What Is Science? Part I

[Ken]

It strikes me that in order to discuss aspects of the Philosophy of Science there needs to be some initial discussion and, hopefully, consensus as to precisely what constitutes Science.

 

Over a period of 35 years teaching Research Methods I developed a series of lecture notes that satisfied my sense of coherence. I've dusted them off and filled in some spaces in the notes to make them readable. I've repackaged Parts I and II will offer them as separate topics. I'm still editing Part III and probably won't post that topic until I read reactions to the first two. That strategy may save me any further effort at editing. :(

 

 

Part 1. Defining Science.

 

Almost every text in Research Methods gives a definition of Science. Even a cursory reading leads to the conclusin that there are three kinds of definitions of science.

 

-Content

-Process

-Combination

 

Content definitions follow the form: Science is the accumulation of integrated knowledge. These definitions talk about what Science "contains".

 

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 of Science agreed to by virtually all who study Science.

 

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, as I define them, 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 particularly 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.

 

As with 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 the three methods.

 

FACT IN SCIENCE:

-Based on: Systematic Observation, Replicability (sort of repeatability), and Measurability (only events capable of being measured).

 

Each of those terms has specific definitions and usages, but in general Systematic Observation requires the use of "experiments", Replicability means that if the conditions are exactly repeated the results will be identical, and Measurability means that if you can't measure the thing you study then you can't use Science to understand it.

 

FACT IN PHILOSOPHY:

1. Propositions that seem reasonable (logical) are believed. 2. Propositions must be both logical and possess internal consistency.

 

FACT IN THEOLOGY:

(Note that theology is the study of religion, not religion itself)

Faith. In other words a fact is a fact because you believe it. No other "evidence" is required.

 

Simple example of applications. Does God Exist?

 

Science -- By definition (omniscient, omnipotent, and unknowable) God can't be observed, can't be created/re-created, and can't be measured. Thus: Can not be answered by the methods and logic of science. It's not a solvable problem for Science.

 

Philosophy -- One could postulate such a deity and use that initial postulate to explain all of existence, or one could postulate that there is no such deity and explain all of existence. As long as either explanation is logical and has no paradoxes (internally consistent) they both can come to "valid" philosophical conclusions.

 

Theology -- God exists because I believe he/she/it exists or God doesn't exist because I believe he/she/it doesn't exist. The evidence is found in one's own belief system, not in the outer world.

 

More later....

[Tormod]

FACT IN THEOLOGY:

(Note that theology is the study of religion, not religion itself)

Faith. In other words a fact is a fact because you believe it. No other "evidence" is required.

 

If theology is the study of religion, then which method do they follow? According to your setup, it can't be the scientific method.

 

Which major religion offers to accept personal facts (ie "evidence") over common facts (ie what their leaders accept as truth)?

[Ken]

If theology is the study of religion, then which method do they follow? According to your setup, it can't be the scientific method.

 

A quick sampling of definitions of Theos gives:

 

"theo- 

a combining form meaning “god,” used in the formation of compound words: theocrat.

Use theo- in a Sentence

See images of theo-

Search theo- on the Web

Also, especially before a vowel , the-.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Origin:

< Gk, comb. form of theós Dictionary.com Unabridged

Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.

Cite This Source | Link To theo-

World English Dictionary

theo- or ( before a vowel ) the-

 

— combining form

indicating God or gods: theology

 

[from Greek theos god]

 

the- or ( before a vowel ) the-

 

— combining form

 

[from Greek theos god] "

 

So, a more formal definition of Theology is the study of god, a less formal definition is the study of religions.

 

Measurement is impossible with a concept described as unseen, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. The methods commonly used by religionists are revelation, divination, meditation, and inspiration. The truth of those methods is accepted on faith. Believers base their beliefs on faith, not on observable phenomena. Their only attempts at science with regard to god is for the purpose of enticing non-believers.

 

 

 

Which major religion offers to accept personal facts (ie "evidence") over common facts (ie what their leaders accept as truth)?

