Help needed in defining science

[sanctus]

For an ethics course I had to follow I have to write an essay on a topic of my choice, with what I choose ("Pseudoscience: how does and how should science react to it?", but not important here, can though post it here once I handed it in and it is accepted).

 

At some point, I want to define what science is, I do it this way:

Science can be defined as a process that makes well-defined, falsifiable predictions to explain the natural world and then also puts the predictions under testing (also by independent groups). Predictions made via this process can be called scientific theories and as long as they are not falsified by evidence (which can be of mathematical or experimental nature) they are part of the concept generally termed science.

 

But when handing in the first version I got the feedback :

 

Also, you say that "Prediction made via this process can be called scientific theories...", this strikes me as a strange conception; it is a falsifiable prediction that it is raining outside my window tomorrow at 2 PM, but that claim is not a scientific theory.

 

I completely agree on that, but can't find a way to say why this is not science using my definition...

I mean it sounds as a scientific claim, because it is a well-defined prediction(when, where and what are clear), it is falsifiable (by checking if it rains at the given time) and if the experiment is done it is actually put under testing. Still it is no science or scientific claim, why?

 

I think this means just that my definition of science is incomplete, but what is missing?

 

 

 

Thanks a lot for answers.

[InfiniteNow]

Hi Sanctus,

 

You are correct that falsifiable predictions are at the heart of science, and so too is the need for evidence in support of ideas. The area where I think you struggle is in calling those predictions a theory. Let me elaborate.

 

A theory in science is perhaps the single strongest possible achievement. A theory is an internally consistent framework by which we can understand how a system works. A theory allows us to explain past phenomenon, and accurately predict what will happen in other circumstances in the future.

 

As your instructor indicated, a prediction alone is not a theory... It's just a prediction. You can predict that it will be raining tomorrow at 2PM outside your window, and you can falsify that prediction by taking a measurement tomorrow at 2PM at your window. That is simple.

 

However, a theory is when you can explain WHY you predict rain at 2PM. The theory will account for things like weather patterns, changing humidity levels, ocean currents, movement of wind and air masses. The theory will explain how all of those variables interact with one another and provide an specific outcome. Also, if your theory is correct, you can use it in other circumstances. By feeding the data for the same variables into it for another location or another time, you should be able to make another accurate (and falsifiable) prediction.

 

So, the claim that "it will rain tomorrow at 2PM outside my window" is a testable prediction. Being at your window to test that prediction and seeing if it is correct or false is engaging in the scientific method, and is the act of performing a scientific experiment. However, it is only a scientific theory if you have an internally consistent framework which accurately describes nature and explains how you arrive at your predictions.

 

I can predict that there will be fish where I park my boat in the lake tomorrow when I go fishing. I can test that prediction and prove it wrong in a scientific manner. However, if my prediction was simply a guess, it's not a scientific theory (obviously, it was just a WAG ... wild assed guess). I would need to explain my reasons for predicting there will be fish there, and I will need to have that explanation apply consistently in multiple reference frames and be accurate/consistent in differening circumstances if I wanted to call it a theory.

 

 

[EDIT to Add] It's also important to distinquish a scientific theory from how the word theory is used by the general public. Usually, when people say the word "theory," they really mean "hypothesis" or "conjecture." These are not the same as the scientific theory I described above, becuase they are usually more philosphical than scientific. A scientific theory provides an internally consistent framework which accurately describes nature, which applies in multiple circumstances, and which is remains valid despite attempts to falsify its predictions. [/EDIT]

 

 

The wiki is pretty solid on this topic, so be sure to review that:

Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

It might also help to review the scientific method, since that's really what you seem to be describing in your statement:

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

Good luck, and take care, friend. :cup:

[lemit]

Sanctus,

 

Just starting to read your post set my mind racing, so I spent a few minutes staring at the ceiling and came up with this thing that's not a definition of science, but I think helps to start toward a definition.

 

It may just be the journalist and historian in me, but I think primary and secondary historical sources can tell us something. The way science and pseudoscience can be differentiated is from their result. They both start from observation, but the more they continue down their individual paths, the more their versions of the original observation diverge. Many of the most firmly held beliefs of pseudoscience don't emerge for 20 or 30 years after the event they describe, simply because there is only one story contemporary to the event. If we start with the present differences and look back at the histories and the processes involved, we see one of them engineering a very strict path while the other seems to get lost in the woods.

 

That's all I have so far. I'll do some more staring at the ceiling, but I think that line of investigation should lead to something different from the standard definitions but possibly supportable. (Engineers and loggers should like it.)

 

--lemit

 

p.s. Your course might hold the key: ethics.

[Rade]

Science is a 'way of knowing' (the word science comes from Latin scire, to know)

Pseudoscience is also a 'way of knowing' (thus, is false knowledge)

Therefore, if pseudoscience is 'false' knowledge, science is 'true' knowledge.

 

Knowledge is a mental grasp of the fact(s) of reality, reached by (1) direct perceptual observation of reality and/or (2) a process of reason based on (1).

 

How do they differ (that is, science and pseudoscience) ?

 

Science requires testing 'explanations' of reality against nature, that is, science requires deciding among alternative explanations of reality by going to the natural world to test them. There is always an element of uncertainty as to whether or not the proper explanation has been chosen.

 

Pseudoscience decides among alternative explanations of reality using means outside nature, that is, using the 'super'natural. Pseudoscience claims knowledge of reality when laws of nature fail to provide 'explanation'. Usually (always ?) pseudoscience makes claims of having certain knowledge, that is, knowledge without error.

 

I would suggest that pseudoscience derives from an attempt to use reason (step 2 of knowledge definition above) but lacking requirement of direct perceptual observation (step 1). Thus the result of the process of pseudoscience is 'false knowledge'--that is, knowledge without proof.