The Essence of Science

[sandy whitelinger]

I came across this and wondered if you think this describes the essence of science:

"Science is the determination to establish differences."

Is this accurate?

 

[danieldemol]

No, science consists of examining falsifiable claims to determine if they can explain the known evidence.

 

[Sunstone]

I'd say the essence of science was intersubjective verifiability. The main features of science seem either to be logically implied by that one principle, or are at the very least, logically combatible with it.

Those features include some form of naturalism, empirical observation, reproductablity, making hypotheses, falsification, and peer review -- to name just some.

 

[Sunstone]

I came across this and wondered if you think this describes the essence of science:

"Science is the determination to establish differences."

Is this accurate?

Just curious, but in what context was it said, "Science is the determination to establish differences."

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It was a discussion on the difference between the nature of a scientist and an artist.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I'd say the essence of science was intersubjective verifiability. The logic of science seems to rest upon that one principle.

And how do you establish intersubjective verifiability?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

No, science consists of examining falsifiable claims to determine if they can explain the known evidence.

And how is that accomplished?

 

[Sunstone]

And how do you establish intersubjective verifiability?

Intersubjective verifiability is a big, intimidating word-string for a very simple principle. It is the simple principle that something should be capable of being verified by two or more "subjects" -- that is, people. For instance, I say, "I can see a tree over there", you take a look and report, "I can see a tree too". We have just intersubjectively verified that there is a tree over there.

Intersubjective verifiability, simple as it is, appears to be the logical foundation of the sciences. For instance, once you grant intersubjective verification, you are practically committed to one form or another of naturalism (usually methodological naturalism).

 

[Sunstone]

It was a discussion on the difference between the nature of a scientist and an artist.

Thanks! Artists and scientists are closer in temperament and attitude than artists and scientists often think they are. At least I think so.

I don't know why anyone would say that the essence of science is the determination to establish differences, though. Especially if they mean to say science is in that respect different than art.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Intersubjective verifiability is a big, intimidating word-string for a very simple principle. It is the simple principle that something should be capable of being verified by two or more "subjects" -- that is, people. For instance, I say, "I can see a tree over there", you take a look and report, "I can see a tree too". We have just intersubjectively verified that there is a tree over there.

Intersubjective verifiability, simple as it is, appears to be the logical foundation of the sciences.

And how did they know it was a tree?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Thanks! Artists and scientists are closer in temperament and attitude than artists and scientists often think they are. At least I think so.

The scientist claimed the artist was different than him. The artist replied that the only difference was the scientist's desire to see differences.

 

[Sunstone]

And how did they know it was a tree?

I'm not sure the question makes much sense in this context other than to say the two observers could have compared the methods they each used to observe the tree to determine that they were observing the same thing, and then have mutually agreed to call what they were observing a "tree".

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I'm not sure the question makes much sense in this context other than to say the two observers could have compared the methods they each used to observe the tree to determine that they were observing the same thing, and then have mutually agreed to call what they were observing a "tree".

Ultimately they determined it's a tree by comparing to things that aren't trees. Ie. It's not a vine or a fern or a rock etc.

 

[Sunstone]

Ultimately they determined it's a tree by comparing to things that aren't trees. Ie. It's not a vine or a fern or a rock etc.

Here, I would disagree with you, Sandy. I agree with those scientists and philosophers of science who say that in science you define what things are via operational definitions. At least, defining things operationally is the ultimate or ideal way of doing it -- although in practice it's often too cumbersome to do that,. so you take shortcuts.

To define something operationally, you do not need to compare something to what it is not in order to define it.

 

[Nakosis]

The scientist claimed the artist was different than him. The artist replied that the only difference was the scientist's desire to see differences.

That's kind of profound in a way but I don't think it was meant as a critique on the essence of science.

Like maybe the nature of a scientist is to identify differences while the nature of an artist is to identify similarities.

 

[osgart]

I could be wrong, but the essence of science is to use theory and logic to extract evidence of a useful law in the tangible world. It is to answer how questions, not necessarily why questions.
And works a two way street of proceeding from evidence to establish a theory, and also creating a theory that is testable to find evidence.

So to me, science tries to uncover the logic of cause and effect applicable to reality. Either they do that, or they shut up and calculate.

Everything of their philosophies hinges on whether or not it is workable with the evidence to test. String theory is very elegant, but can you test it, and quantum mechanics has so many inexplicable qualities too it, that they go for what works instead of concerning themselves with philosophical implications.

I think science needs the guidance of philosophy myself. And science likewise can throw philosophy into being useless.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Aren't the mechanisms for

Here, I would disagree with you, Sandy. I agree with those scientists and philosophers of science who say that in science you define what things are via operational definitions. At least, defining things operationally is the ultimate or ideal way of doing it -- although in practice it's often too cumbersome to do that,. so you take shortcuts.

To define something operationally, you do not need to compare something to what it is not in order to define it.

Can you give me a simple example of this?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I could be wrong, but the essence of science is to use theory and logic to extract evidence of a useful law in the tangible world. It is to answer how questions, not necessarily why questions.
And works a two way street of proceeding from evidence to establish a theory, and also creating a theory that is testable to find evidence.

So to me, science tries to uncover the logic of cause and effect applicable to reality. Either they do that, or they shut up and calculate.

Everything of their philosophies hinges on whether or not it is workable with the evidence to test. String theory is very elegant, but can you test it, and quantum mechanics has so many inexplicable qualities too it, that they go for what works instead of concerning themselves with philosophical implications.

I think science needs the guidance of philosophy myself. And science likewise can throw philosophy into being useless.

It seems to me that you are discussing scientific method. Let me ask you this, if nothing were different how would science exist? How would you determine a plant from an animal?

 

[David T]

In c

It was a discussion on the difference between the nature of a scientist and an artist.

In context to that it's partially true but you have introduced a topic that this forum is generally clueless about . Art. Art is a very difficult topic. Bob Dylan couldn't figure out the bible I would like to know exactly how a normal person can possibly have any clue to much of anything? I will allude to art here, but the form doesn't allow dialog. I think in my experience art can only be dialoged about it really alludes being written about. Jung approaches it but only in certain limited ways. Freud is a normal individual he is completely clueless. Btw I actually own jungs red book, gorgeous work. I also never talk about art in separation from nature but in context to nature. That also is generally missing in most art discussions. I think for the artist nature must be primary science and or religion secondary. When science or religion becomes primary we are discussing accedemic departments. That little nuthouse called the ivory tower I stay out of. But hell it sure seems popular. Its what kills Friedrich and Carl nietztche.

 

[Sunstone]

Aren't the mechanisms for

Can you give me a simple example of this?

Operational definitions are almost never very simple in practice since they involve defining something by listing every step, procedure, or "operation" you make in observing it. That's why you usually take short cuts when defining things. The usefulness of the term "operational definition" is mainly to philosophers of science who posit the procedure as an ideal or ultimate means of determining what something is in the sciences. But here might be a simple operational definition:

I pass an electric current through a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen contained in a glass vessel. The mixture explodes. I then observe a liquid that was not present before the explosion. I run a number of tests to determine that the liquid is water. If someone now asks me, "What do you mean by saying that 'hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water'.", I tell them what I just wrote. That is, I operationally define what I mean by saying, "I passed an electric current through...." etc etc.