What Science Means To Me.

[pljames]

Science defined means knowledge. But my argument would be, science is a discipline of knowledge. The whole gamut of meanings pertain to one word pointing to different disciplines, therefore the word and meaning of science. We may see science but do we really understand it, therefore disciplines and subdisciplines of a word. There is the visible and the invisible. Understanding it is one thing how it pertains to our way of understanding is another.

 

There is writing science reading science and environment science. I have to narrow the main discipline down to a subdiscipline to truly understand what I want to know. I have found out the hard way there is now way to narrow something down to one word (maybe that's why people interpret writing)? We both see a tree but how do we really perceive what we see. It's like the two spoken words, Houseton and Houston. The older I get the harder it is to get (my thought and understanding over to others).

 

They are so many ways of perceiving understanding and interpreting what readers thought the writer said (as if the writer didn't edit the piece for the understanding of the reader)! I always thought the subject was the jest of the whole piece. I was wrong. I seek to understand and share with others my way as well as their way of understanding our way of understanding each other to my delusion. Trying to explain (my way) to your way is confusion to me. So my knowledge of science to me is not your knowledge of science to me. So what have we gained? Thoughts please. Paul

[Eclogite]

From my perspective your understanding of what science is, is incorrect. Science is, above any other definition, a systematic methodology for the acquisition of knowledge about the natural world. It involves observation, construction of hypotheses to explain the observations, experiments to test the hypotheses, building of a theoretical structure to integrate observation ,experiment and explanation, coupled with ongoing reassessment of the entire edifice.

 

The reason for the subdivisions of science have nothing to do with our understanding of science, as you appear to suggest. It is because observations are necessarily or deliberately restricted to particular spheres of nature, which we then, for convienience, assign names to.

 

 

Aside: do you have to introduce into almost every post your frsutration that, even when you edit a piece of writing, your readers still fail to understand it.

[Rade]

I would add to the definition provided by Eclogite that science is 'a systematic methodology for the acquisition of uncertain knowledge...' Anyone that claims to have certain knowledge did not gain that knowledge via methodology of science.

[Guest MacPhee]

Science is what you have in your mind from childhood.

 

It's liking chemistry sets, microscopes, and telescopes. And not liking football, rugby, any kind of "sport", and stupid poetry.

 

From about the age of 8, you know you like Science. Then you despise the alien cretins who don't.

[sigurdV]

Science defined means knowledge. But my argument would be, science is a discipline of knowledge. The whole gamut of meanings pertain to one word pointing to different disciplines, therefore the word and meaning of science. We may see science but do we really understand it, therefore disciplines and subdisciplines of a word. There is the visible and the invisible. Understanding it is one thing how it pertains to our way of understanding is another.

 

There is writing science reading science and environment science. I have to narrow the main discipline down to a subdiscipline to truly understand what I want to know. I have found out the hard way there is now way to narrow something down to one word (maybe that's why people interpret writing)? We both see a tree but how do we really perceive what we see. It's like the two spoken words, Houseton and Houston. The older I get the harder it is to get (my thought and understanding over to others).

 

They are so many ways of perceiving understanding and interpreting what readers thought the writer said (as if the writer didn't edit the piece for the understanding of the reader)! I always thought the subject was the jest of the whole piece. I was wrong. I seek to understand and share with others my way as well as their way of understanding our way of understanding each other to my delusion. Trying to explain (my way) to your way is confusion to me. So my knowledge of science to me is not your knowledge of science to me. So what have we gained? Thoughts please. Paul

 

Ive been giving your problem some thought...And maybe I understand it:

Its that objects are not totally defined by their internal structure but needs also to be related to their context...

To see what I mean: Try translating "This is English." Into ,say,German: "Dies ist Englandizh" (Excuse my poor German!)

As you can see the German context makes the sentence which is true in English false in German!

I think you perhaps are like such a sentence.