How do you define SCIENCE?

[Nakosis]

The discussion is about SCIENCE -- Creation -- and religion. How do you define science, first of all? One definition of science: (yes, I know there are different "branches" of science, but looking for a broad definition):
Science: "The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained:"
If possible, limit discussion to the definition of SCIENCE before striking out to other areas.

How I define it...

A method to validate what you believe to be true.

 

[exchemist]

That's one common definition, and another involves the body of knowledge of the scientific community. By this definition science can hold that water is not wet if the majority says so.

But they don’t of course.

And there is no such definition of science, to my knowledge. What source can you cite that defines science this way?

 

[HonestJoe]

The discussion is about SCIENCE -- Creation -- and religion.

Three separate topics for one thread? That seems over ambitious. Why not stick to the one you actually want to discuss?

How do you define science, first of all?

Like most words, contextually. I think what you quoted is a fairly reasonable general definition, though I don't see the necessity of limiting the concept to the "physical and natural world". Scientific method could theoretically be applied to anything that could be consistently observed (and note that is distinct from "can currently be observed by humans").

 

[Whateverist]

Maybe, but let's understand that the scientific method is a wonderful tool for searching for the truth, and the scientific community is right a lot of the time --arguably most of the time.

It isn’t perfect or foolproof but for empirical questions it is the gold standard, of course.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think the OP has a workable definition for science.

With this out of the way, what was it you were wishing to debate?

If you are directing this to me, I only wish to learn, not really debate but I didn't know where else to post the question.

 

[YoursTrue]

Three separate topics for one thread? That seems over ambitious. Why not stick to the one you actually want to discuss?

Like most words, contextually. I think what you quoted is a fairly reasonable general definition, though I don't see the necessity of limiting the concept to the "physical and natural world". Scientific method could theoretically be applied to anything that could be consistently observed (and note that is distinct from "can currently be observed by humans").

Contextually to me right now means whatever goes or suits your fancy. I mean there's science in the lab and I guess there's science about outer space. Plus.

 

[YoursTrue]

Three separate topics for one thread? That seems over ambitious. Why not stick to the one you actually want to discuss?

Like most words, contextually. I think what you quoted is a fairly reasonable general definition, though I don't see the necessity of limiting the concept to the "physical and natural world". Scientific method could theoretically be applied to anything that could be consistently observed (and note that is distinct from "can currently be observed by humans").

Some say that science can be applied to astrology.

 

[YoursTrue]

Three separate topics for one thread? That seems over ambitious. Why not stick to the one you actually want to discuss?

Science applied to...oh back to definition of science again. I'm slow. Testing of theory?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some say that science can be applied to astrology.

That was Behe. It demonstrated how bad his "science" was.

 

[SalixIncendium]

If you are directing this to me, I only wish to learn, not really debate but I didn't know where else to post the question.

Fair enough. Thanks for the answer.

 

[YoursTrue]

Fair enough. Thanks for the answer.

(OK.) Thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

I define science the same easy as i define (and learned the meaning of) all words.

The OED (Oxford English Dictionary)

Science: the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.

Yup, that's what I'm basically wishing to stick with.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's one common definition, and another involves the body of knowledge of the scientific community. By this definition science can hold that water is not wet if the majority says so.

Please explain how that fits in with the following: Science: "The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained:"
(My thing now is testing...could be some of you guys know where I'm going with this, but if not, I'll just let it lay for a while hopefully. )

 

[YoursTrue]

I am a bit confused. What reasonable test would refute that "hypothesis"?

(I hope you can get an answer that's "reasonable." )

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please explain how that fits in with the following: Science: "The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained:"
(My thing now is testing...could be some of you guys know where I'm going with this, but if not, I'll just let it lay for a while hopefully. )

Testing is a very important part of science. And I know that you are still stuck in science denial. You seem to believe that the theory of evolution cannot be tested. Or that the Big Bang cannot be tested. There is no shame in being ignorant of how those concepts are tested.

So why not come out openly and ask "How is this tested?" The "this" is where you have to be specific in what you think needs to be tested. It probably already has been.

 

[Subduction Zone]

(I hope you can get an answer that's "reasonable." )

I probably won't. There was at least one scientific study of the efficacy of prayer. The results were not good.

 

[YoursTrue]

How I define it...

A method to validate what you believe to be true.

I'll go with that to an extent.

 

[YoursTrue]

Testing is a very important part of science. And I know that you are still stuck in science denial. You seem to believe that the theory of evolution cannot be tested. Or that the Big Bang cannot be tested. There is no shame in being ignorant of how those concepts are tested.

So why not come out openly and ask "How is this tested?" The "this" is where you have to be specific in what you think needs to be tested. It probably already has been.

You are so wrong about your estimation of my science denial.

 

[YoursTrue]

I probably won't. There was at least one scientific study of the efficacy of prayer. The results were not good.

It depends on the prayer. But I won't go into that now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are so wrong about your estimation of my science denial.

You regularly confirm that you are a science denier. What makes you think that you are not one?