 

The "faithful" believe at a distinctly personal level, hence the long history of schismatic religion.

 

The religious experience is not grounded in empiricism, it is grounded in belief. There are hundreds, or thousands, of examples where fact-bsed arguments are rejected out of hand by True Believer's if those arguements threaten their belief-structure. It really doesn't matter what a "major" religion accepts or rejects. Those who accept the same precepts stay within the "major" religion, those who reject those precepts move to some sect, denomination, or other "major" religion or they initiate a new religion.

 

Where do you think the terms Apostasy, Blasphemy, and Heresy derive from?

 

I'm deeply resisting the temptation to use real life examples but I don't want to challenge anyone's Faith. :(

[Tormod]

I think I fail to grasp your point. You explicitly state that theology (study of religion) must not be confused with religion itself. Yet it seems to me that you do not separate theology from faith.

 

Is your point that theology is based on each practicing member's faith? If so, how can you list it as a counterpart to the scientific method?

[Ken]

I think I fail to grasp your point. You explicitly state that theology (study of religion) must not be confused with religion itself. Yet it seems to me that you do not separate theology from faith.

 

Is your point that theology is based on each practicing member's faith? If so, how can you list it as a counterpart to the scientific method?

 

My point is that the "theological" way of seeking answers to questions about the nature of the universe is based on evidence that is personally believed by the researcher. When I talk about belief or faith I'm talking about the sole criterion used to judge the factual reality of a proposition. You seem to be using those terms as faith or belief in a specific religion. It's reliance on subjective evidence rather than objective evidence.

 

Perhaps the term Theology is ill-chosen. My point was that those who study religion, whether a specific religion or all religious thought, fundamentally use belief as their truth-test or facts. I'm talking about it as way of thinking and reaching conclusions about the nature of the universe.

 

Part of the problem that I see is that many people try to play one "game" with the rules of another. For example Freud thought of himself as a scientist and offered a set of facts about the Id, Ego and Super-ego. From what I know of his biography he was a very competent neurologist. But his entire theory of Psychoanalysis is not based on science. No one has ever seen or measured an Id. No one has even offered the metrical base to use. Is it weight, brightness, volume, audible level, etc. The bottom line was that Freud offered no physical evidence, just his belief that this entity existed. That's not science. In his research on aberrant behavior Freud used the methods of what I am calling Theology, not the methods of science.

 

Science has proven to be a very effective way to look at the universe. It's success provides an aura of respectability and many assume that cloak of respectability without thinking or behaving as scientists.

 

I'm not saying that Science is the BEST game, only that to play it one has to follow the rules of the game. Those rules include Operational Definitions, systematic and repeatable observations under at least two different sets of conditions that lead to explanations that yield testable predictions. If those rules aren't followed then the work isn't science.

 

It may be useful, it may lead to logical satisfaction, it may fulfil some emotional need, it may be believed, but it isn't Science.

[Tormod]

Okay. I think you are right that the use of the term "theology" is wrong here. Theology is a science (although it can debated whether it is a "real" science or not). At least theology is defined as the study of religion.

 

That is different from faith-based assumption. Whereas science tries to be evidence-based, religion accepts the unexplainable and assigns it various properties (miracles, healing, personal prayer etc).

 

A lot of science is based on assumptions, but in order to be "scientific", a scientific model must be followed, documented, repeatable and peer-reviewed.

 

In philosophy, theories and hypothesis are still subject to trials, but logic and reason need not follow a strict scientific method. I would argue however that philosophy (at least in the strictest sense) and science are very close. Theology falls somewhere in between.

 

"Religious studies" however are not scientific. They are based on rote learning and lore, Sunday school sessions and Holy Book learning, rituals and ceremonies. It is not acceptable to question the teachings of religion, because what keeps religious followers together is the fundamental acceptance of the laws of their religion.

 

While we find examples of scientific theories attaining almost holy properties, it is usually the *opponents* of the scientific model who claim this. Some of the historic debates in science stem from branching into several "opposing" sides - like what happened when quantum physics created a schism in modern science during the 1900s.

