How do you define SCIENCE?

[YoursTrue]

Hmm.

Let me try this as a first draft:

Science is the systematic, principled and rigorous attempt, maximizing objectivity, to explore, describe and if possible explain the entities, states of affairs and phenomena found in reality.

('Reality' means objective reality, the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses.)

hmm, phenomena. My first impression before consulting with dictionary is that a phenomena is something that really cannot be explained. Here is one dictionary definition: " fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question:" (in question...the cause or explanation..")

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

(Not getting into that part now...about supporting evidence) Have a good one, as the saying goes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ok. I am basically centering on the idea of testing theories right now. No, I'm not drifting apart with my next comment, but wonder how some people might figure the earth is flat. I think they're called "flat-earthers," not sure.

One first creates a model. For example on the globe Earth the air is held on by the force of gravity. That means that the pressure is due to the weight of the air above you. That allows us to make predictions of not only the pressure dropping off as one goes higher and there being not as much air above you, by going up you are above that air so it can no longer push down on you, but if one measures the density of the air at sea level one can predict how much the pressure will drop as one goes up. It would take some calculus to set up the equation and it has been far too long since college for me to try it now. But it could be done. So if the air pressure does not drop at close to the predicted rate then we would know that there is something wrong with that model. If the air pressure stays the same or even worse goes up we know that there is something seriously wrong with that model. Parts of it would be clearly false.

So that is a way that one could test the globe Earth If one had an accurate enough barometer and a tall enough building one could test it that way.

Meanwhile Flat Earthers refuse to create a Flat Earth model. Or hypothesis. That is why it is not science. It is their belief, it is up to them to support it with a model. As it is there can be no evidence for the Flat Earth since the flerfs will not make a proper scientific model.

 

[Ella S.]

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.

I would like to agree with this. However, I think it is worth pointing out that there technically is no singular scientific method.

Yes, the core of science is done by creating models which give us hypotheses and we develop experiments in an attempt to falsify these hypotheses. However, not all of science is this straightforward.

Some of science is done by researching new data without a hypothesis at all. Some of science is done by analyzing the experimental and research data that has been gathered in order to form conclusions that do not quite reach the level of a model. It is also worth noting that some scientists are focused almost entirely on theoretical disciplines and conduct no experiments themselves, sometimes with doubts about whether their models are testable at all, such as in the case of String Theory.

I propose that science can be better thought of as composed of four primary philosophical elements; empirical investigation, methodological naturalism, epistemic humility, and critical rationalism. It is from the combination of these four philosophies that we can ascertain the common, simplified notion of a "scientific method" but the actual philosophy of science is more complex than that.

Of course, in practice, there is a distinction between "science" in the sense of the philosophy of science and "science" in the sense of the academic sciences. The latter is where doctorates, peer-review, scholarly journals, university funding, and so on are involved.

Anyone who practices the former (philosophy of science) without being a part of the latter is called an amateur scientist, which some might argue is not a scientist at all. (ETA: Although people in this category are also sometimes called skeptics, critical thinkers, and freethinkers, too, and they tend to congregate in skeptic movements.)

Many people in the latter category (academic scientists) are not well-read on the philosophy of science or do not consistently adhere to it outside of the confines of their job, despite using developments in philosophy of science like Popper's principle of falsification in a narrow, formalized way in their career. This is why we have figures like Michio Kaku who is quite capable in his own field but often peddles pseudoscience regarding fields outside of his own expertise. This is mostly a good thing; it means that individual scientists are free to have a diverse range of beliefs and worldviews while still being able to contribute to the growing body of human knowledge. The downside is that lay folk can make arguments such as, "this neuroscientist believes in an afterlife, so that means that an afterlife is compatible with science," which is completely and fundamentally wrong.

Ideally, academic scientists would have a firm grasp on the philosophy of science and how it relates to their field. Universities do generally touch on the subject in doctorate programs, but I think many scientists end up forgetting much of what they learned, do not know how to cohere their intellectual knowledge with practice, or simply manage to get through doctorate programs without ever fully learning these fundamental concepts to begin with due to the subject not being fully taught or not being a major part of their grade. And, honestly, why would it need to be? The doctorate shows that they are capable of holding a career conducting research in their field, and that's enough for the practice of science.

This is a long way of saying that I think it's worth remembering that science is a lot more messy and nuanced than the concept of a unified "scientific method" tends to imply. We can keep talking about a scientific method, of course, but I think we need to keep in mind that it is an oversimplification that comes with baggage and qualification.

 

[Pete in Panama]

ok. I am basically centering on the idea of testing theories right now. No, I'm not drifting apart with my next comment, but wonder how some people might figure the earth is flat. I think they're called "flat-earthers," not sure.

Ah yes, for me what the flat-earthers show is the limitations of logic and reason. I could argue that the earth is flat --logically-- and if you were "reasonable" you'd have to concede that my points are correct. However Instead of logic I end up switching to other criteria for truth to debunk the flat-earther claims.

See, I can wander off topic like the best of 'em....

 

[incites]

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 to me is how i get knowledge as well as from math too but belief i get from scriptures n its not knowledge but belief however if my belief happens then i will know n no longer need to rely on belief to keep true but i suspect i will die not knowing the truth i trust in as i cant prove belief as being true but they also cant disprove ur belief as true while knowledge u think is true but your knowledge is subject to errors misteaks n being wrong since ur human n nobody understands the words they use to speak the things they claim as u wont fibd one who knows special quality of belief or even what knowledge is to say they have any......

