What is Science?

[SidewalkCynic]

Originally Posted by alexander

The best way i can define the meaning of the term (referring to knowledge) in the definition of science is: a body of truths/facts accumulated over time. This has nothing to do with cognition, this has nothing to do with books, books are merely a media that stores a particular body of truths, generally because of science's categorization of facts, books containing science, contain a specific set of facts generally within the same category. If we had a way to simply store this knowledge in crystal balls, we would, but knowledge does not necessarily require cognitive function to be present, but often, especially in early history, stored in cognition, due to the lack of ability to store this knowledge in other forms of media.

you may also see a relationship between science and knowledge here to be near synonyms of one another...

I see this as an example of the extention of the "nutty" lexicon that can be associated with "nutty" theist domination and influence. I understand "knowledge" as being derived from "know," and knowing is an action/cognition that, at best, can only be understood as a human behavior - other animals, or organisisms, are far from being understood into the details that we develop.

I think the theists, particularly the Christian Church, controlled language and made mistakes that we can recognize; and the best we can do is attempt to straighten it out. I for sure am not going to whine about it - all I am going to do is present a replacement of the Dewey Decimal system that I believe better represents the arrangement of human knowledge in society. Although you, and many others, may disagree - you are then tasked with presenting the better rendering of human knowledge. As it is, I don't think anyone knows where to begin, and my rendition is going to be the latest "starting point."

[Mercedes Benzene]

Originally Posted by SidewalkCynic

I think the theists, particularly the Christian Church, controlled language and made mistakes that we can recognize; and the best we can do is attempt to straighten it out. I for sure am not going to whine about it - all I am going to do is present a replacement of the Dewey Decimal system that I believe better represents the arrangement of human knowledge in society. Although you, and many others, may disagree - you are then tasked with presenting the better rendering of human knowledge. As it is, I don't think anyone knows where to begin, and my rendition is going to be the latest "starting point."

Could you please, precisely, explain what about "knowledge" is flawed before you try to explain how to improve it?
Also, I would argue that your Dewey Decimal system analogy is flawed. There's not much wrong with that system. I can walk into my school's main library, which is 26 stories tall, look up a book on the computer, find it, and walk out the door in 5 minutes. I don't think you can very much improve upon this system.

Which brings me to the main point at hand. How can you better arrange human knowledge. Knowledge is knowledge. You either know something or you don't.
What are you trying to spin here?

[alexander]

Sidewalk, theology actually had little effect on writing. It did, because it promoted documentation of certain ideas, which certainly had upsided, as priests were taught how to write, eventually openning schools and starting the schoolastic system, teaching people literacy, but as far as purposefully convoluting a language, i see no apparent link to support your theory. Meanings are defined more by the locales of people, classes and events in history, thus meanings are, as pyro said, defined by the people at a specific time and place, and they change, its just the nature of the society.

Pyro, understand what you are trying to say, but once again the meaning has been convoluted by the missuse of the term by the scientific community. Science is not any single process, its not a process to find or categorize knowledge, it is the knowledge we are trying to achieve, its the facts and outcomes, thus what you are describing, scientific principal is a part of science, as is scientific method, an integral part of science, but its part of a much bigger thing that is science... You don't science around, you research, thus investigate the matter using scientific method and your curiosity to come up with scientific information (science), just like historic research defines historic information (history)...

[SidewalkCynic]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

I would like to remind all of us that the Dictionary is not a source of authority, evidence, proof, right or wrong.
The Dictionary merely shows how words are currently being used.
And that can change pretty fast.
The fact that a word may appear in the Dictionary with a certain "definition" (usage) should not be construed as requiring us to always use that word in just that way and no other.

I definitely agree, and I hope that the science community will begin to focus on attempts to "construct" some type of consistant language beyond their very absolute defining of natural phenomena.

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

I've only been studying science for a half century or more, so I do not claim to be an authority, but for all those decades, in and out of academia, engineering and the medical community, the word "Science" has typically and consistently been used by my teachers, my managers and my colleagues to refer to the Process that produces the knowledge and technology.

Knowledge and technology are the Products of Science, not Science itself.

Okay, then we are still left, or are able, to define the specific, and consistent steps of the process (scientific method), and those are probably going to be defined as engineering, design, referencing, etc. And the only thing left is going to be the defining of information, which is deferent from defining words, because words are specific to represent abstract ideas.

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

Of course, the word "science" is often used BOTH ways by lots of people. If you want to use "science" to mean a collection of "science books", by all means, do so.
But in those places where the knowledge is produced, most folks talk about "DOING" science, not about collecting, organizing, publishing or reading science.

Exactly. What they are referring to is technology - the detailed collection of information, from generalities to specific subject.

[alexander]

Originally Posted by Sidewalk

I definitely agree, and I hope that the science community will begin to focus on attempts to "construct" some type of consistant language beyond their very absolute defining of natural phenomena.

