What is Science?

[InfiniteNow]

Howdy Troll!

 

 

That is, basically, what I have been trying to convey to Atheists. They are prime examples of irrational thought in support of reason - if they are a bastion of reason, why can they not decide on anything?

 

Not even what to call themselves :cup:

 

Just want to point out to you that atheism is not a system of beliefs, nor an ideology, but the rejection of one. Much like we don't have "a-racists" or "a-tooth fairy believers" or "a-Zeusians," it is just a term describe someone who is not theist. It is not a system of beliefs, and therefore suggesting that people need a collective label so you can more easily bash them is fallacious.

 

If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color.

[SidewalkCynic]

If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color.

Straw man argument. Bald may not be a hair color, or a tuna sandwich, but it is a hair style; whether the person has a degenerative medical condition resulting in the appearance, or not. Atheism is not a religion, just as theism is not a religion, however, those who organize under the auspices of progressing the membership to such a designation is a religion.

[Pyrotex]

Well, I would hope I could provide the more correct answer for the person who needs a more precise answer. ... Now, you are posing the analogy that science is to carpentry, as if science is something that cannot be defined in efficient terms, or what??? What's your point?

My points are:

1. your initial "definition" of science obviously reflects a perspective that is somewhat naive;

2. your initial "definition" may reflect a hostile attitude toward science;

3. your question isn't so much a request for information or explanation, as it is an opening "salvo" in what may be a trollish attack;

4. I wanted you to see how your question looked from my viewpoint -- thus the carpentry analogy;

5. any attempt on my (our) part to answer your question must be predicated on:

....5a. how knowledgeable are you of science, its history and its practices?

....5b. what is your intention in being here?

....5c. how far back into the elementary basics of "science" do I need to go to begin an adequate answer to your question?

 

We have lots of folks visit here who truly have a thirst for knowledge, or curiosity about a particular subject, or something they want to share.

 

We also have some folks who come here with a personal vendetta against "science" (for various reasons).

 

I'm just trying to make your visit here as comfortable and as productive as I can. Welcome to Hypography. :cup:

[sanctus]

Pyro, can you elaborate on "theories are based on evidence"? Because a theory can also be developed on a beginning of the style:"let's assume that" and then see if evidence supporting this can be found.

 

A best example is inflation, we have an uniform temperature over all the sky (the monopole part of it at least or to fluctuations of order 10^-5). One then looks for a theory which can explain this, what we have now is:"let's assume we had an inflationary era, this explains amongst other the uniform temperature (which is the evidence)".

But there are working alternatives to inflation, but it is still a scientific theory, although not based on direct evidence (inflaton never seen), only indirect (uniform temperature, etc.)

[Pyrotex]

...That is, basically, what I have been trying to convey to Atheists. They are prime examples of irrational thought in support of reason - if they are a bastion of reason, why can they not decide on anything? Not even what to call themselves :cup:

Well, by the same logic, ...

 

if religions are a bastion of truth, why can they not agree on anything? Not even what to call themselves. You see? :) It works both ways!

 

And why would you want to convey anything to atheists? (BTW, the word "atheist" is merely a descriptive adjective -- it is NOT a formal name, and therefore is never capitalized.)

[Pyrotex]

Pyro, can you elaborate on "theories are based on evidence"? Because a theory can also be developed on a beginning of the style:"let's assume that" and then see if evidence supporting this can be found....

I would be happy to.

 

There is no purpose or reason for generating a "theory" unless there exists hard evidence that is in need of explanation. By "evidence", I mean any facts and observations and such.

 

You see trees all around you. So did your parents and grandparents. You take it all for granted. It is the natural order of things for there to be trees. Nobody needs an explanation. It never occurs to anyone to create a "theory of why there are trees".

 

But you leave your home and find yourself in the Sahara Desert. You read travelers' reports of islands with no trees, mountains with no trees. Then you begin to wonder, "why does MY home have so many trees?" You have acquired facts, evidence, that raises a question. You want to answer that question. So, you begin the process of formulating a "theory" as to why YOUR home has trees, when so many other places do not.

 

And of course, to validate your theory, you will almost certainly have to go out and collect MORE evidence! :cup:

 

Does that help?

[Pyrotex]

Straw man argument.....

BTW, Sidewalk, you obviously do not even BEGIN to grasp what a "straw man argument" is.

Stop using it, until you do some research and figure out how to use that term correctly.