[Ken]

Okay. I think you are right that the use of the term "theology" is wrong here. Theology is a science (although it can debated whether it is a "real" science or not). At least theology is defined as the study of religion.

 

1 )What descriptor would you suggest? Remember, what I'm describing is an approach to inquiry that accepts Facts by faith, not requiring any objective evidence.

 

2. While Theology might be a science, as in "an organized body of information" it is clearly not Science in the sense of reliance on objective criteria to define facts, not in the specific methods of observation, measurement, explanation by functional relationships between variables, theory construction, and hypothesis testing. I think the distinction between lower-case "s" and upper-case "S" keeps the two meanings separate.

 

That is different from faith-based assumption. Whereas science tries to be evidence-based, religion accepts the unexplainable and assigns it various properties (miracles, healing, personal prayer etc).

 

But that seems to be exactly the point I was making.

 

A lot of science is based on assumptions, but in order to be "scientific", a scientific model must be followed, documented, repeatable and peer-reviewed.

 

1) Of course Science is based on some fundamental assumptions. I listed 5 in Part II. They relate to the fundamental epistemological question: How do we know what we know?

 

2) I think you are conflating the Scientific model with how the results of such modeling are communicated. The model requires observation of objective and measurable data under certain systematic operations. Peer-reviewers function to assess the quality of the observations, the logic of the systematic observations, the interpretation of the data, and the value of the observations to enhance or clarify previous explanations. One might state that a primary function of peer-review is to determine whether the unique requirements of the Scientific Method have been followed.

 

In philosophy, theories and hypothesis are still subject to trials, but logic and reason need not follow a strict scientific method. I would argue however that philosophy (at least in the strictest sense) and science are very close. Theology falls somewhere in between.

 

I would go further and say that in Philosophy the methods of science are really irrelevant. The process is completely rational, based solely on logic and logical consistency, without any need to cross-reference to objective reality. That makes Science and Philosophy entirely different methods of inquiry.

 

"Religious studies" however are not scientific. They are based on rote learning and lore, Sunday school sessions and Holy Book learning, rituals and ceremonies. It is not acceptable to question the teachings of religion, because what keeps religious followers together is the fundamental acceptance of the laws of their religion.

 

But I'm not talking about "religious studies". I'm talking about the way those who study religion inquire about the nature, or truth-value, of religion inquiry into the nature of the universe. The focal point is not the comparison of rituals but rather the entire attempt to understand the universe, its creation, duration, and place of man within it.

 

I've tried to avoid putting it in denominational terms but perhaps I can make the point better by using an example. Was Jesus the son of the creator, or the son of an ordinary man? On what basis do some accept the former or the latter? The only objective "evidence" is some written history and a lot of oral history, but none of that provides an objective, observable, and measurable answer to the question of the claimed divinity. Acceptance or rejection is ultimately based solely on the basis of belief.

 

While we find examples of scientific theories attaining almost holy properties, it is usually the *opponents* of the scientific model who claim this. Some of the historic debates in science stem from branching into several "opposing" sides - like what happened when quantum physics created a schism in modern science during the 1900s.

 

But I see the cases of "opposition" falling into several major categories. The scientific opposition to a theory is based on competing data, or interpretation of the data, and the degree to which predictions from theories are supported or refuted by the data. The philosophical opposition rests on issues of the logic of the research design or the interpretation of the data. The "religious" or "faith-based" opposition is due to stubborn disregard of the objective data.

 

The schism in quantum physics demonstrates my point. Theoretical Physics is not Science, it is an exercise in Philosophy. The arguments were/are mathematical and the "proofs" had to follow the logic of mathematics. Certainly, those speculations led to Scientific research but they initially were based on rational facts, not empirical data or very limited empirical data.

 

The theoretical branch of any discipline is heavily rational, and any empirical data is just a starting point for logical speculation.

 

:unsure: