What Distinguishes Science from Non-science?

[Sunstone]

What, if anything, distinguishes science from non-science?

The OP question has relevance to many other questions, such as:

* "Are both physics and sociology sciences?",
* "Is 'Creation Science' a true science?"
* "Is there scientific evidence for the notion that vaccines cause autism?"
* "Must all scientific evidence be strictly empirical, as some people claim, or can scientific evidence sometimes be non-empirical (e.g. "Can we say we have scientific evidence that the dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, even though no one has ever empirically observed them living back then?")"
* "Can the creation story found in Genesis be considered scientific knowledge?"
* "Is mathematics a science?"
* "Is Marxism a science?"
* "Are the sciences crucially based on unproven postulates or axioms?"
* "When and where did the sciences get their start?"
* "What is the relationship between the sciences and the religions?"
​

There are at least two aspects to the question of what distinguishes science from non-science. Namely:

a) What, if anything, distinguishes scientific evidence from non-scientific evidence?
b) What, if anything, distinguishes scientific knowledge from non-scientific knowledge?​

There are currently a handful of theories about what distinguishes science from non-science, but no theory has yet gained overwhelming acceptance. For instance, Stephen Jay Gould and others have advanced the notion that science is distinguished from non-science by axioms. That is, science rests on certain axioms that non-science does not rest on. Meanwhile, Thomas Kuhn has advanced the notion that science is inherently a communal endeavor and that what distinguishes science from non-science is the way in which the scientific community functions. There are other theories as well.

The question of what distinguishes science from non-science is a philosophical question, and is known as "the Demarcation Problem".

BONUS QUESTION: Do you agree or disagree with the notion that "the sciences are the most powerful and effective means of inquiry as yet discovered by humanity?" If so, what makes them so powerful and effective? If not, then what is the most powerful and effective means of inquiry? Why?

 

[Kemosloby]

When people say about it "they have it down to a science"

 

[Sha'irullah]

I will have to agree on the end statement that the sciences are indeed the most powerful and effective means of understanding our world. To me the most valid of them all is mathematics which despite how abstract it is leads us to a very quantitative understanding of our world and it is the one science which I feel bridges the gaps between theology, philosophy, sciences and sex.

. . . and yes I find mathematics very arousing. Get over it. Just remember that the number eight is a full figured woman! 8

 

[gnomon]

I'm thinking......there is not much left here.

 

[LuisDantas]

What, if anything, distinguishes science from non-science?

Mostly, method and falseability.

The question of what distinguishes science from non-science is a philosophical question, and is known as "the Demarcation Problem".

And it is hindered by the insistence of some in calling fields such as law and psychanalysis "sciences".

I just can't see how that would work. And don't get me started on "Creation Science" and the like.

BONUS QUESTION: Do you agree or disagree with the notion that "the sciences are the most powerful and effective means of inquiry as yet discovered by humanity?" If so, what makes them so powerful and effective? If not, then what is the most powerful and effective means of inquiry? Why?

I sure do agree. Not to belittle more personal journeys, but there is no question in my mind that science has no rival.

 

[YmirGF]

It's all about the spiffy lab coats. Scientists got 'em and the tin foil hat brigade has old pullovers.

As to the bonus question. How could anyone with an IQ greater than a grape argue the point?
The neat part about science is if you are so inclined and have the funding you can duplicate the work of others or take us beyond current understanding. (The last part is not as easy as it sounds.)

 

[The magical volleyball]

What, if anything, distinguishes science from non-science?

The OP question has relevance to many other questions, such as:

* "Are both physics and sociology sciences?",
* "Is 'Creation Science' a true science?"
* "Is there scientific evidence for the notion that vaccines cause autism?"
* "Must all scientific evidence be strictly empirical, as some people claim, or can scientific evidence sometimes be non-empirical (e.g. "Can we say we have scientific evidence that the dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, even though no one has ever empirically observed them living back then?")"
* "Can the creation story found in Genesis be considered scientific knowledge?"
* "Is mathematics a science?"
* "Is Marxism a science?"
* "Are the sciences crucially based on unproven postulates or axioms?"
* "When and where did the sciences get their start?"
* "What is the relationship between the sciences and the religions?"
​

There are at least two aspects to the question of what distinguishes science from non-science. Namely:

a) What, if anything, distinguishes scientific evidence from non-scientific evidence?
b) What, if anything, distinguishes scientific knowledge from non-scientific knowledge?​

There are currently a handful of theories about what distinguishes science from non-science, but no theory has yet gained overwhelming acceptance. For instance, Stephen Jay Gould and others have advanced the notion that science is distinguished from non-science by axioms. That is, science rests on certain axioms that non-science does not rest on. Meanwhile, Thomas Kuhn has advanced the notion that science is inherently a communal endeavor and that what distinguishes science from non-science is the way in which the scientific community functions. There are other theories as well.

The question of what distinguishes science from non-science is a philosophical question, and is known as "the Demarcation Problem".

BONUS QUESTION: Do you agree or disagree with the notion that "the sciences are the most powerful and effective means of inquiry as yet discovered by humanity?" If so, what makes them so powerful and effective? If not, then what is the most powerful and effective means of inquiry? Why?

It seems you are under an assumption that there is an alternative to science. But if science is thE study of everything then what other kind of inquiry is there?

The scientific method is simple
1. Ask a question
2. Propose a theory that answers question
3. Gather evidence and perform tests
4. Calculate and evaluate results
5. Repeat

The power in this method is that it works. The more times a theory can survive going through this process the stronger it becomes. If a theory becomes strong enough it can become law.

I find that the biggest problem that science faces is the dispute of what is evidence and what is assumption of evidence. For example when looking at how life was created on earth, some people look for evidence by examing life as it currently exists and how life use to exist (fossils), calculating how much evolution took place over periods of time. Other people look for evidence in ancient manuscripts, which may or may not be true and were written by people of unknowable character.

