What is Science?

[alexander]

Alexander,

good try, but I think you are only halfway there.

 

Richard Feynman once said, "Science is the accumulated wisdom of knowing how to NOT trick ourselves."

 

As humans, it is so very easy to trick ourselves, to persuade ourselves to believe almost anything. Look around you. Yes, the FIRST HALF of Science is the accumulation of knowledge, principles and causes. But the OTHER HALF of Science is the wisdom of knowing HOW to acquire knowledge, demonstrate principles and verify causes in such a way that we do not trick ourselves with wishful thinking and flawed reasoning.

 

I believe that the way to acquire the knowledge lies within the principals of science, thus science still only being the knowledge of principals and causes does infact include the principals of finding and categorizing the principals of finding the knowledge that then becomes science.

 

You are ofcourse referring to scientific method, the thing you use at work (and i say so envyingly)

 

Science is not the method, its not applied physics, its not predicting, its not making and proving theories, its all a part of getting science, but that's why its all called scientific research, research to find science, or knowledge of principals and causes... someone getting whacked in the head with the brick is not science, maybe scientific research to find a principal or a cause, but not actual science, science is knowing that applying a 232560 N of force to the small side of the brick would crumble most house construction grade bricks in US, because house construction grade bricks have the strength of 20-40N/mm^2 and a standard size of the us brick's smallest side is 102x57mm

[alexander]

I believe that the most proper definition for all scientists to agree with is that science is defining information.

Stick to the traditional definition based on the etymology of the word...

[Mercedes Benzene]

I just want to know what is the concise definition of science that all scientists agree upon.

If they consider themselves scientists, then doesn't that mean what they do is science? If you want to know what science is, maybe you should talk to a scientist and find out (you have plenty to choose from here).

 

Science: any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.

 

Source: "science." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 23 Jun. 2009 <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/528756/science>.

[alexander]

And the Atheists are the same way when it comes to the definition of "atheism," and "religion."

no they are not, a lot of atheists are quite clear on the definition of atheism and religion. Similar thing can be said about religious people, when it comes to definition of god, honesty and good, and ofcourse, herecy, lying and bad (especially when this comes to actions)

[SidewalkCynic]

SidewalkCynic wrote (note the following is presented out of chronological order in which the statements were made):

 

 

- The (predictable) outcome is - rendition of the taxonomy of knowledge.

- Seems obvious that this could advance human knowledge. Might not, but for sure plausible.

- Builds upon knowledge that has come before it.

- While I have questions and potential criticisms of "better understanding" and "better rendition," I don't believe that takes away from the work that is purported to have been done.

- I would say this is scientific research.

 

>> And in last few pages, that's about all I could find pertaining to the topic. There was one earlier that I feel like taking up:

 

SidewalkCynic wrote:

Or put another way, "does a child exercise a (highly) skilled practice when walking down a staircase?

 

It's a tough one. Like the urination example. I think this might be tougher, though I earlier said, "yes" on this thread,....

Thank you. And, I am certain, I have enjoyed your previous essays

[alexander]

Science: any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.

Science is the knowledge, the pursuit is the research, the categorization, the theories and proofs based on principals defined and found by science, but science is just the knowledge (deriving from the latin scientia meaning "knowledge"). It's not the pursuit, though it is often misused to say that, its the facts, the principals and causes as i have said previously. It's a simple, concise definition that has so far taken in all the definitions given here, except for the "defining information" one (wherever that came from, well actually from the "pursuit of knowledge", but remember, pursuit, and defining are both actions to get science)

[SidewalkCynic]

no they are not, a lot of atheists are quite clear on the definition of atheism and religion. Similar thing can be said about religious people, when it comes to definition of god, honesty and good, and ofcourse, herecy, lying and bad (especially when this comes to actions)

Are they in absolute agreement and form a complete logic system?

 

Yeah, that's what I am getting at - atheists have developed a 'nutty' lexicon just like the theists, in order to coexist in community. Neither side is adhering to a strict logic.

