Quote:
Originally Posted by SidewalkCynic
we are here to make science more social.
|
Please don't speak for me. I am not here to make Science more social. I prefer that Science and Mathematics stay pure and unadulterated by fad, whim, and popularity contests. I'd rather people become more scientific instead, and it appears that is slowly happening, although some polarization is also afoot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SidewalkCynic
We can parse words and phrases all day long, and that is basically what I am doing in my criticism of the definition of science. I believe I am recognizing several definitions of science and I do not think that is a good situation. I believe the definition for science should be precise, there by building a stronger foundation to begin eliminating errors in communication, and ultimatly, social organization. I sincerely believe that when most people are asked what is science, they would refer to the extensive list of defined information of natural phenomena (physics, biology, geology), they would not be inclined to describe science as the act of performing the scientific method.
|
I really *really* don't want Science to become subject to mere consensus. To me the scientific method is a bona fide Principle and not to be diluted down to some lowest common denominator. Such popular scientists as Carl Sagan, Michio Kaku, and even Stephen Hawking after "A Brief History of Time" never compromised the science, seeking only to explain in ways average folks and even children could likely understand. However the definition of Science itself was never, and should never, be at stake. Science is not generic nor fickle. Changing the definition of what Science is, is akin to saying 1=!1. It's verboten and undesirable in the extreme.... of course, IMHO.
