaks
at ${\rm [Fe/H]}=-1.7$ \citep{Smith2004} and have distinct elemental
abundances \citep{Norris1995,Johnson2010}, so it might be useful to seek evidence
for a stream in stars of similar metallicity and peculiar abundance ratios when
larger samples become available \citep[see, e.g.,][for some progress
in this direction]{WyliedeBoer2010}.

One corollary of this finding is that very few stars with ${\rm
  [Fe/H]}>-1.5$ in our sample seem to belong to the classical,
dynamically-hot stellar halo. Recent work has suggested that halo
stars in this ``metal-rich'' tail might actually belong to a distinct
``inner halo'' component \citep[see, e.g.,][and references
therein]{Carollo2007}.  The connection between this and
the stream we advocate above is, however, unclear, not least because
the ``inner halo'' component is reported to co-rotate with the Sun,
whereas our putative stream counterrotates slowly around the Galaxy.

The``inner halo'' identification typically relies mainly on estimates
of [Fe/H] and lacks information on the abundance of individual
elements. On the other hand, our sample is relatively small in
comparison and has potentially a number of selection biases. Thus the
possibility that our stream constitutes a small subset of the inner
halo remains.

It might be possible to test these ideas by examining other abundance
ratios, such as the neutron-capture elements [Ba/Y] or [Ba/Eu]. This
is because these elements are contributed in different amounts by AGB
stars that undergo slow neutron capture nucleosynthesis during the
thermal pulsing stages and by massive stars that undergo rapid neutron
capture nucleosynthesis during supernova explosion. Indeed, variations
in those ratios have already been seen in individual stars of dwarf
galaxies \citep[see Figure 14 in][]{Tolstoy2009}.

Overall, our success in dividing and assigning stars of the solar
neighbourhood to families of distinct chemistry and kinematics seems
to favour models where accretion events have played a significant role
in the formation of the Galaxy rather than models, such as those based
on migration, where secular evolutionary mechanisms rule. We hasten to
add, however, that the criteria to separate components proposed here
are imperfect, and that our conclusions are based on small and
heterogeneous samples. These samples likely conceal a number of biases
which can only be revealed and lifted by a concerted effort to survey
a large, volume-limited, kinematically-unbiased sample of stars with
the high-resolution spectra needed to measure the abundance of
individual heavy elements. The planned {\tt HERMES}
survey\footnote{\tt www.aao.gov.au/AAO/HERMES} should be a major first
step in this regard. This undoubtedly ambitious endeavour would allow
us to dissect chemically and kinematically the solar neighbourhood and
to learn the true provenance of the many stellar families that today
call this small place of the Galaxy home.

\section*{Acknowledgements}

\bsp
\label{lastpage}

\bibliographystyle{mn2e}


The Scientific Method

Abstract: The nature of the scientific method is controversial with claims that a single scientific method does not even exist. However the scientific method does exist. It is the building of logical and self consistent models to describe nature. The models are constrained by past observations and judged by their ability to correctly predict new observations and interesting phenomena. The observations exist independent of the models but acquire meaning from their context within a model. Observations must be carefully done and reproducible to minimize errors. Models assumptions that do not lead to testable predictions are rejected as unnecessary.

\section{Introduction}

The root problem in science is how do we obtain reliable information
on the nature and properties of the real world, whatever the real
world may be. This is essentially the question of epistemology: what
is knowledge and how is it obtained. On the one hand there is the real
world, presumably distinct from the mind. On the other hand, there is
the mind which wants information on the nature and properties of the
real world. The question is how do we connect the two. There is a
limited number of tools at our disposal to address this issue, only
four: observations, pure thought, innate knowledge, and divine
revelation.  The use of observations to learn about the real world,
done correctly, leads to science. Done incorrectly it leads to
superstition, pseudoscience or abnormal science. The bulk of this
paper is addressed to the question of the use of observation to obtain
knowledge about the nature of the real world. It builds on the
examples and arguments given in ref.~\citen{Jennings} and can be
considered a more formal companion to that work.

\section{Basic Epistemology}

Following Descartes, we have the idea that we can be certain of very
little and start with the position of extreme skepticism. Perhaps much
of what we regard as reality is an illusion: a dream that does not
correspond to reality or the work of a demon deceiving us. As the next
step we rely on Descartes' famous statement\cite{Descartes}: I think
therefore I am. Hence we have two facts. To this we can add a few
others like: I observe. The theorems of pure mathematics
probably\footnote{There are claims that logic is itself empirically
determined and hence uncertain.} also fall into the category of
certain knowledge. This is not knowledge about the real world but
knowledge within the confines of the logical systems of
mathematics. One piece of certain knowledge is that there is very
little other certain knowledge (see discussion in
Sec.~\ref{method}). Even that there is a real world outside the mind
must be held as uncertain: this manuscript may be a figment of your,
the reader's, imagination. This extreme is referred to as solipsism. In
science what are we to make of claims like Isaac Asimov's\cite{Asimov}
that he was happy to have lived at a time when the basic working of
the universe is known?  In theology, what we to make of claims of
proofs of God's existence or non-existence? What does all this imply
about the nature of knowledge?  Some would claim that to be knowledge
a thought must be justified, be true and be
believed\cite{knowledge}. The problem is that, as just argued, very
little is known absolutely to be true. So if knowledge consists only
of things that are known absolutely to be true very little remains of
knowledge outside pure mathematics.

