How do you define SCIENCE?

[YoursTrue]

Your problem with science isn't the science -- it's you. It seems to work amazingly well -- enough to have invented all the technology, pharmaceuticals and chemistry that you take for granted every day. Explain to me how an MRI can take cross-section pictures of the inside of your body without making any cuts -- that will tell you how much you actually understand about how science works.

That does not explain evolution and it certainly suggests there are powers that are way beyond us, although we may have the ability to harness some of them.

 

[YoursTrue]

Reproducible observations, resulting in a hypotheses, tested by further observation, as I explained in post 4. Why is this hard for you to grasp?

The hypothesis does not validate the theory at all.

 

[YoursTrue]

Reproducible observations, resulting in a hypotheses, tested by further observation, as I explained in post 4. Why is this hard for you to grasp?

Reproducible such as smaller or larger beaks? Shorter or longer legs? Birds remain birds, humans stay as humans, there's nowhere to go beyond that with any substance. Speculation, yes. Actuality, no.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

I do not think that you understand the concept of scientific evidence. It is something that a scientist hopes to find. It has its heart in the scientific method itself. In the scientific method one creates models and then tests them. In other words one tries to refute them. This idea is foreign to those that are not in the sciences. It may seem that one is trying to ruin one's work. What a scientist does is to make new models and it is much better to show that one is wrong oneself than to have other people repeat one's work and be able to point out the errors made by the scientist.

So yes, "evidence" is a perfectly fine word since it arises from tests designed to show that the idea is wrong if it is wrong. Scientific evidence are observations that support or oppose a scientific theory or hypothesis. They cannot "prove" that the idea is right, but they can show that the idea is wrong. Once one gets enough tests that the idea passes one can be reasonable sure that it is at least somewhat correct. The evidence in no way prove the idea beyond being refuted. It is rather similar to legal evidence which only "proves beyond a reasonable doubt". That has to be in the context always of "what we know now". People at times are exonerated because it can be shown that earlier conclusions were faulty. No conviction should ever be taken as an absolute just as no law or theory should ever be taken as an absolute.

Okay, rant over, but there is nothing wrong with the term "evidence" if one understands the concept.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The hypothesis does not validate the theory at all.

Correct. It is the observations that validate the theory or hypothesis. It seems that you were not following the conversation. And yes, when it comes to evolution the observations do validate the theory. You do not get to just deny scientific evidence. Scientific evidence puts the burden of proof upon the denier. If you only deny that is no different in effect from lying.

 

[YoursTrue]

Your inability (or unwillingness) to understand doesn't mean it isn't true.

There are plenty of logical answers to explain the various aspects and processes involved in evolution. Some of them are very clear and others are much more speculative (though not necessarily wrong) and plenty have been developed, expanded or even replaced as more evidence has been discovered. There is no singular definitive answer but nobody is saying that there is. That's how science works.

Maybe you should go back to understanding what science means, not coming up with a literal definition you can spin to fit your preconceived conclusions about things that you feel impact your religion but actually understanding what science is and how it works to reach conclusions. Maybe focusing on a much less complex and controversial subject area for that.

Forget the definition unless you want to apply it to theories. When you do, pick a definition, then go to the theory.

 

[Pete in Panama]

That goes without saying and is why, in science, the door is always ajar for new insights that show current theory to be wrong or incomplete.

--agreed, and the reason we got into this was back when I said--

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.

--and you said--

But they don’t of course...

So we've reached an agreement that sometimes the scientific community is wrong. Now we can go to your other point--

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

When I typed in "define science" into my DuckDuckGo search engine I got--

science​

sī′əns
noun​

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. A systematic method or body of knowledge in a given area.

The third definition mentions the "body of knowledge". With global warming taking center stage most folks seem to defend it by referring to that 97% that agrees, regardless of any personal observations. Thus the "body of knowledge" definition appears to be coming in more use than that of a method of inquiry.

 

[YoursTrue]

--agreed, and the reason we got into this was back when I said--

--and you said--

So we've reached an agreement that sometimes the scientific community is wrong. Now we can go to your other point--

When I typed in "define science" into my DuckDuckGo search engine I got--

science​

sī′əns​

noun​

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. A systematic method or body of knowledge in a given area.

The third definition mentions the "body of knowledge". With global warming taking center stage most folks seem to defend it by referring to that 97% that agrees, regardless of any personal observations. Thus the "body of knowledge" definition appears to be coming in more use than that of a method of inquiry.

