Science Forums 2

[Jway]

I think my main question is, are we on this thread developing a consensus given the definitions put forth?

My related questions are:
- do you observe much overlap or some overlap in the presented definitions?
- do you think some definitions are in harmony, while others are "wrong?"
- if yes to the above, do you think the ones you might rule out are based on who said it?
- do you see conflict and disagreement in the definitions?

And my responses to these questions I ask will follow here in just une memento. First, I'd like to observe and put forth that there sure as heck appears to be not one (consistent) definition for science, among humans, on a science forum. I see no two definitions that are identical. In other areas of this forum, in recent days, I've seen criticism that seems related. That because there is no consistent definition on a concept (i.e. mystics), it is therefore (whatever). What I felt like I was hearing is, without a consistent definition, it is invalid. Or subjective and thus couldn't be considered scientific. But if we apply that same logic to the concept of "science," I'm going to make a bold prediction here that the devout believers in the proverbial room, will sing a different tune. IOW, there will be far more tolerance to the lack of consistent definition that comes with the term "science."

Anyway, here are my responses to the questions I asked above.

- are we on this thread developing a consensus given the definitions put forth?
> I believe we are, though I believe if we do, it will be partly to mostly because of my recent posts which exposed the differences and allowed posters to clarify and demonstrate overlap in what has been presented so far.

- do you observe much overlap or some overlap in the presented definitions?
> Some overlap. I find it interesting to observe the first word(s) after "science is" in the definitions put forth so far. That shows up as:
- science is the behavior
- science is a process
- science is a testable system
- science is the discipline
- science is the state
- science refers to a system
- science is structured approach

On this basis, strictly speaking, I see very little overlap. If I replaced "science" with "religion" in above short phrases, and went elsewhere and offered up my many definitions, I believe fellow humans would say, "sounds like you don't have a consistent idea of this this term you refer to." And if they were rude or abrasive, they would tell me (I think) that I obviously haven't thought this through and given the disparity, the term is nonsensical and invalid. If I said, "but, but, but you see, some of my friends, we all came up with these definitions. We are working on consensus." I think the abrasive people in the room would say, "well you and your friends have failed. One of these may be permissible, but they can't all be. Here you have it as a state, there you have it as a behavior, there an approach, here a system. It's all across the board and thus is very inconsistent."

- do you think some definitions are in harmony, while others are "wrong?"
> I think none of the definitions are wrong. While I might not see, on the surface, the harmony, I do believe that discernment finds harmony in each of the definitions. I believe I could make a case for each of the 7 presented so far as applicable to scientific practice, even if the applied definition is partial. Some would be more challenging than others, like the Meriam-Webster one, but given time and consideration, I believe I could come through.

- if yes to the above, do you think the ones you might rule out are based on who said it?
> I wouldn't rule any out, so this question doesn't apply to me.

- do you see conflict and disagreement in the definitions?
> I for sure see differences and incongruity. But IMO, that is on the surface. If anyone who stated any of these, or anyone who supports any of these, were to show up as rigid and insist one or two are true and the rest are false, then I believe there would be conflict and disagreement. Especially if I'm in the room and equal discussion time is permitted. I wouldn't rule any out, and if there are contributors to a consensus saying that some are automatically ruled out, there would be conflict on the surface. Beneath the surface, I believe the conflict would be made up, and has little to nothing to do with the definitions, and everything to do with bias and agenda.