How do we proceed? We make assumptions and test these assumptions. The
assumptions we call models. Knowledge consists of model building and
testing and is always tentative and as argued below frequently
approximate. As discussed in Sec.~\ref{Other} concepts like dog, cat,
and knowledge can also be considered as contributing to knowledge. But
we must for the most part give up the idea of sure and certain
knowledge. Thus we start model building. A first, frequently made
assumption is that there is a reality outside the mind. A second
possible assumption is on the existence of God. Since all nontrivial
knowledge about the world, as a matter of principle, is uncertain
everyone should, at this level, be an agnostic. This concept of
agnosticism is not very useful so instead we can define theist, deist,
agnostic and atheist by the properties of their preferred models. The
preferred model (sometimes called controlling narrative) of theists
would have God actively involved in human affairs or the world, for
the deist a God not involved in human affairs and so on. We proceed
step by step to make assumptions or models and test them. The
assumptions and models always remain tentative and frequently
approximate. Thus Asimov's knowledge is tentative and approximate but
never-the-less comprehensive and useful. Testing procedures are
described in the following sections.

\section{Pure thought, innate knowledge, and divine revelation}
\label{Other}

Before addressing the use of observation to learn about the real world
we turn to the other three tools. The first of these is pure
thought. As a pure abstraction not related to experience, this would
be mathematics which relies only on logic (arguably logic is not
empirically based). As a means to learn about the real world, pure
thought would be synthetic {\em a priori} knowledge as
proposed\cite{Kant} by Kant (b.~1724, d.~1804). Synthetic {\em a
priori} knowledge is nontrivial knowledge about the world obtained
without recourse to observation.  The idea of synthetic {\em a priori}
knowledge was dealt a serious if not mortal blow when Euclidean
geometry, Kant's archetypal example of synthetic {\em a priori}
knowledge, was shown to be not {\em a priori} true with the discovery
of non-Euclidean geometry and to be only approximately true as a
description of the universe's local geometry with the advent of
general relativity. Innate knowledge would be Plato's ideals or forms
and also perhaps logic. Plato's ideals do not exist as such. However
they address a real concern: How does the continuing concept of
``dog'' arise from all the various and changing examples of ``dog'' we
encounter. In the case of a concept like dog, the human mind appears
very good at creating general concepts from a series of specific
instances. The precise definition of a concept like ``dog'' frequently
has ``fuzzy'' edges since it is not clear where the concept like dog
ends and a concept like ``wolf'', ``jackal'' or ``hyena'' begins.  The
concepts are empirically determined by the human mind's marvelous
pattern recognition ability and in science they are judged by their
usefulness in creating and testing models.

Divine revelation, if it exists, could be the most reliable source of
knowledge since it would give information not limited by the
constraints of normal sensory input. However, divine revelation is
communicated using words and language which brings it into the realm
of observations --- either sight or sound. In addition words derive
there meaning from their context even more than observations, and are
less precise than mathematics. Narratives also derive much of their
meaning from their context. It is sometimes unclear if a given
narrative is meant as history, parable, humor or perhaps all three;
the determination depending on its context which may be lost, rather
than purely internal evidence. Words also change their meaning over
time: ``let'' at the time of King James I was used to mean ``prevent''
rather than allow. In addition when divine revelation, in the form of
sacred texts for example, are translated from one language to another
subtlety and meaning are lost. Even copying texts can introduce errors
and ``helpful'' scribes have been known to ``improve''
manuscripts. Moreover many, including deists and atheists (in the
strong sense of the word), would claim that divine revelation does not
even exist.  Even if it does exist, there are many conflicting claims
as to what is the correct divine revelation. Some of the latter
uncertainty is related to the interpretation of words and narratives
as illustrated by the disagreements among the various Christian
denominations. The overriding problem with divine revelation as a
source of knowledge is this: Which, if any, of the many conflicting
purported divine revelations are valid and how do you tell?

Observation and reason provide objective criteria to choose between
the conflicting claims of divine revelations. The argument\cite{Locke}
is essentially that of John Locke(b.~1632, d.~1704): ``Revelation can
not be admitted against the clear evidence of reason.'' and ``If the
boundaries be not set between faith and reason, no enthusiasm or
extravagency in religion can be contradicted.''  Reason should be
supplemented with observation. If a purported divine revelation claims
that when stones are dropped they fall upwards we are safe in
rejecting this as not being a true divine revelation. A similar point
was made by Augustine(b.~354, d.430)\cite{Augustine}:
\begin{quote}
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the
heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and
orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about
the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years
and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth,
and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and
experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an
infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy
Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all
means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show
up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is
not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people
outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such
opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil,
the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned
men.
\end{quote}
This is consistent with Deuteronomy 18:22\cite{NASB} ``When a prophet
speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or
come true, that is a thing that the Lord has not spoken. The prophet
has spoken it presumptuously: you shall not be afraid of him.'' If
someone makes a claim based on his understanding of divine revelation
that is inconsistent with observation he/she is a false prophet and
the purported divine revelation is invalid. The example of a dropped
stone given above is extreme, but what about the shape of the earth?
Even more pertinent is the nature of planetary motion. Do the planets
circle the earth or the sun? In the early sixteen hundreds, the
Catholic Church and some of its theologians argued strongly that the
claim the earth circled the sun was in direct contradiction with
divine revelation and a threat to Christianity.  Based on observation
and Deuteronomy 18:22 we see that they spoke presumptuously and were
false prophets. Young earth creationists and other people of that ilk
fall into a similar category and speak presumptuously. They are not to
be feared as spokesmen for God. Or in the words of Augustine, what
they doing is ``disgraceful and dangerous''.

