What is Science?

[SidewalkCynic]

Originally Posted by Larv

Rigorous peer review is really what science is all about. Peer review is the "natural selection" of the scientific process, wherein "unfit" ideas are tested and sent off for extinction, while others more defensible survive for another round of testing. Without peer review science would be just another religion...

I think, I'm with that, as far as defining the "science community/industry." Because, essentially, when speaking of religion, social organization is implied, especially when referring to religion as a grouping - "just another religion."

But, I do not think it is fit for defining science, as something other than the grouping of scientists and what they do to promote their grouping.

[lemit]

SidewalkCynic,

Thanks for the prompt response.

I don't expect people to agree with me all the time, or even a lot of the time. It's good that you took the time to read carefully what I'd written.

Please let me apologize for the tone of my post. You must understand that a lot of the criticism wasn't directed at you. It was directed at people who, I thought, weren't really giving the kind of researched responses they should have.

So, you use libraries that still have the Dewey Decimal System? I'm surprised. Could you let me know where they are, in a PM if you think that would be appropriate? I'd really like to know, since what I said was actually based on about 25 years' experience, including quite a bit of work with the Library of Congress itself on preservation and classification projects.

You've suggested a lot of things I wasn't aware of. I really am here to learn. Please help me.

Again, thanks.

--lemit

[Doctordick]

I have occasionally read this thread, though I don’t think I have ever made any comments, and I am currently moved to make a few comments as issues close to my work have arisen. First, Mercedes Benzene has brought up the significance of deductive and inductive reasoning. These two modes of reasoning are essentially quite analogous to what I call “logical thought” and “squirrel thought” which I have defined in my thread “Defining the nature of rational discussion!”. Essentially, the following paragraph defines the single most important difference between inductive and deductive conclusions.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

In essence, there are two very different ways of "understanding the universe". There is that emotional feeling that something makes sense; that you understand what is going on and have no doubts as to the validity of your expectations. Then again there is a very different kind of understanding which allows you to logically defend some set of analytical expectations in intimate detail; even in cases where no emotional feeling exists to defend the validity of those expectations (here I am talking about all those totally counter intuitive deductions so common in analytical work).

I think it might be useful to take a look at that post in order to understand the real difference between deductive and inductive reasoning and the absolute necessity of both.

The problem with the common discussions of deductive and inductive reasoning is that their essential differences are not really addressed: all deductive reasoning is based on axioms arrived at through inductive conclusions and all inductive reasoning is analyzed through deductive analysis. That is to say, the analysis generally fails to actually separate the two. My analysis, based on the division into “logical” and “squirrel” thought, provides a method of segregating and isolating the two modes of reasoning into consistently analyzable concepts.

Then, as modest says,

Originally Posted by modest

...observations can't prove that a theory is universally true (only that it isn't yet falsified).

That is exactly why I use the term “flaw-free” meaning that there exists no data which contradicts the theory. That brings up another subtle issue: the idea of “prediction”.

Originally Posted by modest

According to Popper, scientific theory should make predictions (preferably predictions that are not made by a competing theory) which can be tested and the theory rejected if these predictions are shown not to be correct.

The absolute first requirement of any scientific theory is that there cannot already exist information able to falsify it: i.e., it must be one hundred percent consistent with all known facts. In a sense, it must produce predictions consistent with the known past.

That brings up a subtle issue I have never seen brought up by anyone. The moment any experiment designed to produce a prediction of (as yet) unknown data is actually performed, the result of that prediction is then a component of the known past; it is then “known data”: i.e., if the prediction is correct, the theory is no more than simply consistent with the known past. It remains “flaw-free”.

The issue being emphasized there is that “the fact” that a theory “predicts the future” is always an inductive conclusion. It is that exact point which makes my work so interesting. The only inductive conclusions I use are the conclusions that the essence of logic and mathematics will continue to be flaw-free. Absolutely everything else I do is deductive. (That is why I continue to point out that my construct is a tautology, not a theory.) With regard to my conclusions, I doubt it is possible to get closer to Popper’s ideal of avoiding inductive reasoning.

As modest says (in his edit), ” Of course, creating an hypothesis in the first place is mostly going to be an inductive affair.” That is the reason that I make such a grand effort to keep my “model of an explanation” totally un-constraining: i.e., my purpose is to make sure that each an every possibility for an actual theory is left entirely open.

Have fun -- Dick

[lemit]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

I have occasionally read this thread, though I don’t think I have ever made any comments, and I am currently moved to make a few comments as issues close to my work have arisen. First, Mercedes Benzene has brought up the significance of deductive and inductive reasoning. These two modes of reasoning are essentially quite analogous to what I call “logical thought” and “squirrel thought” which I have defined in my thread “Defining the nature of rational discussion!”. Essentially, the following paragraph defines the single most important difference between inductive and deductive conclusions.
I think it might be useful to take a look at that post in order to understand the real difference between deductive and inductive reasoning and the absolute necessity of both.

