What is Science?

[Rade]

I have posted this elsewhere. Look at the word 'science', it comes from the Latin word, scientia, which is from scire, to 'know'. To know what ? To know 'information'. If your worldview is that it is not possible to have perfect knowledge of information then you have the worldview of the scientist. Thus,

 

Science is uncertain knowledge of information.

 

Or, perhaps you like better the definition of Richard Feynman:

 

Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts

[Jway]

No. I do not believe that replacing a defective part is really a science. However, the reasoning behind the replacement is scientific. I also do not think it's fair to compare replacing a car part to repairing the Hubble.

By replacing the gears in the car, you're enabling yourself to drive to the grocery store.

By replacing the mirror of a telescope, you're allowing yourself to explore the universe, and learn more about how galaxies form, about the life cycle of stars, etc. You're expanding human knowledge.

 

How about if you are replacing the gears in the car, so you can drive to the space lab, and maneuver Hubble to look around and discover phenomenon in space?

 

Funny that you said it's not fair to compare the two, and then you compared the two. Maybe not funny - ha ha, but interesting.

 

I could see 100 years ago, similar discussion where your 1909 counterpart said:

By replacing the stirrup on you're saddle, you're enabling yourself to explore a measly little prairie.

But by replacing the gears in a automobile, you're enabling yourself to go places and do important things that will advance life for humanity much more efficiently. You're expanding human knowledge.

[Boerseun]

Science is the process whereby information is used to derive conclusions which can be used to make predictions with - based on certain rules of what is allowable and what not, not unlike the rules of admission of evidence in law.

 

Thus, the guy fixing the Hubble telescope is not doing science, he's applying the results of prior scientific experiments - you turn a nut clockwise, you tighten it. You turn it anti-clockwise, you loosen it. If you don't know which way to tighten a nut, you perform an entirely valid scientific experiment: You turn it both ways and you see which way works. That is legitimate science, and the results of your experiment (tightening the nut) can be used fruitfully in the future. You can them make further enquiries into the matter, as to why the nut loosens or tightens. You will discover such magical things like threaded bolts and threaded nuts, and what the thread does.

 

"Science" as a word is used metaphorically as well. And confusion might set in when you don't know which metaphor is referring to what. A pile of microscopes, petri dishes, centrifuges etc. might be described by the casual onlooker as a "pile of science", but it clearly is not. It's merely microscopes, petri dishes, centrifuges etc.

 

But Science, itself, is an unambiguous process. Before an experiment is conducted, the methodology is carefully noted. And if the methodology does not comply to the rules and allows ambiguous results to slip through because of it, then that experiment wasn't scientific, and the results aren't "science" - even if the people involved were under the impression that it was.

 

I don't think there's a lot of confusion as to "what" might be considered "science", and what not.

[Mercedes Benzene]

How about if you are replacing the gears in the car, so you can drive to the space lab, and maneuver Hubble to look around and discover phenomenon in space?

No. That would not be science. That's not actually participating in something that expands knowledge. That's doing something that will allow you to go to where you can expand knowledge.

 

Funny that you said it's not fair to compare the two, and then you compared the two. Maybe not funny - ha ha, but interesting.

I never said I played fairly. ;) That's colloquialism for, "It's not fair to think of the car example as science, but it's perfectly fair to call the telescope example science."

 

I could see 100 years ago, similar discussion where your 1909 counterpart said:

By replacing the stirrup on you're saddle, you're enabling yourself to explore a measly little prairie.

But by replacing the gears in a automobile, you're enabling yourself to go places and do important things that will advance life for humanity much more efficiently. You're expanding human knowledge.

Okay. So clearly my original point has expanded into an argument of the semantics of just one point of what I was saying. Perhaps if shown a picture of an astronaut repairing the Hubble, a child would identify it as science because of the actual telescope. So we can ignore the guy dong repair work? My point was: even a child is able to identify science. The Hubble epitomizes scientific endeavor (and the problems with Big Science... but that's for another thread).

[Qfwfq]

John is in the bathroom urinating, so as to relieve the discomfort which was preventing concentration on his research work. He can then return to the lab and resume his chemistry analysis. So, is urinating in the bathroom science?

 

No, because John is doing R&D for an industry, the aim of his work is to help improve profitability. It is technology, not science.

 

Show a kid a picture of an astronaut and they'll say that's science. No, it's exploration. Like engineering and technology, it's also, similarly, related to science.

 

Just want to point out to you that atheism is not a system of beliefs, nor an ideology, but the rejection of one.

Actually, one who rejects beliefs is an agnostic. Atheism is a dogmatic religion and its commandment is:

 

"God does not exist and Paul Dirac, InfiniteNow and Pyrotex are his prophets."

[Boerseun]

Actually, one who rejects beliefs is an agnostic.

An agnostic is someone who holds that the existence or non-existence of God is unknowable.

 

An atheist is a person who does not feature theism, or the belief in any deity, in his life. They do not have any dogmas they follow.

 

Although if they had prophets, I guess INow and Pyrotex would've made spiffy men of the acloth.

[SidewalkCynic]

Show a kid a picture of an astronaut and they'll say that's science. No, it's exploration. Like engineering and technology, it's also, similarly, related to science.

Exactly, the kids, probably, draw incorrect conclusions because of the enormous amount of correct details that they have not been introduced to. And this is not only applicable to kids, but adults, as well.

 

Now, I am wondering if there are three (or are there more?) operations that can be identified with the root of technology: science, engineering, and operations. All of which contribute to the expanding and better detailing of technology.

[Mercedes Benzene]

No, because John is doing R&D for an industry, the aim of his work is to help improve profitability. It is technology, not science.

Profitability is a result of science! Sure it's done for profit. But the actual R&D is not profit. The actual R&D in a lab is applying previously gained scientific knowledge and coming up with novel work that you hope results in a final product. You're applying the universal laws of chemistry, or biology, or physics and you're using it to achieve something.

 

You can't just stand at a fume hood and say, "Okay. Today I'm going to make a profit for my company," and expect the cash to start flowing in. How are you going to achieve that? You're going to use science. You're doing work that directly applies past knowledge, and leads to new knowledge.

[Larv]

An agnostic is someone who holds that the existence or non-existence of God is unknowable.

 

An atheist is a person who does not feature theism, or the belief in any deity, in his life. They do not have any dogmas they follow.

I see four categories pertaining to belief or non-belief in a god:

 

1. Theist = one who believes in a god.

2. Atheist = one who does not believe in a god.

3. Agnostic = one who is unsure if there is or isn't a god to believe in.

4. Untheist = one who believes it doesn't matter if there is or isn't a god.

[enorbet2]

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.

 

I sincerely hope this post is taken in the context of at least a sampling of my posts here and I suppose that if I am stepping too far out of line, it appears I will be told, However I just have to say that I was far more offended by the opening line of your response, GAHD, than I was by any other single post in this thread. My initial response was near disbelief and I felt like posting "Gee, Dad, thanks for stepping in and setting all us kids straight". I decline at this point to do so but note my reaction in the only way I can to demonstrate perspective as a legitimate response to what I see as a heavy-handed, broad-brush and slightly hypocritical edict guilty of the very thing it is condemning.

 

This forum keeps me coming back and compelling me to contribute exactly because it seems a well-organized, feature full, friendly and largely intellectually driven archive of human discourse and dialogue. It consider it worthy of note that although I suspected that the original 3 questions and especially the 3rd were likely a "bait and ambush" tactic so often seen here and elsewhere, it was also possible that instead of being a perpetrator of such combative nonsense it could have been someone who had been exposed to such and simply wanted an opposing view, so I was polite in my post. Therefore I took considerable offense at such a broad collectivist remark as "every last one of you" in large bold font no less.

 

Subsequent to my response it is my regarded opinion that the OP is indeed a perpetrator of "bait and ambush" and not someone sincerely seeking dialogue to measure and be considered in his own conclusion. His mind was made up when he posted, IMHO.

 

I am not offended by such words as "ignorant" since it is a real and curable condition unlike "stupid" which may have been sufficient to warrant a strong response but certainly not the one to which we were subjected. Similarly, "self-centered" is a real condition and when used to identify or even propose that someones words seem to be leaning that way is not necessarily an insult. "Spiteful" and "troll" also are real phenomena here and I think deserve to be identified when discovered, albeit without undue malice. "Noob" I take zero offense at since it is my opinion that if one is not a "noob" at something one is resting on laurels and learning absolutely nothing new. I am continually a "noob" even if expert or journeyman at some other things and I am in no way shamed by that moniker.

 

I realize that administrators must walk a fine line to keep a forum healthy and productive, free from ridiculous flame wars, but I can see no justification for summarily dismissing those who come here specifically to disrupt and fight. If any town was suddenly assaulted by numerous "snake oil salesmen" touting their aspirin dissolved in water as a cure all even for cancer I sincerely hope I could depend on someone revealing the "man behind the curtain" for the fraud he is/they are and running them out of town. Certainly I agree it should not be "on a rail, tarred and feathered" but I really didn't see anyone go so far that a minor apology wouldn't have sufficed. It is my opinion that we can lose the lifeblood of this great forum just as easily from within as without if we start allowing such sweeping censorship and broad accusation without at least a measured comment. I am not seeking any kind of personal apology. I just want to see this forum continue to flourish and find an appropriate way to both avoid over reacting without having to suffer assassins and fools or "too quick to the big guns" administrators.

 

Thank you for any consideration of this slightly off topic post and if anyone desires to add or clarify I invite you to contact me directly if you think this is too far off topic to post it here.

Sincerely

Jimmy

[SidewalkCynic]

You're doing work that directly applies past knowledge, and leads to new knowledge.

Defined information that leads to defining more information.

 

Someday, it's all going to make sense to you all.

