How do you define SCIENCE?

[YoursTrue]

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.

 

[exchemist]

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.

The definition you quote looks fairly good to me. The only supplementary point might be that the observation and experimentation needs to be as objective as possible, a goal which in practice is sought by the requirement that results obtained should be reproducible.

 

[YoursTrue]

The definition you quote looks fairly good to me. The only supplementary point might be that the observation and experimentation needs to be as objective as possible, a goal which in practice is sought by the requirement that results obtained should be reproducible.

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.

 

[exchemist]

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.

For example, in the case of evolution, the tree of life predicts certain types of intermediate forms should be discoverable, in strata of intermediate ages. And this is what we find. (Observation of fossils is obviously reproducible, as anyone can go and study a fossil once it is found.)

One example is feathers to enable birds to fly. For years people knew evolution predicted these must have appeared at some point before the first flying birds appeared and it was a puzzle. But then, they found fossils of feathered dinosaurs in China. And since then other traces of feathers, on other dinosaurs, have been found.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Testing of theories and hypotheses is what science is all about. One has to be bold enough to make a model and then have reasonable tests that would falsify it if it was wrong.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I think the OP has a workable definition for science.

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

 

[ChristineM]

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.

 

[ChristineM]

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.

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.

Which looks very much like the definition you gave

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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

^ what could possibly go wrong?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I would note that everyone should be careful about other definitions of words in the definition of science.


For example, the word “evidence”.
A misinformed person might hypothesize that. — “If there is a God, who responds to prayers, and interacts one on one with human beings,
—> then people will pray, and some of them will have their prayers answered.” “Now all we need to do is find reproducible evidence to support my hypothesis.”

Hmmmmm……
1. Billions of people pray.
2. Many of these people report having their prayers answered.

“There you go. The evidence supports the hypothesis.”

Additionally, since you require reproducibility in these results, I present to you- -
3. Millions of other people, all of whom regularly pray, have their prayers answered.

. Ergot: God exists.

 

[Pete in Panama]

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.

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.

 

[Whateverist]

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 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.

 

[Secret Chief]

Anyone said "peer reviewed" yet?

 

[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.

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.

 

[Jimmy]

Beakers, dinosaurs, planets and Einstein

 

[Alien826]

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.

Aha! That's actually true, but it omits the real strength of the scientific method. In your example, we have a hypothesis that states that water is not wet. Is it falsifiable? By that we mean, is there some test we can do that will demonstrate that the hypothesis is wrong? I know! Let's stick a finger in a glass of water. We do that and note that the water adheres to the finger (I think that's a correct definition of "wet"). The hypothesis is is falsified, and the "body of knowledge" is amended to remove that hypothesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would note that everyone should be careful about other definitions of words in the definition of science.


For example, the word “evidence”.
A misinformed person might hypothesize that. — “If there is a God, who responds to prayers, and interacts one on one with human beings,
—> then people will pray, and some of them will have their prayers answered.” “Now all we need to do is find reproducible evidence to support my hypothesis.”

Hmmmmm……
1. Billions of people pray.
2. Many of these people report having their prayers answered.

“There you go. The evidence supports the hypothesis.”

Additionally, since you require reproducibility in these results, I present to you- -
3. Millions of other people, all of whom regularly pray, have their prayers answered.

. Ergot: God exists.

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

 

[Subduction Zone]

Anyone said "peer reviewed" yet?

I do not think so. Though letting others know one's findings and why (publishing) is a clear part of the scientific method. Making scientific discoveries is pointless if one does not share the information.

 

[Secret Chief]

I do not think so. Though letting others know one's findings and why (publishing) is a clear part of the scientific method. Making scientific discoveries is pointless if one does not share the information.

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

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Some people do have that attitude, and it is because there are soooooooooooooo many "scientific discoveries" that avoid the route of peer review that are shown to be terribly wrong. Who still remembers "Cold Fusion"? That was done by chemists with almost no knowledge of nuclear physics. Physicists that understood the science knew that they were wrong because the sort of "radiation" that they claimed to have observed was wrong. But since there was such a hullabaloo about it there were peer reviewed articles that refuted it. One topic that I know of where the claimants did not peer review their work was in the making of a vehicle that could travel directly downwind faster than the wind (in effect sailing into its own headwind). It was first argued on paper. Then small models were made and tested. Both outdoors and even better indoors in the equivalent of a "wind tunnel". Except that in this case a treadmill was used. And finally a man sized vehicle. And its accomplishments were certified by both the world's leading land sailing organization and that standard of first, most, and greatest, Guinness

It was an interesting process to observe.