 

Now, it is beyond my understanding why you want to point to the theists as an example that justifies the atheists inability to adhere to a strict logic system???

 

[Qfwfq]

Profitability is a result of science!

No, of technology.

 

But the actual R&D is not profit.

Of course it isn't; it's an investment of resources (including John's salary).

 

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.

The aim isn't that of publishing results in science papers and the results which management solicits aren't usually anything that science journals are interested in; management typically wants as little as possible of the results to be made available for competitors.

 

The border may not always be perfectly clear but there is the difference.

 

Well, I would normally say that this is off-topic and not thread relevant, but who really cares?

Great excuse to give your own contribution to the trouble, eh?

 

As has been amply demonstrated already by fellow members, quite simply, you're wrong.

I only pointed out that both terms exist; the distinction does exist. I am not interested in discussing those 7 levels and nobody here had "amply demonstrated" that I'm wrong. There are dictionaries which define the two words and your presumption to declare me wrong was based only on your personal choice of terminology, pleez&thnx.

 

Now that's enough. I't's off topic in this thread and it's out of place in most of these forums. From now on, anyone who I find arguing for nonexistence will get a Preaching/Proselytizing infraction just as much as anyone arguing for existence.:hyper:

[Mercedes Benzene]

Science is the knowledge, the pursuit is the research, the categorization, the theories and proofs based on principals defined and found by science, but science is just the knowledge (deriving from the latin scientia meaning "knowledge"). It's not the pursuit, though it is often misused to say that, its the facts, the principals and causes as i have said previously. It's a simple, concise definition that has so far taken in all the definitions given here, except for the "defining information" one (wherever that came from, well actually from the "pursuit of knowledge", but remember, pursuit, and defining are both actions to get science)

 

Absolutely! Just to make sure that this point wasn't missed:

That definition says that a science involves a "pursuit of knowledge." It didn't say that a "pursuit of knowledge" is science.

I think that's an important distinction that we all need to realize, and should concede to.

[SidewalkCynic]

Science is not an action, it is not a skilled practice, science is merely knowledge of principals and causes.

The problem I have with this is that knowledge is only ascribable to human cognition. A book does not contain knowledge, it contains information, etc.

 

Next; a human cannot transmit knowledge without first converting it into information so as to communicate it.

 

Human knowledge is of no use unless it is shared.

 

Therefore, science is defining information.

[SidewalkCynic]

That definition says that a science involves a "pursuit of knowledge." It didn't say that a "pursuit of knowledge" is science.

I think that's an important distinction that we all need to realize, and should concede to.

Again, knowledge can only be ascribed to human cognition. So, therefore the being has to convert information into knowledge (defining information), in order to "pursue knowledge."

 

We are probably doomed to never be able to base abstract thinking without some amount of human interference (premise).

[alexander]

knowledge is only ascribable to human cognition

The best way i can define the meaning of the term (referring to knowledge) in the definition of science is: a body of truths/facts accumulated over time. This has nothing to do with cognition, this has nothing to do with books, books are merely a media that stores a particular body of truths, generally because of science's categorization of facts, books containing science, contain a specific set of facts generally within the same category. If we had a way to simply store this knowledge in crystal balls, we would, but knowledge does not necessarily require cognitive function to be present, but often, especially in early history, stored in cognition, due to the lack of ability to store this knowledge in other forms of media.

 

you may also see a relationship between science and knowledge here to be near synonyms of one another...

[alexander]

As an example of knowledge not related to human cognition, whales can use auditory signals to gain knowledge of their surrounding environment... we are not the only species that acquire knowledge, not linked to human cognition, it is however linked to cognition, because a book on a planet with no life, while containing knowledge, does no good what-so-ever

[Pyrotex]

...There are dictionaries which define the two words and your presumption to declare me wrong was based only on your personal choice of terminology, pleez&thnx. ...

For what it's worth...

 

I would like to remind all of us that the Dictionary is not a source of authority, evidence, proof, right or wrong.

The Dictionary merely shows how words are currently being used.

And that can change pretty fast.

The fact that a word may appear in the Dictionary with a certain "definition" (usage) should not be construed as requiring us to always use that word in just that way and no other.

 

I've only been studying science for a half century or more, so I do not claim to be an authority, but for all those decades, in and out of academia, engineering and the medical community, the word "Science" has typically and consistently been used by my teachers, my managers and my colleagues to refer to the Process that produces the knowledge and technology.

 

Knowledge and technology are the Products of Science, not Science itself.

 

Of course, the word "science" is often used BOTH ways by lots of people. If you want to use "science" to mean a collection of "science books", by all means, do so.

But in those places where the knowledge is produced, most folks talk about "DOING" science, not about collecting, organizing, publishing or reading science.

 

For what it's worth... :hyper:

[SidewalkCynic]

As an example of knowledge not related to human cognition, whales can use auditory signals to gain knowledge of their surrounding environment... we are not the only species that acquire knowledge, not linked to human cognition, it is however linked to cognition, because a book on a planet with no life, while containing knowledge, does no good what-so-ever

Okay, so, I went too far in defining knowledge as specific to human cognition.

 

I still believe that knowledge is distiguishible from information in that it involves cognition, and is distiguishible from technology/technologic/technography in that the specific species is able to encript/interpet its specific defining of abstract information (language). And that is not to be misunderstood that a specific species cannot interpet another species' technology - that is interpetation is a technology developed specifically for such.

[SidewalkCynic]

The best way i can define the meaning of the term (referring to knowledge) in the definition of science is: a body of truths/facts accumulated over time. This has nothing to do with cognition, this has nothing to do with books, books are merely a media that stores a particular body of truths, generally because of science's categorization of facts, books containing science, contain a specific set of facts generally within the same category. If we had a way to simply store this knowledge in crystal balls, we would, but knowledge does not necessarily require cognitive function to be present, but often, especially in early history, stored in cognition, due to the lack of ability to store this knowledge in other forms of media.

 

you may also see a relationship between science and knowledge here to be near synonyms of one another...

I see this as an example of the extention of the "nutty" lexicon that can be associated with "nutty" theist domination and influence. I understand "knowledge" as being derived from "know," and knowing is an action/cognition that, at best, can only be understood as a human behavior - other animals, or organisisms, are far from being understood into the details that we develop.

 

I think the theists, particularly the Christian Church, controlled language and made mistakes that we can recognize; and the best we can do is attempt to straighten it out. I for sure am not going to whine about it - all I am going to do is present a replacement of the Dewey Decimal system that I believe better represents the arrangement of human knowledge in society. Although you, and many others, may disagree - you are then tasked with presenting the better rendering of human knowledge. As it is, I don't think anyone knows where to begin, and my rendition is going to be the latest "starting point."

[Mercedes Benzene]

I think the theists, particularly the Christian Church, controlled language and made mistakes that we can recognize; and the best we can do is attempt to straighten it out. I for sure am not going to whine about it - all I am going to do is present a replacement of the Dewey Decimal system that I believe better represents the arrangement of human knowledge in society. Although you, and many others, may disagree - you are then tasked with presenting the better rendering of human knowledge. As it is, I don't think anyone knows where to begin, and my rendition is going to be the latest "starting point."

 

Could you please, precisely, explain what about "knowledge" is flawed before you try to explain how to improve it?

Also, I would argue that your Dewey Decimal system analogy is flawed. There's not much wrong with that system. I can walk into my school's main library, which is 26 stories tall, look up a book on the computer, find it, and walk out the door in 5 minutes. I don't think you can very much improve upon this system.

 

Which brings me to the main point at hand. How can you better arrange human knowledge. Knowledge is knowledge. You either know something or you don't.

What are you trying to spin here?