I'm having a problem with equating science with "merely" the "defining of information" and I'm shooting for utilizing the Scientific Method (testing for "necessary and sufficient") to explain that problem, perhaps even with an eye to the Bonus..
First, let's define terms since all we have on a forum is language and it is essential in the scientific method to be certain any involved in a discussion are actually referring to the same bits if a useful conclusion is to be remotely possible:
"defining" (from Miriam-Webster's online dictionary)
< 1 a: to determine or identify the essential qualities or meaning of>
"information" (ibid)
< 2 a (1): knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction>
Defining does not necessarily imply determining whether "essential qualities" has any bearing on a given problem or even if it actually exists in reality (we can agree on a definition of a "frumious bandersantch" or a "light sabre" but only for amusement and curiosity's sake) so at best in scientific terms it is merely observation or fantasy conclusion that ends there with little room for hypothesis, experimentation, prediction, or experimentation - garbage in, garbage out (no offense intended to Lewis Carroll or Star Wars fan boys).
Information is even a little more difficult and less precise since not only does it often, and understandably, get confused with "data", with which it may overlap slightly, but especially "obtained from instruction" presents grave problems since garbage can and has been taught and still is. Witness the "Intelligent Design" poppycock still seeking validity despite deserved cynicism from within and from without.
It seems to me that Science is far more than mere definition or mere information. It is a testable system of gathering and organization of data that rejects cruft and places odds on reliability to allow the best possible conclusions of understanding the world. It is an ever-evolving, recursive and self-correcting process, not simply a string of accepted facts.
Your "child walking down a staircase" is a good example of how no conclusion can be scientifically made with such limited "defined information". It's like asking "How long is a string?".
Assuming it is the child's first time navigating stairs, hopefully he/she has observed others walking down stairs and carefully noted the details required to be successful, maybe even seen an example of someone not paying attention and paying the price. Hopefully this child has even noticed that leaping several steps requires longer legs and greater balance than they yet possess. It would be best if they had closely observed and processed the event of another similarly sized and experienced child holding on the railing and proceeding slowly and with great caution as to balance.
Throwing out useless, even dangerous information, while keeping high reliability pertinent information is essential, implying the facility to draw such conclusions perhaps by predicting that a fall down a full flight is an unacceptable risk and experimenting on a two step stair first, before concluding that the likelihood of successfully navigating a full flight of stairs will result in triumph, not tragedy. Having confidence in the reliability of both one's ability to create an unbroken line of logic, relying on no great leaps of faith, as well as the ability to execute such a plan boldly instead of unreasoned paralyzing fear is fairly essential to such a process as well. If instead, the child simply throws himself at the stairs trusting only in "if they can do it, I can do it", it isn't science, from the perspective of the child, unless that almost inevitable fall is analyzed for "what I did wrong and how can I avoid that in the future?".
So my opinion for the answers to your questions is that I have demonstrated the scientific method, which is already standardized requiring no further discussion, which is not dependent on "already defined methods" since I think people discover or are capable of discovering the means to reliable conclusions with no training (it simply gets more refined with such input) because of trial and error experimentation and the way our brains are wired, and permeates everything reliable such as Mathematics, Business, Infrastucture, the rules of evidence in crime scene investigation and the nature of Justice, to name only a few.
An example of Science's involvement with the unknown, the undefined, or not well defined is here, from
Georges Charpak: hardwired for science - CERN Courier
Quote:
CERNs immediate future lies with the LHC. What discoveries do you expect?
We expect the unknown to see things that are not necessarily foreseen by theory. Because there are still mysteries in physics dark matter, for example there are answers from theoreticians and there are many questions from experimentalists like myself. If theory were completely accurate we would not need to build an accelerator.
|
An example of how we are wired is here
We?re hard-wired for basic geometry - Science Mysteries- msnbc.com
and some of the argument on the nature of hardwiring here
Are We Hardwired?: The Role of Genes ... - Google Books
As for the last question I am admittedly uneasy about the term "science industry" since it seems to me to imply some static product churned out by some well-defined, agenda driven, profit seeking organization for mass consumption and I see no evidence of such a thing. Therefore, until I see some evidence, it doesn't exist for me and can't be answered.
I am even more concerned with "atheist peer group" (you suppose utter homogeneity?) and "offended, because the (your) definition does not meet their satisfaction" since a measuring ruler is useless if we don't agree on the length of an inch or a centimeter. How can you expect to talk Math with Mathematicians if you don't accept that a triangle always has three sides?
