Science Definition

[kvraghavaiah]

Science

 

Introduction:

The definition for science should be ideally one in the unchanging human thinking setup over time. However, the given definitions kept changing. You might want to see the history in Wikipedia. The definition in use today looks more like a provision for the need than the real one.

 

The most optimal definition discovered now:

The sun rises in the sky. We do not doubt our brain and eyes in accepting this, since living becomes very difficult if we doubt them. We accept the observations which are reliable for life, irrespective of the facts. We trust our sense organs and brain. When an observation is reliable, it is not mandatory to know the facts of that observation. An observation is reliable unless there is an alternative observation. ‘Sun travels from east to west of the earth in the sky’ was a reliable observation until it was observed that ‘the earth spins’. It cannot be disproved that your brain is under the control of a data injecting system, where your environment is only an imaginary creation of that system. It is impossible to know the facts of an observation. There are always unsolvable puzzles if we go in deep to find the facts of an observation. All reliable observations are reliable beliefs, because we do not know the facts of the observations. But, all reliable beliefs are not reliable observations. Some reliable beliefs are derived from reliable observations, but themselves are not observations. Many presented models of the universe are reliable beliefs based on reliable observations. The beliefs on the basis of reliable observations, which do not have alternative reliable observations, have to be relied on. Because I have been observing that the sun has been rising in the sky every day, I reliably believe that the sun rises in the sky tomorrow also. There are facts too among what we know. It is a fact that in any right-angled triangle, the area of the square whose side is the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the areas of the squares whose sides are the two legs. Only some of the facts and reliable beliefs are useful. The observation that today I walked 5 steps more than the person living 10,000 kilo meters away from me is useless. An office sales information is not applicable always and everywhere. Scientific knowledge is the set of facts and reliable beliefs, which are useful irrespective of time and place . If we consider medical research, every finding may not be useful and a medicine may go extinct because of another more useful medicine down the line. But we holistically consider the medical research findings as useful always and everywhere. Even usefulness is relativistic. Some knowledge is very useful, some is very less useful. A reliable belief can have a little uncertainty of reliance and belief.

 

We have to doubt some things. We should not accept and/or believe which does not have enough bases, or which can be disproved using facts or reliable beliefs.

 

Reference:

http://theknowledgeone.com/documents/Human_Psychology.htm

 

More such useful matter at

http://theknowledgeone.com/

Edited April 3, 2013 by kvraghavaiah

[Guest MacPhee]

I wonder whether you are attaching too much importance, to the definition of words.

Words mean whatever people understand them to mean. Some words are quite precise, like "strawberry". Everyone knows what that is. A red fruit which tastes nice. The word "strawberry" is quite exact, and has hardly any ambiguity.

 

Other words, like "Science", "Art", "Music", "Religion", are more ambiguous, and harder to define. But everyone knows, in general terms, what they mean.

 

So I can't see the need for a precise definition of "Science". What difference would it make?

Edited March 31, 2013 by MacPhee

[Eclogite]

I find your definition of science to be, in essence, wrong. You defined science as a body of knowledge, but science is about how that body of knowledge is acquired, tested, validated, modified and grown, not the body of knowledge itself.

[Rade]

Science is the set of facts and reliable beliefs, which are useful irrespective of time and place

No, science has absolutely nothing to do with 'beliefs'. Science deals with ability to 'know'. Knowledge gained by science ALWAYS comes with some degree of uncertainty, this is what makes scientific knowledge different from belief because belief can be viewed to be absolute and certain.

[kvraghavaiah]

I wonder whether you are attaching too much importance, to the definition of words.

Words mean whatever people understand them to mean. Some words are quite precise, like "strawberry". Everyone knows what that is. A red fruit which tastes nice. The word "strawberry" is quite exact, and has hardly any ambiguity.

 

Other words, like "Science", "Art", "Music", "Religion", are more ambiguous, and harder to define. But everyone knows, in general terms, what they mean.

 

So I can't see the need for a precise definition of "Science". What difference would it make?

 

You are making very right point. I just wanted to bring a more meaningful definition to science than the one in use. I felt, the definition/understanding in use for science is a bit far from reality. And I really did not define 'Science' with intention. I wrote it while writing about human psychology, just to tell what we have to take and what we should deney.

[kvraghavaiah]

No, science has absolutely nothing to do with 'beliefs'. Science deals with ability to 'know'. Knowledge gained by science ALWAYS comes with some degree of uncertainty, this is what makes scientific knowledge different from belief because belief can be viewed to be absolute and certain.

 

I covered uncertain knowledge under belief. It is difficult to define some words perfectly and take any exact meaning. I was trying to give an optimal sentence for 'Science'.

[kvraghavaiah]

Friends,

 

Can some one say if the definition given is satisfactory/optimal? I am confused after no positive comments at all from different people outside this forum and in this forum.

[Rade]

Friends,Can some one say if the definition given is satisfactory/optimal? I am confused after no positive comments at all from different people outside this forum and in this forum.

I already suggested the the word belief has no place in any definition of science, the correct term to use rather than belief is uncertain knowledge. If you demand belief in science then the King James Bible is a book of science since it has everything to meet your definition: (1) a set of facts (2) all kinds of reliable and rational belief, and (3) billions of humans would tell you the book is very useful to them. Next, you cannot say that science is knowledge irrespective of time and space because this means knowledge via science can be gained by the mind independent (outside) of time and space, which I view as being an impossible act for any conscious being.

 

I suggest you modify your definition to: science is uncertain knowledge of a set of useful facts of reality.

[kvraghavaiah]

I got excellent helping comments here. Thank you all for your contribution.

 

Now I understand want happened:

 

In Indian languages, a word which is equivalent to 'Science' in English is used as synonym to 'Knowledge'. Also, worlds most ancient script 'Vedha' has synonyms 'Knowledge' and 'Science'. So I had strongly in my mind that Science=Knowledge.

 

But majority of the world currently sees science as the set of processes around knowledge rather than the knowledge itself. So the definition I developed sounds a bit odd. So, I am with drawing this definition. I am making it as the meaning of 'Scientific knowledge' instead of science. But I will purify the description to take in to account the meaningful comments I received from different people.