Quote:
Originally Posted by SidewalkCynic
I'm sure the professional scientists understand your critique of the question, but I'll bet they understand the implied message that I was trying to convey, as well. Would it help if I constructed the question as: does a child exercise science when learning how to walk? If not, you would be better served if you could provide better examples and they're corresponding solutions. We are not here to criticize others for their human failings, we are here to make science more social.
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 would change a lot of words in what I wrote. I must have been very tired. But I would not change a word in the question about the child, since I think that is the essence of science: looking at what is there instead of seeing only what we think is meant, or trying to change the question to one we want to answer.
Parsing words is part of the careful examination of the evidence presented to us. If you had asked about a child learning to do something, that would have been a wholly different question and would have deserved a different answer--and would have deprived me of those jokes about leaving that child on the stairs.
Your question about the child served my purposes perfectly. Now, I'd be thrilled to have a chance to work on a precise question that serves your purposes. Send me a PM.
--lemit