Observations can, however, be made consistent with a young age for the
universe through the Omphalos hypothesis\cite{Gosse}, but the cure is
worse than the disease.  The Omphalos hypothesis says that while the
universe is young it has been created with all the appearance of an
old universe. The Omphalos hypothesis, raises significant and
disturbing questions for both science and theology.  Consequently it
was rejected by all sides when first published. In science it is the
question of equivalent models\cite{Jennings} that make the same
predictions for all observations but are internally different. Such
models can only be discriminated between using simplicity or a similar
criteria. Thus the Omphalos hypothesis challenged the idea of the
times that scientific induction could give absolute truth. In
theology, the Omphalos hypothesis raises the question if special
creation can occur without some false history being implied. The
answer\cite{Gosse} from Philip Gosse(b.~1810. d.~1888) is that it
cannot: a creation at a finite point in time, by its very nature,
implies God must implant a false history. This has tended to be
rejected by Christian apologists even more emphatically than an old
universe and with good reason. It portrays God as a deceiver who
planted false histories. Charles Kingsley, author of The Water-Babies
and a friend of Gosse, was asked to review Gosse's book. Refusing, he
wrote to Gosse:
\begin{quote}
    Shall I tell you the truth? It is best. Your book is the first
    that ever made me doubt [the doctrine of absolute creation], and I
    fear it will make hundreds do so. Your book tends to prove this -
    that if we accept the fact of absolute creation, God becomes
    God-the-Sometime-Deceiver. I do not mean merely in the case of
    fossils which pretend to be the bones of dead animals; but in
    \ldots your newly created Adam's navel, you make God tell a lie. It
    is not my reason, but my conscience which revolts here \ldots I
    cannot \ldots believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous
    and superfluous lie for all mankind.  (reproduced from
    Hardin\cite{Hardin} and the Wikipedia\cite{WO}).
\end{quote}
If God made the rocks lie can his words be trusted? Presumably
not\footnote{Even without the Omphalos hypotheses a literal reading of
Genesis challenges God's veracity. Contrary to God's statement in
Genesis 2:17, Adam did not die the day he ate from the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil but rather, like the much maligned snake
correctly stated, he acquired knowledge of good and evil.} and thus in
the end the Omphalos hypothesis would destroy what it sets out to
preserve --- the reliability of the literal interpretation of
Genesis. At one fell swoop it unwittingly questioned and seriously
challenged absolute knowledge in both science and Christian
fundamentalism.

\section{The Scientific Method}
\label{method}

Science is the construction of parsimious, internally consistent
models that can reliably predict future observations. With this
definition the rest of the scientific method follows. It also
sidesteps questions about what the real world ultimately is and even
the nature of truth itself. This definition is not the usual
definition of science. There is nothing here about explaining or
understanding phenomena, nothing about naturalism either
methodological or otherwise nor anything about scientific induction or
falsification. The alternate approaches to science are either
approximations to this approach, partial descriptions that emphasis
one aspect of science or in a few cases simply wrong. The relationship
between other approaches to science and the one given here is the
topic of Sec.~\ref{other}

Observations are any sensory input. At the simplest level they are
direct sensory input --- sight, sound, taste, smell and touch. At the
next level we use instruments to augment our senses, for example
Galileo's telescope. Observations also include controlled experiments
where the experimental arrangements are actively manipulated in order
to isolate different effects and test specific aspects of the
models. The experiments are designed to maximize the information that
can be obtained while eliminating uninteresting and spurious
effects. An extreme example is the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron
Collider (CERN, Geneva, Switzerland) which is about the size of a five
story building and involves approximately 1500 physicists from 36
countries. As the instrument gets larger and more complex the
observations become more model dependent. A model of the apparatus is
needed or even models of parts of the apparatus. However, even when
the apparatus is as simple as Galileo's telescope, a model is needed
to understand its behavior. One of the attacks against Galileo was
that he was seeing an artifact of the telescope. A not unreasonable
attack since telescopes can ideed add atrifacts, for example,
diffraction rings.  Thus we have the idea that observations are not
freestanding but take on their meaning within the context of a model
or models.

The term ``model'' is carefully chosen. It implies the approximate and
tentative nature of knowledge. It also avoids the ambiguity of the
word ``theory'' which means something different to many people than it
does in science. A model, in the present usage, is anything
constructed in the mind that is used to describe and predict
observations. Knowledge consists two things. The first is the
generation of useful concepts such as dog, cow, or knowledge while
the second is model building and testing. Model building is a creative
activity with relatively few useful guide lines while model testing is
based on a model's efficacy in obtaining a given end and is usually
more algorithmic. In science, models are tested or judged by their
ability to correctly predict observations. In religion, models are
judged by their ability to get the model's adherent to heaven,
enlightenment or nirvana. However in practice this test is usually
replaced by a test based on consistency with a given sacred text or a
given master's teaching. In mathematics, models\footnote{In
mathematics a model would be the set of postulates and theorems that
make up the logical system under study.} are judged purely by their
logical consistency. In capitalism, models are judged by their ability
to generate wealth for the person using the model. In politics it is
the model's ability to get people elected and in auto mechanics it is
the model's ability to aid in car repair. The ability to make correct
predictions is frequently important in judging models in religion (for
example the quote from Deuteronomy given above), capitalism and other
areas.

The idea that we do not have absolute knowledge goes back at least to
Socrates (b.~470?,d.~399 BCE) with the idea of ironic modesty (from
Plato's {\em Apologhma}). Ironic modesty is the claim, attributed to
Socrates, that he was wiser than his contemporaries because he alone
realized how very little he knew. There were also Greek schools of
skeptics (Academic and Pyrrhonian for example) that claimed true
knowledge, especially empirical knowledge, was impossible. Ren\'e
Descartes (b.~1596, d.~1650) in the beginning of his ``Meditations''
makes similar skeptical arguments (before making unwarranted
assumptions to get around the problem). David Hume (b.~1711, d.~ 1776)
pointed out\cite{Hume} that one could never deduce a generalization
valid for all instances from a finite series of observations. Thus he
showed scientific induction is invalid. This was largely ignored by
the scientific community for 200 years. The solution to all these
problems follows from the idea\cite{Popper} of Karl Popper(b.~1902,
d.~1994) that all scientific models (or theories) are tentative. This
should be generalized to the idea that most knowledge is tentative and
approximation. The only exceptions are simple statements like: I am, I
think, I observe and perhaps a few others.