 

Yup, you're likely just another troll. :cup: :) ;) :lol: :lol:

 

BTW, did you know that most folks like you become trolls because they bitterly resent that (1) they don't even begin to understand something that is so powerful and so important in our modern world, and (2) the effort required to understand it is just waaaaaay more than they want to work at, and (3) they naively think that if they poop on it enough it will just go away?

 

Isn't that fascinating? :lol:

[Jway]

(BTW, the word "atheist" is merely a descriptive adjective -- it is NOT a formal name, and therefore is never capitalized.)

 

Never?

 

American Atheists | About

did you know that most folks like you become trolls because they bitterly resent that (1) they don't even begin to understand something that is so powerful and so important in our modern world, and (2) the effort required to understand it is just waaaaaay more than they want to work at, and (3) they naively think that if they poop on it enough it will just go away?

 

Isn't that fascinating? :)

 

Fascinating and filled with assumptions.

 

Are you working up a theory? :cup:

[GAHD]

First off as an Administrator;

EVERY LAST ONE OF YOU MIND YOUR MANNERS!

 

There is no reason to toss around words like ignorant, self-centered, spiteful, troll, or noob. Nor is there any reason to belittle other forum members. You know who you are and I refer you to the HYPO RULES to remind you WHERE you are.

As a friendly Hypo user;

You see, I think you are equating the industry of science with the definition of science.

 

Although, you make a good analysis of the connotation(sp) that "industry," brings, you basically are disregarding that what ever organization employs scientists is agenda driven, and all the rest of the descriptors. You, just are not identifying all the specifics, because they may not be available, or your idealism of science causes you to disregard.

I think you're confusing Engineering with Science. They use each other but they are distinct things.

Science is a structured approach towards gaining information.

Engineering is applying known information to create something.

 

I think that is the main thing causing your confusion. A genetic scientist learns things about genetics; a genetic engineer applies things scientists have learned to create/alter genetics.

 

 

That is, basically, what I have been trying to convey to Atheists. They are prime examples of irrational thought in support of reason - if they are a bastion of reason, why can they not decide on anything?

 

Not even what to call themselves :lol:

:lol: because Scientists are not usually language masters. They have their own industry specific speech and a good portion of them can't spell worth a damn or hold a 'normal' conversation.

(on a side note, the genes "sonic hedgehog" "superman" and "kryptonite" are prime examples of how non-standardized naming procedures in science have really muddied some waters; those names only makes sense in the specific organism in which they were first discovered, but actually appear in many other genomes)

 

You might want to take a step back and rethink exactly what you're trying to classify.

[Jway]

OP of this thread, originally asked in Q&A, "what is science?" This is not all that OP did in first post, but the question is still there.

 

By my count, of all the people to respond to this thread, 6 posters have so far elected to offer a response to that question. I am interested in gathering those responses together in this post.

 

I find that those who elected to respond directly to the question, have a post that is worded as "science is" and is primarily what I am looking for as I (ahem) gather and organize the data.

 

In post #1, SidewalkCynic, provides the first definition on this thread:

> science is merely the defining of information.

 

In post #3, Infinitenow, provides the second definition:

> Science is a process by which well-defined and falsifiable predictions are put forth to explain the behavior of the natural world, where those predictions are tested, false hypothesis discarded, and every idea scrutinized. These predictions are consistent and repeatable by others with differing views.

 

In post #5, enorbet2, provides the third definition:

> It (science) is a testable system of gathering and organization of data that rejects cruft and places odds on reliability to allow the best possible conclusions of understanding the world.

 

In post #6, yours truly - Jway, provides the fourth definition:

> science is the discipline of observing, testing and forming theories based on axioms.

 

If viewed strictly, science is a discipline that must follow previously agreed upon methodology.

 

In post #11, lemit, provides the fifth definition, which lemit sources as "Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary."

> "What is science?" "[T]he state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding."

 

In post #14, SidewalkCynic, restated his/her definition. I would say this is same as first definition presented on this thread:

> I defined science as the behavior/action DEFINING information

 

In post #16, InfiniteNow, presented comprehensive definition, the sixth one on this thread, which he/she sourced from Wikipedia:

> Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice.

 

In its more restricted contemporary sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

 

In post #26, while I typed up this post, GAHD provided 7th definition:

> Science is a structured approach towards gaining information.

 

____________

 

Okay, so we have seven definitions. And at risk of being redundant, I'm going to restate them here again, minus who said them, or what is the source. I am making ever so slight modifications to some, and if anyone disagrees with these modifications, I'm sure you will let me know.

 

#1: science is the behavior/action defining information.