Global warming seems to be clearly to many the likely result of mankind tampering with the atmosphere. The ice age does not imply that.

 

[YoursTrue]

--agreed, and the reason we got into this was back when I said--

--and you said--

So we've reached an agreement that sometimes the scientific community is wrong. Now we can go to your other point--

When I typed in "define science" into my DuckDuckGo search engine I got--

science​

sī′əns​

noun​

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. A systematic method or body of knowledge in a given area.

The third definition mentions the "body of knowledge". With global warming taking center stage most folks seem to defend it by referring to that 97% that agrees, regardless of any personal observations. Thus the "body of knowledge" definition appears to be coming in more use than that of a method of inquiry.

Some people scientifically trained (like my cousin the doctor) do not believe global warming exists.

 

[wellwisher]

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.

There is also the contrast between pure and applied science. Pure science is often very specific and/or theoretical. It attempts to understand and characterize natural phenomena down the tinies and largest scales. All the details of water alone took hundreds of scientists and grad students decades. That data is part of the engineering tool box used by applied scientists.

Applied science needs highly confirmed theory, that can be extrapolated, is scalable, and applicable to large scale reality processes. The applied scientists needs to work with the best; most realistic of science theory, since not all science has practical value. String Theory might be able to integrate lots of variables, but this is not easily scalable to nuke reactor design.

If you need to build a long bridge, you will need sound theory in metallurgy, Civil engineering principles for land development and concrete work, as well sound Physics theory for static and dynamics loads. The bridge and similar applied science projects are like the grandaddy of all verifiable experiments, in the sense they are not always done under controlled lab conditions, but are designed to last for decades, under real world conditions, characterized by pure scientists. Applied scientists are good at sorting through all of science to see what has practical value and what is not designed to be practical, or that which may still need some work, by an applied scientist, before the it can used for an engineering prototype.

One of the problems I have with statistical science is it is too empirical; black box, which is a no no in applied science. The applied scientists has to go beyond a controlled experiment in a lab. Any lack of certainty, can be hazardous in real world conditions. This is why medicines take so long to approve. Medicine fail to have a clean rational connection, so they need a long term correlation, which is softer than a practical theory. A good theory can be used as foundation premise but a correlation is too disconnected for extrapolated logic; compounding uncertainty.

Climate science uses statistical modeling. Although this can be useful in terms of characterizing the variables of climate, it is not as useful for the applied science that will be needed, for the real world solutions to reverse the harmful affects. It is more useful for the front end, but not quite in the middle, needed to handoff and interface applied science. I am concerned with politicians, thinking they are the applied scientists, and can use empirical data and throw money at climate to solve a complicated rehab problem, without making it worse.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That does not explain evolution and it certainly suggests there are powers that are way beyond us, although we may have the ability to harness some of them.

Want to know why you can't see evolution? It's because you refuse to acknowledge how many, many small changes can lead to quite radical change overall. A standard movie is shot at 24 frames per second, and if you look at each frame -- one after the other -- you can't easily discern any difference whatever. But at the end of 2 hours, the movie you were watching will have a last frame that doesn't look anything like the first, 172,800 tiny changes separating the two.

 

[Ella S.]

There is also the contrast between pure and applied science. Pure science is often very specific and/or theoretical. It attempts to understand and characterize natural phenomena down the tinies and largest scales. All the details of water alone took hundreds of scientists and grad students decades. That data is part of the engineering tool box used by applied scientists.

Applied science needs highly confirmed theory, that can be extrapolated, is scalable, and applicable to large scale reality processes. The applied scientists needs to work with the best; most realistic of science theory, since not all science has practical value. String Theory might be able to integrate lots of variables, but this is not easily scalable to nuke reactor design.

If you need to build a long bridge, you will need sound theory in metallurgy, Civil engineering principles for land development and concrete work, as well sound Physics theory for static and dynamics loads. The bridge and similar applied science projects are like the grandaddy of all verifiable experiments, in the sense they are not always done under controlled lab conditions, but are designed to last for decades, under real world conditions, characterized by pure scientists. Applied scientists are good at sorting through all of science to see what has practical value and what is not designed to be practical, or that which may still need some work, by an applied scientist, before the it can used for an engineering prototype.