Its called Math, and it has existed for a while... Most people in the scientific community speak it rather well too

Originally Posted by pyro

most folks talk about "DOING" science

also doing science is guessing, finding, collecting, organizing and documenting what you found. Science is still the knowledge obtained at the end of all that... word is missused once again

[SidewalkCynic]

Originally Posted by Mercedes Benzene

Could you please, precisely, explain what about "knowledge" is flawed before you try to explain how to improve it?

Logic is compromised in secular society.

Originally Posted by Mercedes Benzene

Also, I would argue that your Dewey Decimal system analogy is flawed. There's not much wrong with that system. I can walk into my school's main library, which is 26 stories tall, look up a book on the computer, find it, and walk out the door in 5 minutes. I don't think you can very much improve upon this system.

The problem with the DDC is that it is of only usefulness in the library. For example we cannot effeceintly convert it to use as a directory for storing information in our computer documents. We cannot use it as a reference to the hierarchy of what scientists assign to groupings of subjects (taxonomy).

Originally Posted by Mercedes Benzene

Which brings me to the main point at hand. How can you better arrange human knowledge. Knowledge is knowledge. You either know something or you don't.
What are you trying to spin here?

Well, I haven't my patent pending, yet, so I am reluctant to divulge anymore than the better rendition of the DDC category of Science, because my rendition is not much different, but it does begin to show how I "clean" things up. And these are "renderings" of how Dewey, or the gaurdians of the DDC, and I "view" how knowledge is arranged in society for recognizing how to access the information/technology sought (map, taxonomy).

500 Natural sciences & mathematics

501 Philosophy & theory
502 Miscellany
503 Dictionaries & encyclopedias
504 Not assigned or no longer used
505 Serial publications
506 Organizations & management
507 Education, research, related topics
508 Natural history
509 Historical, areas, persons treatment

510 Mathematics

511 General principles
512 Algebra & number theory
513 Arithmetic
514 Topology
515 Analysis
516 Geometry
517 Not assigned or no longer used
518 Not assigned or no longer used
519 Probabilities & applied mathematics

520 Astronomy & allied sciences

521 Celestial mechanics
522 Techniques, equipment, materials
523 Specific celestial bodies & phenomena
524 Not assigned or no longer used
525 Earth (Astronomical geography)
526 Mathematical geography
527 Celestial navigation
528 Ephemerides
529 Chronology

530 Physics

531 Classical mechanics Solid mechanics
532 Fluid mechanics Liquid mechanics
533 Gas mechanics
534 Sound & related vibrations
535 Light & paraphotic phenomena
536 Heat
537 Electricity & electronics
538 Magnetism
539 Modern physics

540 Chemistry & allied sciences

541 Physical & theoretical chemistry
542 Techniques, equipment, materials
543 Analytical chemistry
544 Qualitative analysis
545 Quantitative analysis
546 Inorganic chemistry
547 Organic chemistry
548 Crystallography
549 Mineralogy

550 Earth sciences

551 Geology, hydrology, meteorology
552 Petrology
553 Economic geology
554 Earth sciences of Europe
555 Earth sciences of Asia
556 Earth sciences of Africa
557 Earth sciences of North America
558 Earth sciences of South America
559 Earth sciences of other areas

560 Paleontology Paleozoology

561 Paleobotany
562 Fossil invertebrates
563 Fossil primitive phyla
564 Fossil Mollusca & Molluscoidea
565 Other fossil invertebrates
566 Fossil Vertebrata (Fossil Craniata)
567 Fossil cold-blooded vertebrates
568 Fossil Aves (Fossil birds)
569 Fossil Mammalia

570 Life sciences; biology

571 Physiology & related subjects
572 Biochemistry
573 Specific physiological systems in animals
574 [Unassigned]
575 Specific parts of & systems in plants
576 Genetics & evolution
577 Ecology
578 Natural history of organisms
579 Microorganisms, fungi & algae

580 Plants (Botany)

581 Specific topics in natural history
582 Plants noted for characteristics & flowers
583 Dicotyledons
584 Monocotyledons
585 Gymnosperms; conifers
586 Seedless plants
587 Vascular seedless plants
588 Bryophytes
589 [Unassigned]

590 Animals (Zoology)

591 Specific topics in natural history
592 Invertebrates
593 Marine & seashore invertebrates
594 Mollusks & molluscoids
595 Arthropods
596 Chordates
597 Cold-blooded vertebrates; fishes
598 Birds
599 Mammals

Do you see this as having an order that is easily recognizable, or do you begin to see a better pattern if we clean it up, and not confine ourselves to a base-ten classification system?

NATUROLOGY

Physicology
Physics
Chemistry
Astronomy
Terrestriology
Geology
Oceanology
Meteorology
Paleontology
Anthropology
Biology
Microbiology
Botany
Zoology
Ecology

As you may have noticed, mathematics and philosophy of science are not contained in my rendition of Naturology, but then I have not revealed the entire system because of intellectual property concerns. Besides, it is in everyones best interest, if someone else can make the claim that they thought independently and reconized some errors in the DDC; otherwise I, your humble idiot, is the avant gourde - you don't want that - I'm homeless, and don't understand science like a scientist does.

