How do you define SCIENCE?

[Subduction Zone]

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

They tried to be as fair as possible. I do believe that at least one of the studies was done by a largely Christian group that followed both the Bible and the scientific method.

 

[Pete in Panama]

And another might hold that anything one can find in a book on science can be cherry picked to support any conclusion one likes with an equal claim of thuthiness or scientificalness. That seems to be what we find in AIG materials, not that that is any reflection on Christianity more generally.

That may be true, but we were talking about common definitions of science, not popular pastimes.

 

[Pete in Panama]

But they don’t of course.

Most of the time, however sometimes the scientific community is wrong:

• 20 of the Greatest Blunders in Science in the Last 20 Years
• Famous Scientific Theories That Were Proven Wrong - Grunge
• When Great Scientists Got It Wrong : NPR
• Take That Back: The Top Scientific Retractions of 2019 - Live Science
• These are science's Top 10 erroneous results
• Sometimes Science Is Wrong - Scientific American

(more here)

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

Good point, but let's take this one thing at a time. Are we agreed that while most of the time the scientific community is correct that sometimes they can be wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Most of the time, however sometimes the scientific community is wrong:

• 20 of the Greatest Blunders in Science in the Last 20 Years
• Famous Scientific Theories That Were Proven Wrong - Grunge
• When Great Scientists Got It Wrong : NPR
• Take That Back: The Top Scientific Retractions of 2019 - Live Science
• These are science's Top 10 erroneous results
• Sometimes Science Is Wrong - Scientific American

(more here)

Good point, but let's take this one thing at a time. Are we agreed that while most of the time the scientific community is correct that sometimes they can be wrong?

Yes, science is wrong sometimes. But it s wrong very rarely. The Bible was wrong in many ways in the past and the problem is since there is no method to correct its many errors it is still wrong today. The scientific errors that you pointed out were corrected. Where are the corrections to the Bible?

 

[Pete in Panama]

Please explain how that fits in with the following: Science: "The systematic study of the structure and...

I'm at a loss here, surely you're aware that words can have more than one definition, and there are even times when a word can mean its opposite. More about Contronyms, Janus Words, Antagonyms, Autoantonyms.

 

[F1fan]

Most of the time, however sometimes the scientific community is wrong:

• 20 of the Greatest Blunders in Science in the Last 20 Years
• Famous Scientific Theories That Were Proven Wrong - Grunge
• When Great Scientists Got It Wrong : NPR
• Take That Back: The Top Scientific Retractions of 2019 - Live Science
• These are science's Top 10 erroneous results
• Sometimes Science Is Wrong - Scientific American

(more here)

Good point, but let's take this one thing at a time. Are we agreed that while most of the time the scientific community is correct that sometimes they can be wrong?

And catching mistakes is part of the scientific method. It corrects itself, so is always improving its overall results. It's funny that there is an expectation that science is going to be absolute and perfect, but these are humans investigating new areas of nature as instruments are improved and more data is collected. Also the more instruments improve and cost money, the more about nature can be investigated, and the more money overall is needed to fund it all. We see certain parts of society has disdain for science, usually for religious and/or political reasons, and they they oppose funding as wasteful. Additionally the more science understands about how things are, and the more complex the knowledge, the bigger divide there is between experts and the average citizen. It is easy for the average citizen to read disinformation and believe it and have a negative impression of experts, as we saw during the pandemic and vaccinations. This is related to the disinformation about climate change, and I think is related to the disinformation about evolution. There is a culturally learned contempt for science by coservatives in the USA and this affects how they think and how they vote.

 

[F1fan]

Yes, science is wrong sometimes. But it s wrong very rarely. The Bible was wrong in many ways in the past and the problem is since there is no method to correct its many errors it is still wrong today. The scientific errors that you pointed out were corrected. Where are the corrections to the Bible?

It's called the Quran, right? Or the Urantia Book. Or maybe the Mormon Bible, who knows, religion is a catastrophe.

 

[Hugh I]

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.

Knowledge. Familiarity with facts acquired by personal experience, observation, or study. Facts are things that are known or proved to be true. Truth is a fact or belief that is accepted as true. Science is the observation and interpretation of reality. Reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Proof is evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement. In essence science is the formalized fallible expression of opinion agreed upon.

 

[Pete in Panama]

And catching mistakes is part of the scientific method. It corrects itself, so is always improving its overall results. It's funny that there is an expectation that science is going to be absolute and perfect, but these are humans investigating new areas of nature as instruments are improved and more data is collected. Also the more instruments improve and cost money, the more about nature can be investigated, and the more money overall is needed to fund it all. We see certain parts of society has disdain for science, usually for religious and/or political reasons, and they they oppose funding as wasteful. Additionally the more science understands about how things are, and the more complex the knowledge, the bigger divide there is between experts and the average citizen. It is easy for the average citizen to read disinformation and believe it and have a negative impression of experts, as we saw during the pandemic and vaccinations. This is related to the disinformation about climate change, and I think is related to the disinformation about evolution. There is a culturally learned contempt for science by coservatives in the USA and this affects how they think and how they vote.

So much of what you said was spot on, and about 1/2 way through you made a few statements that could require some thought.

You said "the more science understands about how things are, and the more complex the knowledge, the bigger divide there is between experts and the average citizen". Let's keep in mind that people are becoming more educated and smarter, so the ability of folks to understand complex scientific findings is increasing. My take is that whatever divergence we're seeing is not caused by lack of understanding but rather an emotional desire for a different outcome. Logic tight compartments (the way folks can espouse contradictory ideas for long periods) is another factor. I see humanity as coming around to the truth more and more. In part because many can eventually catch on, and also in part because the old die and are replaced by the more open youth.

You also said you see "a culturally learned contempt for science by coservatives in the USA". If you've decided that this is true and there's no study's findings or anything else I could possibly say that would matter then I'm willing to see this as a hot button topic that I'll have to skip.

 

[F1fan]

So much of what you said was spot on, and about 1/2 way through you made a few statements that could require some thought.

You said "the more science understands about how things are, and the more complex the knowledge, the bigger divide there is between experts and the average citizen". Let's keep in mind that people are becoming more educated and smarter, so the ability of folks to understand complex scientific findings is increasing. My take is that whatever divergence we're seeing is not caused by lack of understanding but rather an emotional desire for a different outcome. Logic tight compartments (the way folks can espouse contradictory ideas for long periods) is another factor. I see humanity as coming around to the truth more and more. In part because many can eventually catch on, and also in part because the old die and are replaced by the more open youth.

I didn’t say citizens weren’t capable of understanding science, i said there is more science out there, and how much time do any of us have to learn it? And i do wonder how much the average student understands about basic science.

You also said you see "a culturally learned contempt for science by coservatives in the USA". If you've decided that this is true and there's no study's findings or anything else I could possibly say that would matter then I'm willing to see this as a hot button topic that I'll have to skip.

Decided? We observe contempt for science all around us, from online debates, to family members, to government officials, and on the floor of congress itself. So I have decided nothing except that I won’t ignore these people exist and influence society in numerous ways that have very negative consequences.

 

[HonestJoe]

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.

No, contextually means recognising that most words can be and are used in lots of very different ways (accurately or not) and so a singular definition can't be clung to as some kind of definitive doctrine in every circumstance. A general definition is obviously necessary and valid, but you also need to accept that there will be multiple definitions and variations.

A fairly basic and largely uncontroversial (other than linguistically) example would be that "science" can be used as a noun or as a verb.

Some say that science can be applied to astrology.

Yes, as I said, science can be applied to pretty much anything. The first step in any case would be to establish a clear hypothesis though, and that generally doesn't exist (and is actively resisted) in fields such as astrology.

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

You already have a definition of science that pretty much all of your relies seem to have generally accepted. You're never going to get anything more definitive than that without a specific context you're talking about (which goes back to my initial point). If you don't move on to something vaguely meaningful soon, your thread is likely to die a slow death.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, contextually means recognising that most words can be and are used in lots of very different ways (accurately or not) and so a singular definition can't be clung to as some kind of definitive doctrine in every circumstance. A general definition is obviously necessary and valid, but you also need to accept that there will be multiple definitions and variations.

A fairly basic and largely uncontroversial (other than linguistically) example would be that "science" can be used as a noun or as a verb.

Yes, as I said, science can be applied to pretty much anything. The first step in any case would be to establish a clear hypothesis though, and that generally doesn't exist (and is actively resisted) in fields such as astrology.

You already have a definition of science that pretty much all of your relies seem to have generally accepted. You're never going to get anything more definitive than that without a specific context you're talking about (which goes back to my initial point). If you don't move on to something vaguely meaningful soon, your thread is likely to die a slow death.

That's ok if it dies. No matter what someone says, go find proof of some well accepted theories. It isn't there. Verification isn't there. That's what I have found out from these posts and many individuals classified as scientists.

 

[YoursTrue]

So much of what you said was spot on, and about 1/2 way through you made a few statements that could require some thought.

You said "the more science understands about how things are, and the more complex the knowledge, the bigger divide there is between experts and the average citizen". Let's keep in mind that people are becoming more educated and smarter, so the ability of folks to understand complex scientific findings is increasing. My take is that whatever divergence we're seeing is not caused by lack of understanding but rather an emotional desire for a different outcome. Logic tight compartments (the way folks can espouse contradictory ideas for long periods) is another factor. I see humanity as coming around to the truth more and more. In part because many can eventually catch on, and also in part because the old die and are replaced by the more open youth.

You also said you see "a culturally learned contempt for science by coservatives in the USA". If you've decided that this is true and there's no study's findings or anything else I could possibly say that would matter then I'm willing to see this as a hot button topic that I'll have to skip.

Many people are under severe conditions because of deteriorating atmospheric complications. Most promoted by greed. (Gas, oil, for example.) Yet the governments spend fantastic amounts on "exploring space." Why, so mankind can settle somewhere else and ruin that atmosphere also?

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm at a loss here, surely you're aware that words can have more than one definition, and there are even times when a word can mean its opposite. More about Contronyms, Janus Words, Antagonyms, Autoantonyms.

It depends who's looking at what. I mean which branch of science is being examined and what majority opinion may be. Even if the conclusions are wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm at a loss here, surely you're aware that words can have more than one definition, and there are even times when a word can mean its opposite. More about Contronyms, Janus Words, Antagonyms, Autoantonyms.

(ok)

 

[Ponder This]

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.

Science is the application and result of the scientific method. Without the scientific method, there is no science.

You can observe all day long, study all you want, and conduct as many experiments as you like, and use whatever system you want, but if the scientific method is not applied, then it's not science. It's psuedoscience.

 

[HonestJoe]

That's ok if it dies. No matter what someone says, go find proof of some well accepted theories. It isn't there. Verification isn't there. That's what I have found out from these posts and many individuals classified as scientists.

Where in your definition of science is the word "proof"? That doesn't technical exist in science, though people often use the word more casually, both in general and about scientific topics specifically (another example of the meaning of a word varying by context).

Theories become well accepted not because of "proof", they become well accepted because there is sufficient evidence that supports them and no evidence that clearly contradicts them or alternative explanations with similar or better supporting evidence.

 

[wellwisher]

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. After that we come to the point where we realize that both the scientific community and the scientific method are limited, and it's our job to figure out what to do when we run into things where the science doesn't apply.

I agree with that.

The question I have is how does the statistical approach to science and to theory verification, affect theory and evidence? If you have two sharp data points, there is only one line length, at one angle, that connects those two sharp points. If you have two fuzzy data points, like we have in statistical experiments, the slope and length of the connecting line can both vary.

For example, Einstein's theories of Relativity have been tested and retested and there are no exceptions. If there was one data point, that did not touch, this discovery would shake the science and physics communities to the core. When you do statistical studies, half the data does not even have to touch the curve. This allows any theory a way to linger. This cheapens theory.

For example, a statistical study may say that too much salt will give you high blood pressure. Say I liked salt, but my blood pressure stays normal. I have falsified the theory, so why is the theory allowed to linger?

As another example, COVID was a very deadly virus with over 1 million people dead world wide. What about the 8 billion people who are still with us? it appears the data against being deadly; falsified, far outweigh the prediction of the deadly, yet the theory gets to linger.

The answer is fuzzy dice science often makes use of emotions, such as fear, with emotion not part of old time science. You cannot be fully objective when you get too emotional, which is why science depends on external evidence like 8 billion people who are still with us. If you are too emotional, you will not see this, due to being focused on the boogeyman, who might get you, if you look away.

Has this statistical approach watered down science and science theory, compared to a time when rational and math logic led science, and emotion was not part of a theory's charm; fear? The state of the art in Physics, today, was done by the 1920's, with the rest, to the present, more or less derivative; post water down.

This is why I am not sure how should we define contemporary science, that uses a watered down standard of evidence, that can keep any theory on life support, using emotions to interface it to politics, gambling and marketing. Winning a lottery, although unlikely, still gives us hope of a good outcome; feelings. While politicians sell and make promise which they do not keep. What are the odds of that?

Would science get better if we did not allow the watered down standard that conflicts with sharp data point evidence and cause and affect?

 

[YoursTrue]

I agree with that.

The question I have is how does the statistical approach to science and to theory verification, affect theory and evidence? If you have two sharp data points, there is only one line length, at one angle, that connects those two sharp points. If you have two fuzzy data points, like we have in statistical experiments, the slope and length of the connecting line can both vary.

For example, Einstein's theories of Relativity have been tested and retested and there are no exceptions. If there was one data point, that did not touch, this discovery would shake the science and physics communities to the core. When you do statistical studies, half the data does not even have to touch the curve. This allows any theory a way to linger. This cheapens theory.

For example, a statistical study may say that too much salt will give you high blood pressure. Say I liked salt, but my blood pressure stays normal. I have falsified the theory, so why is the theory allowed to linger?

As another example, COVID was a very deadly virus with over 1 million people dead world wide. What about the 8 billion people who are still with us? it appears the data against being deadly; falsified, far outweigh the prediction of the deadly, yet the theory gets to linger.

The answer is fuzzy dice science often makes use of emotions, such as fear, with emotion not part of old time science. You cannot be fully objective when you get too emotional, which is why science depends on external evidence like 8 billion people who are still with us. If you are too emotional, you will not see this, due to being focused on the boogeyman, who might get you, if you look away.

Has this statistical approach watered down science and science theory, compared to a time when rational and math logic led science, and emotion was not part of a theory's charm; fear? The state of the art in Physics, today, was done by the 1920's, with the rest, to the present, more or less derivative; post water down.

This is why I am not sure how should we define contemporary science, that uses a watered down standard of evidence, that can keep any theory on life support, using emotions to interface it to politics, gambling and marketing. Winning a lottery, although unlikely, still gives us hope of a good outcome; feelings. While politicians sell and make promise which they do not keep. What are the odds of that?

Would science get better if we did not allow the watered down standard that conflicts with sharp data point evidence and cause and affect?

For some sciences there is conjecture and for real no verification beyond human reasoning and conjecture.

 

[YoursTrue]

Science is the application and result of the scientific method. Without the scientific method, there is no science.

You can observe all day long, study all you want, and conduct as many experiments as you like, and use whatever system you want, but if the scientific method is not applied, then it's not science. It's psuedoscience.

As stated, there is observation. And then we might wonder, ok, how did that happen? like gravity. Or looking at a tree and wonder how did it get there? What mechanisms were put in place? Bad wording about put in place so maybe a more neutral expression could be used.