As Hume showed, models can not be proven correct. Despite Popper's
claims\cite{Popper}, in most cases models cannot be falsified
either\cite{Jennings}.  Thus observations neither prove models correct
nor disprove them. What observations do is provide the information
necessary for ranking models.  Old models are displaced by newer
models that are ranked higher based on their ability to correctly
predict observations.  Paraphrasing the United States' gun lobby:
observations do not kill models, models do. This ranking of models is
the first part of the scientific method.

Comparing models is very much a part of what Popper actually
proposed. For example consider the quote\cite{Popper2} from him:
\begin{quote}
Now there can be little doubt that all these essentialist views stand
in the strongest possible contrast to the methods of modern
science. (I have the empirical sciences in mind, not perhaps pure
mathematics.) First, although in science we do our best to find the
truth, we are conscious of the fact that we can never be sure whether
we have got it. We have learnt in the past, from many disappointments,
that we must not expect finality. And we have learnt not to be
disappointed any longer if our scientific theories are overthrown; for
we can, in most cases, determine with great confidence which of any
two theories is the better one. We can therefore know that we are
making progress; and it is this knowledge that to most of us atones
for the loss of the illusion of finality and certainty. In other
words, we know that our scientific theories must always remain
hypotheses, but that, in many important cases, we can find out whether
or not a new hypothesis is superior to an old one. For if they are
different, then they will lead to different predictions, which can
often be tested experimentally; and on the basis of such a crucial
experiment, we can sometimes find out that the new theory leads to
satisfactory results where the old one breaks down. Thus we can say
that in our search for truth, we have replaced scientific certainty by
scientific progress. And this view of scientific method is
corroborated by the development of science. For science does not
develop by a gradual encyclopaedic accumulation of essential
information, as Aristotle thought) but by a much more revolutionary
method; it progresses by bold ideas, by the advancement of new and
very strange theories (such as the theory that the earth is not flat,
or that 'metrical space' is not flat), and by the overthrow of the old
ones.
\end{quote}

Ranking implies that there must be at least two models to rank. This
is not a problem since there is always the default or null model that
says all outcomes for a given observation are equally possible. Thus
any model that makes some correct predictions but no false ones would
rate higher than the null model. On the other hand a model that makes
only false predictions would rate lower than the null model. We can
improve the null model slightly by having it say that all past
observations are the way they are because that is the way they are and
that any outcome for a future observation is possible. This revised
null model is scientifically equivalent\footnote{see
ref.~\citen{Jennings} for the definition of scientifically
equivalent.} to the ``Because God did it that way'' model.

Thinking in terms of models makes some concepts much clearer. For
example, it is meaningless to ask if a model airplane is a fact,
rather one should ask how accurate the model is. It cannot be one
hundred per cent accurate since then it would be replica not a
model. Even replicas are rarely 100\% accurate.  A similar situation
holds with most models including scientific ones. Asking if Newtonian
mechanics, general relativity or evolution are facts is meaningless,
an error of categories. One should ask how accurately they describe
and predict observations. Rather than fact or not fact, scientific
models are judged on their ability to mirror reality; a mirroring that
can not be exact since models are constructions of the mind while
reality presumably exists outside the mind. This is very much in line
with the skeptical denial of the possibility of absolute
knowledge. However, while models cannot be considered as absolutely
true they can be judged and ranked. Thus we have: Aristotelian
dynamics, Newtonian mechanics, special relativity and general
relativity in order of increasing accuracy of the predictions for the
motion of macroscopic objects. In an absolute sense all these models
are wrong since they do not correctly predict observations on
microscopic systems. In spite of not being absolutely true, all these
models make useful predictions for some range of observations. They
are probably approximations to some unknown model of everything --- at
least that is the hope. Similarly we can rank animals reproducing
after their kind and evolution based on their ability to make
predictions of future observations. Again both these models are useful
although evolution ranks higher based on its predictive ability.  The
ability to rank models is the point missed by Socrates, the skeptics,
Descartes and Hume. Even with naive falsification, there is only a two
level categorization, falsified or not falsified, rather than a
ranking.

The current approach to epistemology, with its emphasis on the
tentative and approximate nature of knowledge, is anti-dogmatic: the
absolute truth of fundamentalists (either scientific or religious) is
a mirage. Even the present description of the scientific method and
the nature of knowledge should be considered tentative and
approximate. Note this circumvents one of the problems with extreme
skepticism. If all knowledge is invalid then even the claim that ``all
knowledge is invalid'' is invalid. Claiming all knowledge is tentative
and approximate does not lead to a similar contradiction.

What properties must a model have in order to be scientific? First we
want to be able to make unambiguous predictions. This implies that the
models should make unique predictions for some set of observations. To
this end we want the models to be internally consistent and logical so
that they do not predict both this and that. At the very least you
need a well-define set of rules that unambiguously lead to testable
predictions.

Parsimony or simplicity is also an important, indeed crucial, property
of models. For a given model it is always possible to make a more
complicated model which makes the same predictions. Comparison with
observation can never discriminate between these models.  This is the
problem the Omphalos hypothesis highlighted. Instead of having the
universe created 6000 years ago we could have it created last Tuesday
or five minutes ago. One can add such assumptions indefinitely: a
universe created last Tuesday, invisible unicorns, flying spaghetti
monsters, etc. However since models are judged by their ability to
make predictions, this gains us nothing. Models should be stripped
down to the minimum assumptions consistent with maintaining their
ability to make predictions. Or rephrasing: The models are simplified
by removing untestable assumptions. If nothing else this makes the
models easier to use. Thus models should be simple, logical and
self-consistent. It is the requirement of parsimony that eliminates
the Omphalos hypothesis and similar untestable hypotheses from
consideration as science.

In order to predict future observations it is important to describe
past observations. This is an {\em a posteriori} statement rather than
an {\em a priori} one. While there are few if any hard and fast rules
on how to construct models there is one very useful guideline: The
more one knows about past observations and the patterns in them the
more likely one will be able to construct models that can predict
future observations. Models that incorporate patterns from past
observations typically have more predictive power.  Thus to some
extent, model formation is pattern recognition. Galileo recognized a
pattern in pendulum's period: the period was independent of the
amplitude of the motion. He then used this to predict the periods for
future observations. In this case, the pattern is fairly obvious and
the procedure looks like scientific induction (see
Sec.~\ref{induction}). Most new models in science arise from a
careful, and frequently long, study of past observations. The
scientist has to decide which patterns in the observations are real
and which of the real patterns are important. However describing past
observations and the patterns in them is not enough, the real test of
any scientific model is its ability to predict future observations.

One of the first things one realizes in working with observations is
that it is easy to make mistakes. While an observation is never
``wrong'' it may be misinterpreted. There are some visual impressions
in my eyes but if it is a dog or a cat is a question of
interpretation. It may even be an hallucination and not a real visual
impression. This is also a question of interpretation. Since error and
misinterpretation are ubiquitous, error control is extremely
important. Error control is the distinguishing characteristic between
science and superstition or pseudo-science. There are three main
aspects of error control: care, reproducibility and peer
review. Double blind trails in medicine are an example of the care
required to obtain reliable results. Scientists are frequently
criticized for the care they take to control errors but this is
necessary to prevent science from being overrun with bogus
results. Reproducibility is a major check on both error and
fraud. Repetition is not doing exactly the same experiment again and
again. Rather, the subsequent experiments should be as different as
possible to eliminate common sources of error.

Reproducibility does not mean the scientific method cannot be used to
study historical events because the event cannot be reproduced. The
model that Napoleon died of arsenic poisoning can be tested by looking
for arsenic in a currently existing sample of his hair. Models based
on stomach cancer would not have high levels of arsenic and thus can
be ranked lower if arsenic is found in high concentrations.  The
models of past events can make predictions for future observations
that can be tested. Other historical events, such as the history of
the earth, can be studied similarly.

Next for error control is peer review. This is a simple concept. The
people who know about a topic are peers of the person who did the
original experiment and they look to see if there are any errors. It
is only the peers who would have the knowledge to spot errors.  If you
want to know if a model about sheep farming is reasonable you ask a
sheep farmer. If the model is about Irish history you ask an historian
specializing in Irish history not a sheep farmer (although one could,
in principle, be both sheep farmer and an Irsih historian). If the
model is about nuclear physics you ask a nuclear physicist. Peer
review is this idea applied in a systematic manner.

A model airplane by, its very nature, is never an exact replica of the
original. Thus it is always ``wrong''. However we can compare
different airplane models to see which is the most accurate. We can
also ask which is the most useful for a given museum display. This may
well not be the most accurate. The same considerations apply to
scientific models or indeed any models in the mind. By their very
nature they are approximate but the accuracy of different models can
be compared models and ranked. Similarly the most accurate scientific
model is frequently not the most useful for a given
calculation. Quantum theory is not used to calculate planetary motion.

\section{The Pretenders}
\label{other}

In this section we consider the relationship between other proposed
descriptions of the scientific method.

\paragraph{Appeal to Authority:}

Life is not long enough to do all observations and model calculations
by oneself. Thus, inevitably one has to rely on other people who may
be considered authorities. There is nothing wrong with this. The error
occurs when the authority is assumed infallible or nearly so. The late
medieval church fell into this trap with Aristotle. They took his word
as the gospel truth and were caught by surprise when his models of
natural history were shown to be inferior to those developed by
Galileo and his contemporaries.  The British physicists fell into the
same trap with Newton. Taking Newton as their authority rather than
observations they fell behind their competitors on the continent.  In
science careful, reproducible, peer reviewed observation must take
precedent over any other authority in judging models.

An additional comment on the medieval church and Aristotle is in
order. In the twelve hundreds the works of the classical scholars was
rediscovered, in particular the philosophy of Aristotle. Two of the
early participants in this revival where Roger Bacon (b.~1214 d.~ 1294)
and Thomas Aquinas (b.~1225 d.~1574). Aquinas, a Dominican friar,
accepted Aristotle's conclusions and blended them into Christian
philosophy. He consequently was made a saint by the Catholic church in
1323. His emphasis on Aristotle's conclusion contributed to the
conflict between the church and science at the time of Galileo. Roger
Bacon, a Franciscan friar, in contrast to Aquinas emphasized the
empirical aspect of Aristotle's work. Bacon's procedure\cite{Bacon} of
hypothesize, test against experiment, refine and retest is the
precursor of the scientific method and is very similar to the model
building and testing procedure described in this work. Bacon
essentially discovered the scientific method. However, Bacon's ideas
were largely ignored for several generations. It seems that, then as
now, people prefer the convenient answer from an authority even if it
is wrong to a reliable procedure even if it leads to better
knowledge. Therein lies the danger in the appeal to authority.