#2: Science is a process by which well-defined and falsifiable predictions are put forth to explain the behavior of the natural world, where those predictions are tested, false hypothesis discarded, and every idea scrutinized. These predictions are consistent and repeatable by others with differing views.

#3: Science is a testable system of gathering and organization of data that rejects cruft and places odds on reliability to allow the best possible conclusions of understanding the world.

#4: Science is the discipline of observing, testing and forming theories based on axioms. If viewed strictly, science is a discipline that must follow previously agreed upon methodology.

#5: Science is the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.

#6: Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice. In its more restricted contemporary sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

#7: Science is a structured approach towards gaining information.

 

And there you go. If anyone wishes to add another definition in this thread, feel free to copy and paste the 7 above and add yours next, sequentially. More to say, I have, but will do that in another post.

[Jway]

I think my main question is, are we on this thread developing a consensus given the definitions put forth?

 

My related questions are:

- do you observe much overlap or some overlap in the presented definitions?

- do you think some definitions are in harmony, while others are "wrong?"

- if yes to the above, do you think the ones you might rule out are based on who said it?

- do you see conflict and disagreement in the definitions?

 

And my responses to these questions I ask will follow here in just une memento. First, I'd like to observe and put forth that there sure as heck appears to be not one (consistent) definition for science, among humans, on a science forum. I see no two definitions that are identical. In other areas of this forum, in recent days, I've seen criticism that seems related. That because there is no consistent definition on a concept (i.e. mystics), it is therefore (whatever). What I felt like I was hearing is, without a consistent definition, it is invalid. Or subjective and thus couldn't be considered scientific. But if we apply that same logic to the concept of "science," I'm going to make a bold prediction here that the devout believers in the proverbial room, will sing a different tune. IOW, there will be far more tolerance to the lack of consistent definition that comes with the term "science."

 

Anyway, here are my responses to the questions I asked above.

 

- are we on this thread developing a consensus given the definitions put forth?

> I believe we are, though I believe if we do, it will be partly to mostly because of my recent posts which exposed the differences and allowed posters to clarify and demonstrate overlap in what has been presented so far.

 

- do you observe much overlap or some overlap in the presented definitions?

> Some overlap. I find it interesting to observe the first word(s) after "science is" in the definitions put forth so far. That shows up as:

- science is the behavior

- science is a process

- science is a testable system

- science is the discipline

- science is the state

- science refers to a system

- science is structured approach

 

On this basis, strictly speaking, I see very little overlap. If I replaced "science" with "religion" in above short phrases, and went elsewhere and offered up my many definitions, I believe fellow humans would say, "sounds like you don't have a consistent idea of this this term you refer to." And if they were rude or abrasive, they would tell me (I think) that I obviously haven't thought this through and given the disparity, the term is nonsensical and invalid. If I said, "but, but, but you see, some of my friends, we all came up with these definitions. We are working on consensus." I think the abrasive people in the room would say, "well you and your friends have failed. One of these may be permissible, but they can't all be. Here you have it as a state, there you have it as a behavior, there an approach, here a system. It's all across the board and thus is very inconsistent."

 

- do you think some definitions are in harmony, while others are "wrong?"

> I think none of the definitions are wrong. While I might not see, on the surface, the harmony, I do believe that discernment finds harmony in each of the definitions. I believe I could make a case for each of the 7 presented so far as applicable to scientific practice, even if the applied definition is partial. Some would be more challenging than others, like the Meriam-Webster one, but given time and consideration, I believe I could come through.

 

- if yes to the above, do you think the ones you might rule out are based on who said it?

> I wouldn't rule any out, so this question doesn't apply to me.

 

- do you see conflict and disagreement in the definitions?

> I for sure see differences and incongruity. But IMO, that is on the surface. If anyone who stated any of these, or anyone who supports any of these, were to show up as rigid and insist one or two are true and the rest are false, then I believe there would be conflict and disagreement. Especially if I'm in the room and equal discussion time is permitted. I wouldn't rule any out, and if there are contributors to a consensus saying that some are automatically ruled out, there would be conflict on the surface. Beneath the surface, I believe the conflict would be made up, and has little to nothing to do with the definitions, and everything to do with bias and agenda.

[lemit]

Jway,

 

A lot of those definitions of "science" dip into the definition of "scientific method." To separate the two is like separating human biology from oxygen. I think one of the problems in this discussion has been that separation and the encumbent limpness of a definition of science.

 

I still have no idea what the "science industry" is, except probably another straw man. (There are enough straw men around here to bed down a herd of cattle.)

