Explanation vs Description

[Rade]

I would like to open a discussion of these two different statements:

 

1. The goal of science is to explain

2. The goal of science is to describe

 

Let us limit discussion to the "thing" we call the "universe" (please, try to keep on topic, which I know is hard to do).

[Vox]

I would like to open a discussion of these two different statements:

 

1. The goal of science is to explain

2. The goal of science is to describe

 

Let us limit discussion to the "thing" we call the "universe" (please, try to keep on topic, which I know is hard to do).

 

The word science comes from the Latin word scientia, meaning to know and to learn

 

I would say that is "to understand" (learning to know..)

[Doctordick]

I would like to open a discussion of these two different statements:

 

1. The goal of science is to explain

2. The goal of science is to describe

 

Let us limit discussion to the "thing" we call the "universe" (please, try to keep on topic, which I know is hard to do).

First, "the universe" by definition consists of "everything" so how the devil can we get off subject? You are presuming boundaries which only exist in your mind.

 

Second, you have not defined what you mean by "explain" so once again, you are presuming boundaries which exist only in your mind!

 

"Pertablog" -- does that explain anything?

"God" -- does that explain anything? Or, do any of these comments describe anything?

 

How are the two statments different?

 

"God did it" -- does that explain or describe anything?

 

How come you never take any of your presumptions into account?

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Rade]

First, "the universe" by definition consists of "everything" so how the devil can we get off subject? You are presuming boundaries which only exist in your mind.

DD, this is your presumption. As you well know, one of the internally consistent interpretations of quantum theory is that there exists multiple universes, thus logically "something" may exist outside "the universe" under discussion in the OP.

 

Second' date=' you have not defined what you mean by "explain" so once again, you are presuming boundaries which exist only in your mind![/quote']Lol, of course "I" did not define "explain"--that is what "You" need to do to provide any useful contribution to the discussion. Do you see also that you must provide also a definition for "describe" and then compare and contrast the two ?

 

"Pertablog" -- does that explain anything? "God" -- does that explain anything? Or' date=' do any of these comments describe anything?[/quote']You tell me ? So, if I read you correctly, you are saying that the goal of science would not be to either "explain" or "describe" (1) pertablog and (2) God. OK, but you first need to define what you mean by pertablog and God, then we can discuss if they fall into the goal of science.

 

How are the two statements different?

Lol. Again' date=' that is the purpose of the OP thread--the purpose of the thread is for you to tell me how you think the two statements are different or not. I mean, did you really think through any of your comments, or just a gut negative reaction to my name ?

 

"God did it" -- does that explain or describe anything?

. What do you mean by "God" and "it" ? Suppose the statement...God created humans (i.e., God did it). The OP question is, is it the role of science to explain or describe or understand (added by Vox) this statement ?

 

I find it very interesting DD your negative gut reaction to the OP question, when, as I recall, your entire philosophy as relates to your fundamental equation is based on the presumption that exists in your mind that--I mean--you did say these exact words, did you not ?:

 

It is the goal of science to explain something

[Ken]

Interesting question that covers only 2/3 of the goals of Science. :)

 

1. Describe

2. Explain

3. Predict

 

The fundamental "stuff" of Science is the result of observation.

 

When a number of observations of variations in some phenomenon are gathered they are without Scientific value. Value accumulates as the observations are organized by initial descriptions followed by an attempt to bring coherence out of the disorder.

 

For example:

 

Enjoyment

The

He

Apple

Obvious

Ate

With

 

Consider this a set of observations centered around the subject matter of phonemes. As collected they have little value, except perhaps to stimulate curiosity. But the descriptive phase focuses on the reliability and validity of the recorded observations. "Are you sure that was 'Apple' and not 'Grapple'?"

 

An attempt at bringing coherence out of the disorder, the phase of explanation, yields:

 

 

He ate the apple with obvious enjoyment.

 

 

In this analogy the randomly described words are explained as units of meaning with particular probable order. The set of observations has been assigned a tentative explanation.

 

I don't want to go too far with the analogy; only to suggest that description is the initial phase of the process of scientific investigation and explanation is the second step.

 

The final step, and the most critical, is to use the explanation as the basis of a prediction. It's critical because the adequacy of the first two steps (with more weight on explanation) rests on the ability of those processes to lead to a prediction that can be tested empirically.