The best part about scientific theories is that it rarely gives you the definitive answer you want but rather the most likely answer you need.

 

[HonestJoe]

What, if anything, distinguishes science from non-science?

I think the best approach to this question is to think of “science” as a verb rather than a noun. We’re not talking about whether objects and concepts are science, we’re talking about whether practices and procedures are scientific.

Evidence is ultimately just raw data and we can manage the same data in entirely scientific or entirely unscientific ways. Within identified scientific fields, individuals and groups can behave in unscientific ways (intentionally or not) and within non-scientific fields, individuals and groups can behave in scientific ways. That means many of your questions are unanswerable. You can’t simply say whether physics or sociology are science because those terms cover a vast range of different things and people (with lots of fuzzy edges).

The form of your questions are obviously based on established social conflicts, where some people wish to define what they do as “scientific” (and therefore valid and true) and what their opponents do as “unscientific” (and therefore invalid and false). Their opponents are often trying to establish the exact opposite of course. One thing that is scientific is to lift yourself beyond all the social politics behind those disputes are view neutrally from the outside.

A couple of your questions I think are distinct though;

* "Must all scientific evidence be strictly empirical, as some people claim, or can scientific evidence sometimes be non-empirical (e.g. "Can we say we have scientific evidence that the dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, even though no one has ever empirically observed them living back then?")"

A side point but it’s worth noting that there is empirical evidence for dinosaurs. We don’t need to witness something directly for the evidence to be empirical. We can logically infer a conclusion from indirect empirical evidence.

* "When and where did the sciences get their start?"

Long before any records I’d say. Arguably, whenever the first intelligent animal was able to make a logical connection between two things, say hearing a roar meaning a predator is nearby (rather than reacting instinctively to the noise). Early humans must have engaged in some form of scientific processes as they worked out basic things like creating fire, avoiding poisonous plants, making basic metals etc.

* "What is the relationship between the sciences and the religions?"

None what-so-ever. Or at least no more than between science and any other human pursuit or concept. There is absolutely nothing special about religion in this context.

BONUS QUESTION: Do you agree or disagree with the notion that "the sciences are the most powerful and effective means of inquiry as yet discovered by humanity?" If so, what makes them so powerful and effective? If not, then what is the most powerful and effective means of inquiry? Why?

I’d probably go as far as “The best means we have”. I think formal scientific method is the best are right means, the problem is the deep flaws in fundamental human nature and our extensive limitations mean that we’re not able to make the best use of it and much of the problem is out unwillingness to accept those limitations.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My answer: 150

 

[Sunstone]

When people say about it "they have it down to a science"

What reason(s) or grounds would someone have for saying "they have it down to a science"?

 

[Sunstone]

It seems you are under an assumption that there is an alternative to science. But if science is thE study of everything then what other kind of inquiry is there?

Are you suggesting it is impossible to study the same subject using two or more distinct methods of inquiry? If so, what is your reasoning for such a conclusion?

 

[Kemosloby]

What reason(s) or grounds would someone have for saying "they have it down to a science"?

If there is guesswork it would be an art, once the guesswork is gone they have it down to a science.

 

[Sunstone]

I think the best approach to this question is to think of “science” as a verb rather than a noun. We’re not talking about whether objects and concepts are science, we’re talking about whether practices and procedures are scientific.

That's a good point! I think it is vital to realize that science is in some crucial sense defined by its "practices and procedures". However, so far as I am concerned, those practices and procedures produce bodies of knowledge that we may also call "science". So, although you might not, I see the sciences as both methodologies and bodies of knowledge.

 

[Sunstone]

If there is guesswork it would be an art, once the guesswork is gone they have it down to a science.

How do you eliminate guesswork?

 

[Kemosloby]

How do you eliminate guesswork?

Best as you can.

 

[YmirGF]

What reason(s) or grounds would someone have for saying "they have it down to a science"?

In my addiction to Diablo III from Blizzard, I have the art of raising a Level 1 baby to the Paragon Level system (entry level 70) down to a science as I follow a proven methodology to make it happen. Anyone using my methodology would experience the same result. In other words, it's not my imagination, the process can be readily duplicated. My record for doing this (Level 1 to Level 70) is currently 23 minutes (solo) though it can take as long as 90 minutes for a group. What makes this neat is that upon the start of a new playing season it takes approximately 24 hours for the average player to hit Level 70 and thereby entering into the Paragon Level System. (I could blather on about this for several hours, so feel free to tell me to shut up already.) Likewise, I have trained a fellow pixel murderer to do the same process.

It all starts with an existing uber-enhanced character with extremely high DPS and that is able to interact rapidly with the monster density in a given dungeon.... *audience falls asleep* ... or terrain map.... *several hours pass* ....

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Mostly, method and falseability.

And it is hindered by the insistence of some in calling fields such as law and psychanalysis "sciences".

I just can't see how that would work. And don't get me started on "Creation Science" and the like.

I sure do agree. Not to belittle more personal journeys, but there is no question in my mind that science has no rival.

Yup. I agree with @LuisDantas on each point in ?his? post. Adding only to the first part, that 'method and falseability' includes 'replicability'.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think science is the study and discovery of identifiable truths, both objective and subjective in nature.

 

[McBell]

My answer: 150

Please show your math.
The reason I request it is because I got 42...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My answer: 150

Please show your math.
The reason I request it is because I got 42...

• Question 1 = T or 1
• Question 2 = F or 0
• Question 3 = F or 0
• Question 4 = T or 1
• Question 5 = F or 0
• Question 6 = T or 1
• Question 7 = T or 1
• Question 8 = F or 0

• T F F T F T T F = 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 B = 150 dec