[Mercedes Benzene]

Originally Posted by SidewalkCynic

The problem with the DDC is that it is of only usefulness in the library.

Uhm. That's its purpose.

Originally Posted by SidewalkCynic

Do you see this as having an order that is easily recognizable, or do you begin to see a better pattern if we clean it up, and not confine ourselves to a base-ten classification system?

Actually, yes, I do see that as having an order that is easily recognizable. It very transparently allows us to visualize a categorization. It's neatly organized, and splits of "knowledge" into very recognizable, explicit categories.

[SidewalkCynic]

Originally Posted by Mercedes Benzene

Uhm. That's its purpose.


Actually, yes, I do see that as having an order that is easily recognizable. It very transparently allows us to visualize a categorization. It's neatly organized, and splits of "knowledge" into very recognizable, explicit categories.

Well, that is the best defense in preventing me from taking over the world. Good luck - 'cause, I'm betting most people will recognize the benifits of my system to their communities.

[Mercedes Benzene]

Originally Posted by SidewalkCynic

Well, that is the best defense in preventing me from taking over the world. Good luck - 'cause, I'm betting most people will recognize the benifits of my system to their communities.

Okay, once again, what exactly is it you hope to accomplish? What are the practical applications of your revised organization? How will it make things better? What basis do you have for making these assertions? What communities EXACTLY would "recognize the benifits [sic] of [your] system?" And why?
Why are you so against a system that has already proven itself to work? Don't you think that if scientists had a problem with an aspect of their profession, their specialty, their life's work, they would work to change the system? You have no experience.
These are all key things that you're conveniently leaving out of your explanations.

[SidewalkCynic]

Originally Posted by Mercedes Benzene

Okay, once again, what exactly is it you hope to accomplish?

World peace, and the better evolution of Mankind.

Originally Posted by Mercedes Benzene

What are the practical applications of your revised organization?

Besides the library, people can use my system to organize their computer documents storage systems based on the system of their choosing - most likely their local library's system would be used.

Originally Posted by Mercedes Benzene

How will it make things better?

People will be able to devise a uniform understanding of how knowledge is arranged in their community (or any social organization).

Originally Posted by Mercedes Benzene

What basis do you have for making these assertions?

It is a hypothesis based on my personal understanding of the distinction between social chaos and order, and the possible causes of each.

Originally Posted by Mercedes Benzene

What communities EXACTLY would "recognize the benifits [sic] of [your] system?" And why?

Communities that recognize that we endure social chaos, and seek the least invasive means of guiding the community toward the better evolution of their community are inclined to recognize the benefits of a more readily organized information distribution system.

Originally Posted by Mercedes Benzene

Why are you so against a system that has already proven itself to work?

Wow, are you assigning relative degrees?

It is not that I am against the system, it's just that I want to improve the system that has not been reorganized efficiently over the past 140 years; but because it is so antiquated it is better to completely replace it. Consider how Microsoft has updated Windows to the point that it is very different from from the original, and completely different from the previous operating system - I'm doing the same thing for public information classification and distribution systems, I am utilizing the contemporary sophistication of society to present a more efficient system that is not bogged down with compliance with a system (base-ten) that does not fit.

Besides, my system is much more customizable to meet the needs of specific communities, where as, the DDC, is a very strict system. My system, if a community believes that a subject is higher in hierarchy, and whatever was is beter placed in the new hierachy, then they will be allowed to do that, as long as they maintain documentation for the central office to maintain records for comparison with any applicable demographical data (IQ, Education standards, etc) for possible improvising of the system(s). Very complicated stuff, beyond your pay grade and education, to be organized by government regulation - let the politicians handle it, Okay buddy?

Originally Posted by Mercedes Benzene

Don't you think that if scientists had a problem with an aspect of their profession, their specialty, their life's work, they would work to change the system?

Sure if they recognize a problem. Just because they don't recognize a problem doesn't mean there is no problem - just ask the people at NASA about that.

Originally Posted by Mercedes Benzene

You have no experience.

Isn't it a beautiful thing - no responsibilities, hardly any dogma, free minded thinking - drink when I want, smoke when I want, do what ever I want pretty much - how about you?

Let not your heart be troubled - after I publish, you can bring forth your better rendition and prove to society how all your experience, and whatever else, enables you to render a better taxonomy than me - but I would suggest that you put forth that befor I put forth my system.

Originally Posted by Mercedes Benzene

These are all key things that you're conveniently leaving out of your explanations.

Well, hey bud, maybe you would be more satisfied if I published a book about it when I get my patent, rather than expecting me to convey all my work and analysis to you over a very limited publication network of an Internet forum discussion on the topic of what is the definition of science, and not what is the next best public information classification system!