 

[incites]

science to me is how i get knowledge as well as from math too but belief i get from scriptures n its not knowledge but belief however if my belief happens then i will know n no longer need to rely on belief to keep true but i suspect i will die not knowing the truth i trust in as i cant prove belief as being true but they also cant disprove ur belief as true while knowledge u think is true but your knowledge is subject to errors misteaks n being wrong since ur human n nobody understands the words they use to speak the things they claim as u wont fibd one who knows special quality of belief or even what knowledge is to say they have any......

truth is hard to find when u dont know but i tell u its easy to understand as lies are complicated to trick u so that u dont know the truth but believe in lies that u trust in n will not even listen when it is said.....but heres something i learned not to long ago that they wont tell u as ur expected to learn it on ur own but they dont care about how u feel nor why but only in what u do about how u feel so best service to others is to not let ur evils effect others

 

[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.

So with that in mind I was thinking what is the science behind macroevolution?

 

[blü 2]

hmm, phenomena. My first impression before consulting with dictionary is that a phenomena is something that really cannot be explained. Here is one dictionary definition: " fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question:" (in question...the cause or explanation..")

The word is from the Greek, which transliterates as phainómenon, a thing "being shown," "being perceived".

My dictionaries give as the first meaning of "phenomenon" ─
"anything that can be perceived as an occurrence or fact by the senses."
"a fact, occurrence or circumstance observed or observable."
"a thing that appears, or is perceived or observed; applied chiefly to a fact or occurrence, the cause of which is in question."

They're in order of age, most recent first, and it's the oldest one that agrees with your definition. But just to be clear, what I meant here accords with the first two definitions.

Interesting point!

 

[HonestJoe]

(Not getting into that part now...about supporting evidence) Have a good one, as the saying goes.

Meaning that you need the precise answer you're looking for (regardless of it's validity or accuracy) so you can set up your "cunning" logical trap to dismiss particular scientific conclusions that you don't like. Have you considered the reason it's so difficult for you to push the answers you're getting in the exact direction you want?

 

[HonestJoe]

So with that in mind I was thinking what is the science behind macroevolution?

And right on cue, there it is.

I'll just say here that the science behind "macroevolution" is exactly the same as the science behind "microevolution". It's just the same process on different scales, without even a distinct line between them.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

My first question is 'What is wrong with this definition?'

 

[shunyadragon]

If it's not in a journal it didn't happen

Odd response. Does that translate to 'Does the refrigerator light stay on when the door is closed?'

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

AIG and the Discovery Institute have catch-22 provisions in their 'Constitution' that the literal understanding of the Bible takes precedence over science.

 

[PureX]

My first question is 'What is wrong with this definition?' ... "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:"

I thought it was a pretty good definition, though I would remove the word "evidence" and replace it with "data". As science is not seeking any "evidence" of anything.

 

[shunyadragon]

hmm ok. I guess it's the "testing of theories against the evidence obtained" that makes me wonder -- about certain things. But thanks for answer.

Specifically 'What makes you wonder?'

Science is always subject to new discoveries and research that revises and updates previous research and discoveries. It is the basis of Methodological Naturalism that theories and hypotheses that are falsified may be subject to change when new knowledge and discoveries provide new information.

 

[shunyadragon]

How I define it...

A method to validate what you believe to be true.

Science cannot validate 'What you believe is true.'

 

[wellwisher]

Statistical science is not pure science, since it has watered down rules, for falsification. The weather man or weather woman can get it wrong, time and time again, using the results of statistical based weather science, but they will still have a job. Rational theory does not have that watered down luxury of getting self falsification ignored.

When cold fusion was thought to have been demonstrated a decade or so ago, other labs tested the theory and nobody could reproduce it. Since that time, the claim is now considered refuted. The weather man using statistical science can get it wrong day after day, and even falsify their own claims; bad call, but nothing happens. Why the dual standard with one so tough, and the other so soft?

If Cold Fusion had used a statistical black box game and said they have beat the odds, which were like winning the lottery or finding like in there galaxy, that unique day, they may have got a prize. Instead they were trying to stay casual, so this if this did happen, it could be rationally scaled into the energy industry. Rational gets less mercy or less benefit of the doubt.

This soft approach, allows politics to enter the science arena, and endorse what is allowed to linger, even if falsified. I do not think it is right that one aspects of science gets to over ride its own self falsification. The early models of global warming were always too high. Yet the theory lingered, due to the casino math pass, even after the annual self falsification. Like the weather man, people sweep falsification under the rug, and watch it again.

Medical Science is the same way. Blanket statements can be made about behavior and health; black box studies. These may be true for some, but one can also find exceptions that can falsify any global theories. Yet this science remains, because it is connected to a black box and the whims of the gods.

This is not the fault of science, since they have lab coats. It is the fault of the interceding gods of dice and cards. There is a religious element to this version of science, based on faith in faceless and formless gods, not called gods, who make rational and accountable theory, next to impossible. This area of science needs slack, since it not the fault of science but of the whims of the faceless gods who are not called gods.

I do not trust science that can buffer itself from falsification. This allows poor and incomplete theory to linger and then become sold as rational science by politicians.

Say the many religion started to use statistical studies, to make it harder to falsify religion. They can use the whims of the faceless gods, who are not called gods, of the black box, to add uncertainty that then has to be forgiven. The mistake that religion makes is it tries to be rational with its foundation premises, and not take the easy road that dice and cards have to offer. Evolution uses uncertainty, so falsification does not apply.

 

[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.

I like that one

 

[YoursTrue]

I thought it was a pretty good definition, though I would remove the word "evidence" and replace it with "data". As science is not seeking any "evidence" of anything.

It isn't? There are theories aren't there? And in order to substantiate the validity of a theory, what do you think is needed?