The Essence of Science

[sandy whitelinger]

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 to 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.

Isn't all of this is just speaking of the scientific method? Why would you put two elements together and run a current through them? Isn't it to see if something different happens. Isn't this the essence of scientific inquiry?

 

[osgart]

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?

We'd all be either plants or animals. You would have to conceptualize about what that means. From eyeball to object, from object to concept, from that the concepts would describe what is, is in fact what it is, and then you would try to see what it does. So we are all basic scientists in a way.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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.

I think it was more that the artist didn't give a crap about differences and could see all things as the same while the scientist wants to separate things into catagories.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

We'd all be either plants or animals. You would have to conceptualize about what that means. From eyeball to object, from object to concept, from that the concepts would describe what is, is in fact what it is, and then you would try to see what it does. So we are all basic scientists in a way.

And the only way to determine a plant from an animal is to compare the differences.

 

[Sunstone]

Isn't all of this is just speaking of the scientific method?

Not necessarily. Since anything can in principle be operationally defined,. it is conceivable that you could operationally define something that had nothing to do with science or with any scientific method. For instance, you could operationally define your spouse.

Isn't this the essence of scientific inquiry?

I don't believe so. I think the essence of scientific inquiry is, logically speaking, intersubjective verifiability. For instance, science is characterized by one or another form of naturalism. But why is that so? Why doesn't science investigate the supernatural along with the natural. The answer is the supernatural cannot be intersubjectively verified, but the natural can be intersubjectively verified. Thus, intersubjective verifiability is key to determining the investigative scope or reach of the sciences.

So far as I can see, the notion that the essence of the sciences is the determination to establish differences does not logically entail some form of naturalism. Thus, it would seem to me to be at the very best a weak and insipid "explanation" for the naturalism of the sciences. The principle of intersubjective verifiability, on the other hand, logically entails naturalism, and therefore strikes me as a robust explantion for it.

 

[robocop (actually)]

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?

Yes. The scientific method is (1) collect information, (2) form a hypothesis (3) test it (4) go back to (2) or accept it (5) draw conclusions and (6) report it.

 

[osgart]

And the only way to determine a plant from an animal is to compare the differences.

And the similarities we will chalk up to ancestry. Right!, than we can prove that out.

 

[shunyadragon]

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?

What is the source? This is too vague. It is simply the nature of human intellect to use certain criteria in many disciplines in a determination to establish differences.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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?

I think its pretty good but still a little vague. While I can't come up with the essence I can refer you to a couple of famous quotes that seem to almost do the job. Accurate measurements are the #1 thing to pursue in Science. Even if you're wrong you've at least got accurate measurements.

"Measure what is measurable and make measurable what is not so" -- Galileo
Quote taken from: Galileo Galilei Quotes


John Dalton discovered that atoms combine in whole number ratios. He was a Scientist before it was typical and considered himself to be a Philosopher. His occupation was as a schoolteacher. Here's a quote by him:

"The cause of rain is now, I consider, no longer an object of doubt. If two masses of air of unequal temperatures, by the ordinary currents of the winds, are intermixed, when saturated with vapour, a precipitation ensues. If the masses are under saturation, then less precipitation takes place, or none at all, according to the degree. Also, the warmer the air, the greater is the quantity of vapour precipitated in like circumstances. ... Hence the reason why rains are heavier in summer than in winter, and in warm countries than in cold." --John Dalton

So he made this determination about rain after doing what? He didn't just think about it or merely ponder it but was forced to consider it. It was his hypothesis formed from years of careful measurements.

Here's a quote about him by Jacob Bronowski:

"Dalton was a man of regular habits. For fifty-seven years he walked out of Manchester every day; he measured the rainfall, the temperature—a singularly monotonous enterprise in this climate. Of all that mass of data, nothing whatever came. But of the one searching, almost childlike question about the weights that enter the construction of these simple molecules—out of that came modern atomic theory. That is the essence of science: ask an impertinent question, and you are on the way to the pertinent answer."

So 1. Make accurate measurements 2. Be methodical, repetitious, tireless 3. Ask impertinent questions or childlike ones based out of those things. 4. Sometimes the data does not suggest anything, so just accept when it doesn't.


(The quotes of Dalton and Bronowski were taken from this page: John Dalton Quotes - 21 Science Quotes - Dictionary of Science Quotations and Scientist Quotes)

 

[Thief]

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?

if you cannot discern one item from another......

 

[dianaiad]

I have often thought that the difference between science and art...or science and religion, or science and philosophy in general, is this:

science attempts to describe what is.
Art/religion/philosophy attempts to explain it.

 

[dfnj]

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?

Science is the activity of building devices to measure nature's behavior. And then come up with a set of mathematics that represent's nature's behaviors based on the measurement device. And then claim the measurement device "proves" something meaningfully intrinsic about nature even though the measurement device is carved in stone bigotry about what it is measuring. Regardless, when you do certain things you blow up stuff and blowing up stuff is cool. Knowing what to do to blow stuff up is what science is all about.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Not necessarily. Since anything can in principle be operationally defined,. it is conceivable that you could operationally define something that had nothing to do with science or with any scientific method. For instance, you could operationally define your spouse.



I don't believe so. I think the essence of scientific inquiry is, logically speaking, intersubjective verifiability. For instance, science is characterized by one or another form of naturalism. But why is that so? Why doesn't science investigate the supernatural along with the natural. The answer is the supernatural cannot be intersubjectively verified, but the natural can be intersubjectively verified. Thus, intersubjective verifiability is key to determining the investigative scope or reach of the sciences.

So far as I can see, the notion that the essence of the sciences is the determination to establish differences does not logically entail some form of naturalism. Thus, it would seem to me to be at the very best a weak and insipid "explanation" for the naturalism of the sciences. The principle of intersubjective verifiability, on the other hand, logically entails naturalism, and therefore strikes me as a robust explantion for it.

You didn't answer the question about why you ran a current through two elements.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So to me, science tries to uncover the logic of cause and effect applicable to reality.

Are not cause and effect "differences?"

 

[sandy whitelinger]

if you cannot discern one item from another......

How can you discern one item from another without noting it's differences?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

if you cannot discern one item from another......

...then science is useless.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

What is the source? This is too vague. It is simply the nature of human intellect to use certain criteria in many disciplines in a determination to establish differences.

It comes from Herman Hesse's novel, "Narcissus and Goldmund."

"Narcissus: 'Yes. You've hit the nail on the head. That's it: to you [Goldmund], differences are quite unimportant: to me, they are what matters most. I am a scholar by nature; science is my vocation. And science is, to quote your words, nothing but the 'determination to establish differences.' It's essence couldn't be defined more accurately. For us, the men if science, nothing is as important as the establishment of differences; science is the art of differentiation. Discovering in every man that which distinguishes him from others is to know him."

 

[Darkstorn]

It comes from Herman Hesse's novel, "Narcissus and Goldmund."

So... It's NOT from a correspondence between an artist and a scientist at all, but between two characters in a fictional story.

So it's actually an argument between one guy and himself. Kinda shoots the point down don't you think?

 

[12jtartar]

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?

sandy white linger,
I would say that True Science is a search for truth, in whatever field is of interest. Therefore we have The Scientific Method, to use. Similar to Philosophy, supposedly!

 

[Curious George]

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?

That is pretty broad and abstract. Though, I would only quibble with "establish." Instead, "explain" is a much better fit as far as fortune cookie definitions go.