\paragraph{Scientific Induction:}
\label{induction}
For much of the history of science, from Galileo to Einstein, the
scientific method was considered to be scientific induction.
Scientists began with observations, cautiously proceeded to a
tentative hypothesis describing the observation, progressed to more
secure but still provisional theories, and only in the end achieved,
after a long process of verification, the security of permanent
laws. In 1904 Newton's laws of motion and gravity would have been
considered the prime example of permanent laws derived by
induction. One year later they were no longer considered exact, at
least not by Einstein. Twenty years later, not only had general
relativity shown Newton's laws of gravity to be approximate but
quantum mechanics had undermined much of the philosophy built up
around classical mechanics.  The clock work universe dissolved in
quantum uncertainty. The models in science are frequently built up by
looking for patterns in past observation and extrapolating these to
future observations. The main error in scientific induction is
assuming the deduced law is permanent infallible knowledge.  The
induced patterns are modified based on the new observations and the
procedure repeated. As the quantum replacement of classical mechanics
illustrated no model can ever be assumed absolutely true just because
it has passed all the tests to the present time. In addition the
procedure for going from observations to a model is not always
straight forward or algorithmic. Rather it is a creative
activity. General relativity was not deduced from experiment in any
simple way. Rather it was sheer genius on Einstein's part.

\paragraph{Paradigm Shifts:}

A paradigm\cite{Kuhn}, the set of interlocking assumptions and
methodologies that define a field of study, is also a model. It is the
main model in a field of study and sometimes referred to as the
controlling narrative.  The overarching model, controlling narrative
or equivalently the paradigm provides the foundation for all work in
the field and a common language for discourse. While observations
exist independent of the paradigm, their interpretation depends on the
paradigm. No natural history nor any set of observation can be
interpreted or even usefully discussed without the framework provided
by the paradigm. Paradigms determine the important questions to be
considered.  They can also act to prevent progress when members of a
community are too committed to their current set of models.

Thomas Kuhn (b.~1922 d.~1996) discusses\cite{Kuhn} two kinds of
science --- normal science and extraordinary science. Normal science
is puzzle solving within the context of a paradigm while extraordinary
science is the overthrowing of the paradigm. The present analysis
gives a different view of the distinction although the distinction
itself remains useful. In extraordinary science the model being
challenged is the main model in the field, the paradigm (or model)
which provides the framework for the field. In normal science it is
the subsidiary models, those models that in principle could be derived
from the main model, that are being tested.  Normal science can often
resemble scientific induction with models apparently deduced from
observations. This is especially true in cases like the color of crows
or the period of a pendulum where a regularity is apparent in the
observations.

Extraordinary science generates paradigm shifts, a change in the world
view in the given field. This change of world view is closely related
to Kuhn's incommensurability\cite{Kuhn} (see also
Feyerabend\cite{Feyerabend}). Proponents of the new model and the old
model use a different language and different concepts. They have
different ideas about what the important questions are. Their whole
framework for understanding observations is different. Hence, it may
be difficult to compare the old and new models in detail.  Despite
these dramatic differences, the old models are frequently good
approximations to the new model for a limited range of
observations. By approximation I mean that the new and old models
give nearly identical predictions for some range of observations.

Paradigm shifts do not occur because the old paradigm is falsified nor
because the new paradigm is proven correct. It is not even because the
practitioners have grown tired of the old paradigm. Rather it is
because the new paradigm or model ranks higher than the old paradigm
based on parsimony and its ability to correctly describe past
observations and predict new ones. In the end this is what science
always reduces to.

\paragraph{Falsification:}

Popper claims\cite{Popper} that models can not be proven correct but
they can be proven incorrect.  The problem here is that no theory or
model exists in isolation but is always supported by subsidiary
theories and models.  Thus any test is not just of one model but of
all the subsidiary ones simultaneously.  This objection to
falsification is known as the Duhem-Quine thesis\cite{Curd}. There is
also the question of the interpretation of the observations and the
possibility of modifications to the model to remove the incorrect
prediction. With enough imagination any negative result can be
explained away. The white crow is really a black crow covered with
snow or the sun is reflecting (specular reflection) off the black crow
in such a way it looks white. However, modifying models to circumvent
falsification usually reduces their predictive power. In the case of
creationist natural history and the Omphalos hypothesis it prevents
any meaningful prediction.  While the Omphalos hypothesis can
``explain'' any observation, it is consistent with any possible
observation and has no predictive power.  Contrary to the impression
given by some histories of science, the 1887 Michelson-Morley
experiment did not immediately falsify the ether model. A 1902 high
school physics text book\cite{Gage} defines physics as: ``Physics is
the science which treats of matter and its motion, and of vibrations
in the ether''. Although they developed the mathematics needed for
special relativity neither Lorentz nor Poincar\'e abandoned the
ether. Creative people came up with explanations such as ether
entrainment and the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction to explain the
unexpected results. Both explanations reduced the ether's predictive
power.  Ether entrainment say that the ether is dragged along by the
earth. Thus the measured speed of light depends on how strongly the
ether is entrained and accommodates a wide range of values rather than
the single number of the original ether model.  Lorentz-Fitzgerald
contraction adds an extra assumption that does not lead to other new
predictions. Thus it added an assumption for this one type of
observation and the number of predictions per assumption decreased. In
the end, the ether model was eliminated, not directly by observation,
but by Einstein's special theory of relativity which had fewer
assumptions and more predictive power than the competing model.  Using
observations as the criteria, special relativity ranked higher than
the ether model. In general, models are not disproven by observations
but are replaced by newer models with more predictive power.

In cases like the ether or special creation the loss of predictive
power resembles falsification. In many cases falsification can be
considered a useful approximation to the more general procedure of
model testing through predictive power. To some extent the difference
with Popper is one of emphasis.

\paragraph{Natural Explanations/Methodological Naturalism:}

One view is that science is trying to provide natural explanations of
phenomena. Thus we have to define natural and explanation. One
commonly accepted distinction is between natural and
super-natural. Natural is what science has described and super-natural
is what it has not described. In the present context this usage would
be circular since we are trying to describe the scientific
method. When the term ``natural explanation'' is used in science it
is frequently a code for ``explanations'' of the form ``God did it'' are
rejected.

The related term naturalism has two distinct meanings. One is that the
super-natural is rejected and not dealt with or claimed to be
nonexistent. The other meaning is that all phenomena are treated
equally whether or not they are natural or super-natural. This second
definition has the great advantage that it does not require the
artificial distinction between natural and super-natural. In the
current context, as in marketing, natural and naturalism have mainly a
rhetorical value.  What we want to exclude from science is not the
supernatural but rather assumptions that have no predictive
power. This is the {\em only} reason to reject the ``Because God did
it that way'' type of model.  However, the ``Because God did it that
way'' explanation rarely has predictive power so in practice the
``super-natural explanations'' do end up being rejected. As Laplace
said\cite{Laplace} in response to Napoleon's question on why his books
on celestial mechanics had no reference to God: ``je n'avais pas
besoin de cette hypoth\'ese-l\`a''. He did not say he rejected it
because science is methodological naturalism. That would have been
poor methodology, then or now. The important point is that the
rejection is done {\em a posteriori} not {\em a priori}. The foes of
science have effectively used the methodological naturalism
description of science to score rhetorical points: Scientists have
closed minds, they reject my hypothesis out-of-hand without giving it
a fair hearing. Thus it is important to reject methodological
naturalism as the definition of the scientific method while realizing,
along with Laplace, that something very similar follows from the model
building and testing procedure. However, if a supernatural model makes
clear, unambiguous and precise predictions for observations, by all
means, science must consider it.

The discussions in this paper should not be taken to imply that
science and religion are intrinsically antagonistic. They are
not. Science is the development and testing of models based on
observation. Religion, in its epistemological content, is the
development and testing of models against divine revelation. There is
no reason {\em a priori} that these two approaches should be
conflict. To the theist or deist science is just the studying of Gods
work as made manifest through observation.  The conflict between
science and religion is purely {\em a posteriori}. Some proposed
divine revelations are inconsistent with observation. As discussed
previously we are justified in rejecting such proposed divine
revelations as being false. Thus science is only in conflict with
false religions, actually only with a subset of false religions ---
those that are inconsistent with observation.

``Explanation'' is an equally rhetorically loaded word that is best
avoided. It carries the idea of understanding. An explanation is
something that gives the hearer the impression that he understands the
phenomena. This is a very subjective criterion. Does quantum mechanics
explain or describe quantum entanglement? Do I need the many-worlds
interpretation to ``really'' understand quantum mechanics? Is
everything else just cookbook physics without real understanding?
Does evolution just describe the origin of the species and do we need
intelligent design to ``really'' explain it? These questions cannot be
uniquely answered. They depend on what a person thinks is needed for a
satisfactory explanation. If we take the role of science to be
providing explanations this lack of uniqueness is a serious problem.
Many worlds and supernatural explanations can only be eliminated by
fiat rather than as part of the more general procedure.  The model
building and testing procedure avoids the problem. Nothing is rejected
by fiat. The scientific method is not making explanations but building
models and testing them. Subjective criteria, like what constitutes an
explanation, are avoided. We construct the model and compare it with
other models using observations and simplicity as the criteria. This
may sound cookbook like --- just follow the instructions, but in
science there are only the two criteria: parsimony and comparison
against observation.

Models constructed using parsimony and comparison against observation
are frequently considered to be explanations, especially by observers
who have grown up with them. Newton's law of motion are generally
accepted as explanations of planetary motion in contrast to the
Ptolemaic and Copernican models which are considered only descriptive.
However, it is more precise to say that Newton introduced a higher
level of abstraction using ideas farther removed from the
observations. It is this higher level of abstraction that allows the
models to be taken as explanations. However the role of science is not
to provide explanations, a subjective concept, but to build models.
Providing explanations is seductive but the ultimate insult to a
scientific model is this: It explains everything, but predicts
nothing!

\paragraph{Anything Goes:}

In areas of science that are undergoing active development we are
faced with incomplete data, wrong data, approximate models and general
confusion. It is like doing a jig-saw puzzle with some pieces missing,
some pieces from a different puzzle and the picture on the box being
wrong in undisclosed ways. Out of this the scientist tries to find
order by constructing models. In the jig-saw analogy he is trying to
construct the picture that should be on the box. The construction of
the new models requires judgment on which data are correct and most
relevant. It requires selective abandonment of old models. For
example, Galileo had to replace the Aristotelian laws of motion in
order to make the Copernican model work. The acceptance of statistical
mechanics was delayed because the physicists of the time assumed
Newtonian mechanics was correct while in the end quantum mechanics was
required. From the general confusion in a developing area it is not
surprising that Paul Feyerabend(b.~1924, d.~1994)
concluded\cite{Feyerabend} that there was no method in science. Hence
the title of his book: ``Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic
Theory of Knowledge''.  To this extent he is correct: models are not
derived by any logical procedure. Model creation is indeed chaotic
requiring creativity, good judgment and even good taste as to what is
important and relevant. However, above the chaos sit two judges:
predictive power and simplicity. In the end, order emerges from the
chaos by insisting the models be as simple as possible and that they
make predictions that can be tested against future observations.