 

That last empirical step is what moves Alchemy to Chemistry, or trial and error to Engineering.

 

In my mind the fascination of Science is that it is aimed at a moving target that always stays just out of reach. We can never achieve certainty - our predictions can never be perfect (P=1.0) because our descriptions (the data) can never be complete.

 

Viewed this way it becomes obvious that theorizing is the process of step two, explanation, and hypothesizing is the process of step three, predicting. B) That should spin off nicely into a different thread. :P

[Rade]

 

I don't want to go too far with the analogy; only to suggest that description is the initial phase of the process of scientific investigation and explanation is the second step.

 

Viewed this way it becomes obvious that theorizing is the process of step two, explanation, and hypothesizing is the process of step three, predicting. :) That should spin off nicely into a different thread. :)

Thank you Ken for the contribution. I would agree with your comment above. Also, it seems true that observation (using at least one of the senses) must be prior to, and linked to, description. So, I will modify the OP goal of science, as modified by first Vox, now you, as being the following:

 

THE GOAL OF SCIENCE (as relates to "something"):

 

1. observe

2. describe

3. explain

4. predict

5. understand

 

==

 

Can this be improved on ?

[Ken]

Thank you Ken for the contribution. I would agree with your comment above. Also, it seems true that observation (using at least one of the senses) must be prior to, and linked to, description. So, I will modify the OP goal of science, as modified by first Vox, now you, as being the following:

 

THE GOAL OF SCIENCE (as relates to "something"):

 

1. observe

2. describe

3. explain

4. predict

5. understand

 

==

 

Can this be improved on ?

 

Well, not to pick too many nits....

 

I would combine 1 and 2, since observation implies some metric and the only adequate description in Science is an Operational Definition that defines in tems of operations of measurement.

 

And if a theory (step 3) is adequate then the phenomenon is "understood" as the terms of a functional relationship.

 

But that seems to bring us back to 3. :shrug:

 

Ken

[Rade]

Hi Ken,

 

How about this:

 

The Goal of Science

 

1. observe/describe/measure [something]

2. explain/predict/understand [something]

[Ken]

Hi Ken,

 

How about this:

 

The Goal of Science

 

1. observe/describe/measure [something]

2. explain/predict/understand [something]

 

:lol: You keep adding and I keep trying to subtract.

 

I don't know if the following fits your parameters for this thread but it strikes me that it seems to be focused on the definition of Science. Years ago I came to the conclusion, or read somewhere, or had it explained to me.... that there are three kinds of definitions of Science.

 

-Content Definitions

-Process Definitions and

-"Combination" Definitions

 

Content definitions follow the form: Science is the accumulation of integrated knowledge. These definitions talk about what Science "contains". That definition applies equally well to Biology, Astronomy, Astrology, and Library Science.

 

Process definitions talk about either or both of: "the activity of discovering the relationships between variables" or "a method of obtaining knowledge". In other words these definitions talk about what Science does

 

Finally, some definitions package the first two in some way: "an interconnected series of concepts and conceptual schemes that have developed as a result of experimentation and observation" or "a systematically organized body of knowledge about the universe, obtained by the Scientific Method".

 

Regardless of the definition used there are two common characteristics od Science agreed to by virtually all who study the subject. 1) The use of the Scientific Method and 2) the application of these methods to Solvable Problems.

 

It's important to note, because so many people get this wrong or are confused, that Science is not the only method of inquiry. The two other major methods are Philosophy and Theology. These shouldn't be viewed as competing methods but rather as alternative methods adopted by individuals for their own purposes and needs. It's just important to understand that they are independent of each other and each has it's own rules. None is "better" than the others, though one may be more appropriate for one kind of question than the others. The value of any method is relative to the kind of problem being studied, not absolute where one method would always be superior to the others.

 

Like sports, there is no way to determine the "absolute" best sport, it's a relative value judgement that each fan makes. The only requirement is that when you play one sport you must follow the rules of that sport. If you tackle an opposing player in football it's legal, if you do the same in baseball it's a foul.

 

So, what distinguishes these three equally valuable (at times) methods? Fundamentally, the most important difference is - What constitutes a fact? Common language assumes only one meaning for Fact, but that's incorrect. A Fact, or Evidence, is different for each of the three methods.