[SidewalkCynic]

I see four categories pertaining to belief or non-belief in a god:

 

1. Theist = one who believes in a god.

2. Atheist = one who does not believe in a god.

3. Agnostic = one who is unsure if there is or isn't a god to believe in.

4. Untheist = one who believes it doesn't matter if there is or isn't a god.

Only because you do not understand the Western Philosophy categories of Metaphysics and Ontology.

 

1. Theist = one who believes in a god.

1a. Atheist = one who does not believe in a god, and depends on the existence of theism to define himself ontologically .

2. Agnostic = one who is unsure if there is or isn't a god to believe in.

3. Humanist = one who believes man is the measure of all things.

4. Numericist = one who believes all things can be defined as mathematical formulae.

[Mercedes Benzene]

Defined information that leads to defining more information.

Uhm. This is the real world. We define information because things need a definition. There's no need to change that! It has it's meaning and it works. You're living in a made-up fantasy world where you want things to fit your made-up definition.

 

Someday, it's all going to make sense to you all.

It makes sense to me now! I go to school. I work in a lab every single day, doing research.

You? You're sitting in a New York City library pretending that you know better than everyone else because you dislike reality!

[Boerseun]

Only because you do not understand the Western Philosophy categories of Metaphysics and Ontology.

 

1. Theist = one who believes in a god.

1a. Atheist = one who does not believe in a god, and depends on the existence of theism to define himself ontologically .

2. Agnostic = one who is unsure if there is or isn't a god to believe in.

3. Humanist = one who believes man is the measure of all things.

4. Numericist = one who believes all things can be defined as mathematical formulae.

Once again, this goes to show how fundamentally useless philosophy can be, when it comes to matters Scientific.

 

Consider the following:

We talk of theists, and atheists. Theists, are people who believe in a deity. Atheists don't, and the Philosopher in the above quote will have it that an atheist needs the existence of theism to define himself ontologically. Great. But this is only so because of the choice of words. Atheism was assigned to a group of people who differ from Theists. Theism being held as the standard, anything deviating with it will get the "A" prefix to discern itself. Therefore, Atheism is held as abormal, theism being the norm. Yes, in that regard, atheism is dependent on the existence of theism to define itself. But it's wordplay. Because as far as I'm concerned, Atheism is the norm for rational people, and theism would then be the one in need of the prefix. Call Atheism "Rational", and Theism "Irrational". Then theism, or as I prefer to call it, "Irrationality", would need "Rationality" to define itself. Whatever needs ontological clarification in this regard is merely dependent on your choice of words.

 

Okay - back to the topic.

[SidewalkCynic]

Subsequent to my response it is my regarded opinion that the OP is indeed a perpetrator of "bait and ambush" and not someone sincerely seeking dialogue to measure and be considered in his own conclusion. His mind was made up when he posted, IMHO.

So what? If that is your (preconceived) conclusion, and you are offended, then ignore the discussion. I believe I left plenty of room for a reasonable counter-argument, as I opened with, "I believe..."

 

I then provided some insight as to the previous discussion on the matter. And, to my surprize, my conclusion is that there are some scientists who are, without a doubt, sensitive about this issue of what is science; and cannot see the forest for the trees because of the social chaos we endure, mostly because of the tremendous amount of compromises to logic (and morality) in secular societies. In other words, if you didn't have to argue the science-religion argument, you would recognize what science really is, instead of worrying about having to define science being superior to religion.

 

I just want to see this forum continue to flourish and find an appropriate way to both avoid over reacting without having to suffer assassins and fools or "too quick to the big guns" administrators.

Well, why don't you begin the establishment of some type of republic-democracy governing system that will identify and sort out why there are different perspectives to different issues, and how then to organize and isolate those differing perspectives to discover why they exist, and whether or not they are of any benefit to the better evolution of Mankind???

[SidewalkCynic]

Once again, this goes to show how fundamentally useless philosophy can be, when it comes to matters Scientific.

 

Because as far as I'm concerned, Atheism is the norm for rational people, and theism would then be the one in need of the prefix. Call Atheism "Rational", and Theism "Irrational". Then theism, or as I prefer to call it, "Irrationality", would need "Rationality" to define itself.

Well then, why are the Atheists neck deep in disagreement, and cannot form cohesive communty without theist oversight?

 

How is it that rational Atheists can work, so well, with those irrational theists???

[Boerseun]

Well then, why are the Atheists neck deep in disagreement, and cannot form cohesive communty without theist oversight?

Huh? Are you serious? You're not kidding me, per chance? Since when did we need "theist oversight"? Who assigned that role to the theists? Why would the atheists want to form a community? This is on par with expecting everybody who never had their spleens removed to form a community. Why would the fact that both you and I have our spleens form common ground for the formation of any kind of "community"? Are you for real?

How is it that rational Atheists can work, so well, with those irrational theists???

Atheists can work well with anybody within the parameters of the job at hand. I honestly don't see any point in your last post.