\paragraph{The EPR view of Science}

Although Lorentz and Poincar\'e developed the mathematics for special
relativity they were unable to accept that the ether was
unnecessary. This crucial insight was made by Einstein who was thus
credited with the discovery of special relativity. In turn, Einstein
helped lay the foundation for quantum mechanics but was unable to
accept its implications. In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen
published a paper\cite{Einstein} (the EPR paper) on quantum mechanics
stressing its incompleteness when judged using classical
concepts. While usually used to judge interpretations of quantum
mechanics it provides an interesting insight into the concept of the
scientific method of that time. This paper preceded the work of
Kuhn\cite{Kuhn} and Popper\cite{Popper} by more than twenty-five
years. In contrast to these later developments in the understanding of
the scientific method, the EPR paper presents a very nineteenth
century view of science.  For example the second paragraph begins
with:
\begin{quote}In attempting to judge the success of a physical theory,
  we may ask ourselves two questions: (1) ``Is the theory correct?''
  and (2) ``Is the description given by the theory complete''
\end{quote}
Non-relativistic quantum mechanics is certainly not correct in an
absolute sense since it does not include relativity. Even quantum
field theory, which is consistent with special relativity, is not
correct in an absolute sense since it is not consistent with general
relativity. Thus the answer to the first question is ``No''.  This is
true of most physical models and will continue to be true until we
have a theory of everything. Even then we will be unable to
demonstrate that the answer is ``Yes'' because all scientific
knowledge is tentative.  In addition to being tentative knowledge is
also approximate\cite{Asimov,Jennings}. Since science is the art of
the reasonable approximation a better question would be: ``Is the
model approximately correct?''.

The EPR paper defines completeness in terms of reality which in turn
requires reality to be defined. The whole emphasis on reality runs
counter to Kuhn's\cite{Kuhn} idea that observations take their meaning
from models. Reality in classical mechanics and quantum mechanics are
inherently different in line with Kuhn and
Feyerabend's\cite{Feyerabend} contention that different paradigms are
incommensurate. There is not a one-to-one correspondence between the
concepts in different models even when they are given the same
names. We can say quantum mechanics is quantum mechanically complete
but not complete according to the concepts of classical
mechanics. There is no reason it should be since the concepts of
reality and completeness are different (incommensurate) in the two
models. If string theory is even approximately correct, reality is
something peculiar happening in some weird number of dimensions. This
is different from reality in either classical or quantum mechanics.

The questions asked in the EPR paper should be compared with the Niels
Bohr's understanding\cite{quantuma}: ``There is no quantum
world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to
think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics
concerns what we can say about nature.'' This is a rejection of the
absolutism implied by the EPR questions. In light of the tentative and
approximate nature of physical models and the incommensurate nature of
the concepts in different models, EPR's two questions should be
replaced by one question: ``How much predictive power does the model
have?'' This would destroy much of the force of the paper as an attack
on quantum mechanics. However quantum entanglement, which was
introduced in the EPR paper, is a very interesting and has stimulated
much productive research. .

\paragraph{Science and technology}

There is sometimes confusion between what is science and what is
technology. Science is the development of models with predictive
power. Technology is the use of these models to build devices to serve
some function. The development of technology frequently involves model
building and testing using procedures very similar to those used in
science. Thus while the distinction between science and technology is
in principle clear, in practice it is not with some activities
legitimately considered to be both. For example, while Edison was
primarily a technologist, he produced some very interesting science:
for example the Edison effect relating to the current in light bulb
with an additional electrode. Although Edison saw no use for the
effect it eventually lead to the vacuum tube and the cathode ray tube.

The important part of science for technology is its ability to make
correct predictions. When the on switch is pushed we predict that the
TV will turn on. Much science, both pure and applied has to be
correct\footnote{By correct we mean that the scientific models must
make correct predictions for observations.}, in order for that to
happen. Contrary to some claims, the success of technology in building
devices is a validation of science and the predictive power of its
models. Without this predictive power, which is the essence of
science, technological innovation would slow to a barely perceptible
crawl. In return, technology allows science to address interesting new
questions and answer old perplexing questions.

\section{Conclusion}

The scientific method is the building of logical and self consistent
models to describe nature. The models are constrained by past
observations and judged by their ability to correctly predict new
observations and interesting phenomena.  Observations usually do not
prove or falsify models but rather provide a means to rank models. The
observations exist independent of the models but acquire their meaning
from their context within a model. Observations must be carefully done
and reproducible to minimize errors. Models assumptions that do not
lead to testable predictions are rejected as unnecessary.

The alternate understandings of science and epistemology have been
proposed at various times in human history. As argued in the previous
section many of these can be considered as approximations to the
current understanding valid for a limited range of situations, much
like classical mechanics can be considered an approximation to quantum
mechanics.  Among the rejected pretenders are appeal to authority,
scientific induction, falsification, paradigm shifts, natural
explanations, methodological naturalism and anything goes. The present
description of science should also be considered tentative and
approximate.

The scientific method does not lead to sure and certain knowledge but
rather to approximate and tentative, but never-the-less useful,
knowledge. This is the best that can be done: General epistemological
arguments, dating back to the ancient Greeks and amplified at various
times since, eliminate {\em all} claims to nontrivial sure and certain
knowledge. In all areas of knowledge, testing against observations is a
powerful filter especially when coupled with predictive power. This
filter is particularly useful in eliminating superstition,
pseudo-science and bogus claims of divine revelation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: B.~Davids is thanked for carefully reading the
manuscript. The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada is thanked for financial support. TRIUMF receives federal
funding via a contribution agreement through the National Research
Council of Canada.

History and Philosophy of Physics (physics.hist-ph); Physics Education (physics.ed-ph); Physics and Society (physics.soc-ph)

The Scientific Method