 

I have no idea why you asked about the child on the staircase. Was that to bait oversensitive science types? I'm not a scientist, to paraphrase Voltaire, but I will defend those science types to the death.

 

I am an editor. I look at language. There's some strange language in your original post. It raised my eyebrows. The muscles of my forehead are getting tired. I'd like to know why you asked about the "science industry" and why you put that child on that staircase. The child wasn't there before you put it there. From your phrasing of the question, the child seems to have been minding its own business and doesn't deserve the calumny that's been indirectly heaped on it.

 

The child and my eyebrows deserve some relief.

 

--lemit

[freeztar]

Something you have not considered, Jway, is that many people do not really know what science is. Fwiw, the same could be said of religions too.

 

So, when I see a definition of science that is incorrect (having studied science for many years), I dismiss it. It's not agenda driven - other than to seek truth.

 

The wiki definition is great. Other than to muddy the waters with our own personal interpretations and feelings about science, I don't see why we need to look for a definition beyond this. :lol:

[Jway]

Jway,

 

A lot of those definitions of "science" dip into the definition of "scientific method." To separate the two is like separating human biology from oxygen. I think one of the problems in this discussion has been that separation and the encumbent limpness of a definition of science.

 

First, I would hope you realize that I am not posting as SidewalkCynic.

 

Secondly, in Wikipedia's first depiction of science, it is not intertwined with (scientific) method. Like myself, Wikipedia talks along lines of, "in a strict view..."

 

I still have no idea what the "science industry" is, except probably another straw man.

 

I see it as a relatively new concept. Earlier I guessed it is an(y) attempt to standardized science as discipline and education. I'm not saying that is the right way to look at the term, but given the parameters, I think I'd come close, while remaining general. Essentially, if science (for you) must be tied in with (particular) method, then I think "science industry" applies.

 

I have no idea why you asked about the child on the staircase. Was that to bait oversensitive science types?

 

Again, I'm not the one who asked that question. I did respond though that "yes" - a child exercises science when walking - down a staircase.

 

I predict, based on the vague proposition put forth that the child will proceed in a downward direction while walking on the staircase. It's mundane. It's perhaps shallow, but IMO, science applies.

 

I've heard people say to me on forums, "are you typing on a keyboard? That's science!" I've heard several such quips as "evidence" of science at work in my life / our lives. So, a person can exercise science without awareness of methodology. I grant that for some people in the room, that is debatable and or "wrong." IMO, it is common sense, and acceptance of the basics of this takes nothing away from scientific practice. I believe it actually, technically adds to it. But in my worldview, it is not only science being exercised. You can exercise science and spirituality (for example) all in the same moment. It really is just a matter of perspective.

[GAHD]

My responses to Jway's related questions are:

- do you observe much overlap or some overlap in the presented definitions?

In a broad sense, yes I do.

• #2,3,&4. They all condense down into the scientific peer-review methodology of refining theories.
  
• #1 &5 Condense down into; Science is storing and retrieving information.
  
• #7 Condenses into "Science is the structured discovery of information."
  
• #6 Attempts to combine all of the above.
  

 

- do you think some definitions are in harmony, while others are "wrong?"

I'll note that many of the definitions mix "science" with "scientific method", The dictionary approach to dealing with this convoluted meaning "(science's) more restricted contemporary sense..." indicates how modern usage of the terms has caused near synonymous meanings. Not surprising when you consider the evolution of word meanings in the English language itself.

EG Speed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R53Rrp-vmqw&feature=channel_page

 

- if yes to the above, do you think the ones you might rule out are based on who said it?

nope. It's a matter of dialect.

- do you see conflict and disagreement in the definitions?

as above.

[lemit]

Jway,

 

I am really sorry about the misattribution. I don't know what I was thinking, if anything.

 

I'm beginning to feel a little like David Letterman. I should word-process an apology so I can cut-and-paste it onto pretty much every thread I'm on.

 

To whomever it may concern (probably SidewalkCynic, but I haven't done the wordprocessing yet, so I'll leave it vague), I don't think the child on the stairway is anything besides a child on a stairway. If I knew the age of the child, its experience with stairways, and such other information, I might be able to theorize, but I remember using the stairs of the antebellum house where I grew up many times that were not in any way an exercise of science.

 

Just to get it out of the way, I sincerely apologize to everyone, everywhere.

 

--lemit

[Jway]

My uncle Elroy in 'Bama says an internet apology will not do. He expects you to apologize in person. He said if you show up, he'll have vittles and possum ready for eating. If interested, just PM me and I'll give you his address. He's really good people, especially if you don't feel a need to discuss his glass eye.