One of the problems I have with statistical science is it is too empirical; black box, which is a no no in applied science. The applied scientists has to go beyond a controlled experiment in a lab. Any lack of certainty, can be hazardous in real world conditions. This is why medicines take so long to approve. Medicine fail to have a clean rational connection, so they need a long term correlation, which is softer than a practical theory. A good theory can be used as foundation premise but a correlation is too disconnected for extrapolated logic; compounding uncertainty.

Climate science uses statistical modeling. Although this can be useful in terms of characterizing the variables of climate, it is not as useful for the applied science that will be needed, for the real world solutions to reverse the harmful affects. It is more useful for the front end, but not quite in the middle, needed to handoff and interface applied science. I am concerned with politicians, thinking they are the applied scientists, and can use empirical data and throw money at climate to solve a complicated rehab problem, without making it worse.

I agree with much of what you have said here. I think I might even agree that the applied sciences are more important than the theoretical sciences, although bearing in mind that much of the innovations in applied science could not have come about without advances in theoretical science.

My only stipulation, and it is a rather small one, is that we do understand how to test whether a correlation is causative or not. Confusion between correlation and causation is mostly an issue with the politicians you mention who play merry hell with the data, but most scientists are well-trained on this topic in particular.

 

[YoursTrue]

Want to know why you can't see evolution? It's because you refuse to acknowledge how many, many small changes can lead to quite radical change overall. A standard movie is shot at 24 frames per second, and if you look at each frame -- one after the other -- you can't easily discern any difference whatever. But at the end of 2 hours, the movie you were watching will have a last frame that doesn't look anything like the first, 172,800 tiny changes separating the two.

I am not saying there are not "small changes" in an organism. But there is no evidence -- nothing that SHOWS there are "small changes" leading from fish, let's say as the theory goes, to humans. Nothing. Now if you can SHOW anyone (not just me) that there are definite SMALL changes leading from fish to humans, I'll go with that. But there is none. Likewise, there is nothing to show that genetic changes, small or large (if there are any), in mankind (humans) demonstrating that they lead to something other than humans. The argument that it's slow is like a sponge that dried up already.

 

[Ella S.]

I am not saying there are not "small changes" in an organism. But there is no evidence -- nothing that SHOWS there are "small changes" leading from fish, let's say as the theory goes, to humans. Nothing. Now if you can SHOW anyone (not just me) that there are definite SMALL changes leading from fish to humans, I'll go with that. But there is none. Likewise, there is nothing to show that genetic changes, small or large (if there are any), in mankind (humans) demonstrating that they lead to something other than humans. The argument that it's slow is like a sponge that dried up already.

Do you know what happens when you have a bunch of small changes in a row over an extremely long amount of time? You end up with a big change from where you started.

 

[John53]

Reproducible such as smaller or larger beaks? Shorter or longer legs? Birds remain birds, humans stay as humans, there's nowhere to go beyond that with any substance. Speculation, yes. Actuality, no.

This is the same thing you've been saying in numerous threads and it still doesn't make sense. Birds are a class (Aves) of the kingdom Animallia comprising thousands of different species. Humans are a species Mammals in the kingdom Animallia. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Or are you claiming every species of bird is the same? An Emperor Penguin is exactly the same as a House Sparrow?

Or are you claiming all birds evolved from a common ancestor?

 

[Pete in Panama]

Some people scientifically trained (like my cousin the doctor) do not believe global warming exists.

For me it's interesting as all hell, the way various foiks from different back grounds approach the topic. It's all so polarized in that there's no big average folk, it's all one side or the other.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Global warming seems to be clearly to many the likely result of mankind tampering with the atmosphere. The ice age does not imply that.

My experience is that there's a whole lot of "seems to be" w/ AGW.

 

[YoursTrue]

My experience is that there's a whole lot of "seems to be" w/ AGW.

The question could be...is there global warming?

 

[YoursTrue]

This is the same thing you've been saying in numerous threads and it still doesn't make sense. Birds are a class (Aves) of the kingdom Animallia comprising thousands of different species. Humans are a species Mammals in the kingdom Animallia. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Or are you claiming every species of bird is the same? An Emperor Penguin is exactly the same as a House Sparrow?

Or are you claiming all birds evolved from a common ancestor?

I'm saying that insofar as what is SEEN, birds remain birds, fish remain fish. That's it. Anything beyond that is... speculation.

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you know what happens when you have a bunch of small changes in a row over an extremely long amount of time? You end up with a big change from where you started.

Simply no observation and of course the answer I get is that there is not enough time to observe...