The problem with the common discussions of deductive and inductive reasoning is that their essential differences are not really addressed: all deductive reasoning is based on axioms arrived at through inductive conclusions and all inductive reasoning is analyzed through deductive analysis. That is to say, the analysis generally fails to actually separate the two. My analysis, based on the division into “logical” and “squirrel” thought, provides a method of segregating and isolating the two modes of reasoning into consistently analyzable concepts.

Then, as modest says,
That is exactly why I use the term “flaw-free” meaning that there exists no data which contradicts the theory. That brings up another subtle issue: the idea of “prediction”.
The absolute first requirement of any scientific theory is that there cannot already exist information able to falsify it: i.e., it must be one hundred percent consistent with all known facts. In a sense, it must produce predictions consistent with the known past.

That brings up a subtle issue I have never seen brought up by anyone. The moment any experiment designed to produce a prediction of (as yet) unknown data is actually performed, the result of that prediction is then a component of the known past; it is then “known data”: i.e., if the prediction is correct, the theory is no more than simply consistent with the known past. It remains “flaw-free”.

The issue being emphasized there is that “the fact” that a theory “predicts the future” is always an inductive conclusion. It is that exact point which makes my work so interesting. The only inductive conclusions I use are the conclusions that the essence of logic and mathematics will continue to be flaw-free. Absolutely everything else I do is deductive. (That is why I continue to point out that my construct is a tautology, not a theory.) With regard to my conclusions, I doubt it is possible to get closer to Popper’s ideal of avoiding inductive reasoning.

As modest says (in his edit), ” Of course, creating an hypothesis in the first place is mostly going to be an inductive affair.” That is the reason that I make such a grand effort to keep my “model of an explanation” totally un-constraining: i.e., my purpose is to make sure that each an every possibility for an actual theory is left entirely open.

Have fun -- Dick

I think it's a sign of how lost we've got here that an obvious duality of science has mostly been ignored.

Where would we be if Einstein hadn't been curious about what seemed weird in the Newtonian world; if he had been too busy doing calculations on that train to notice something strange about the passing landscape? Is there any real scientist who doesn't find the greatest joy in the weirdness of the world, and then understanding and explaining that weirdness?

What should separate the scientist from people who are themselves weird is inductive rigor applied to that deductive feeling that something strange is happening. We don't want technologists, but we don't want Arthur Conan Doyles either.

My world has been writing and editing and the analysis of writing and editing, particularly journalism. What I've always loved about good journalists is that while they might be among the worst gossips in the world in the newsroom or in the always convenient bar--collecting information is their job--they also know they need to verify information before they pass it on. In other words, good journalism should be good science.

(Wow! If I'm right, I've been doing science just like I wanted to when I was a kid.)

--lemit

p.s. According to Australian television, police in New Zealand have confirmed reports of the death of actor Jeff Goldblum. He reportedly died after falling from a cliff during the filming of a movie.

Goldblum, in an appearance on "The Colbert Report," was unable to confirm or deny the reports of his death since he had been in New York at the time of the incident.

[Larv]

Originally Posted by lemit

p.s. According to Australian television, police in New Zealand have confirmed reports of the death of actor Jeff Goldblum. He reportedly died after falling from a cliff during the filming of a movie.

Goldblum, in an appearance on "The Colbert Report," was unable to confirm or deny the reports of his death since he had been in New York at the time of the incident.

This news item is well suited for The Onion. I can't help mentioning Mark Twain's famous remark: "The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."

[lawcat]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

The absolute first requirement of any scientific theory is that there cannot already exist information able to falsify it: i.e., it must be one hundred percent consistent with all known facts. In a sense, it must produce predictions consistent with the known past.

I must disagree with this categorical statement. And not to beat a dead horse, but as everyone knows, science is probabilistic. For example, take Octet Stability Rule which is well accepted Materials Science and Engineering/List of Topics/ Octet Stability by Electron Sharing - Wikiversity. The rule states that satellite atoms will combine to form 4 bonds with the central atom. Yet, this is not always true. For example, in Sulfate Hexafluoride (SFl6), Fluorides form 6 pair-bonds with the sulfate atom. There are exceptions. The SFl6 is inconsistent with Octet Rule, yet the science is probabilistic and accepts this theory.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

The issue being emphasized there is that “the fact” that a theory “predicts the future” is always an inductive conclusion. It is that exact point which makes my work so interesting. The only inductive conclusions I use are the conclusions that the essence of logic and mathematics will continue to be flaw-free. Absolutely everything else I do is deductive. (That is why I continue to point out that my construct is a tautology, not a theory.) With regard to my conclusions, I doubt it is possible to get closer to Popper’s ideal of avoiding inductive reasoning.

As modest says (in his edit), ” Of course, creating an hypothesis in the first place is mostly going to be an inductive affair.” That is the reason that I make such a grand effort to keep my “model of an explanation” totally un-constraining: i.e., my purpose is to make sure that each an every possibility for an actual theory is left entirely open.

Have fun -- Dick

Induction does not follow causality, that is why it presents some deductive problems. For example, inductive reasoning would be: Since all Earth oceans have waves, then all Oceans in the universe have waves. The conclusion is rationally related to evidence, yet it does not follow from the evidence. The conclusion is probabilistic--it is likely that all oceans have waves.

Deduction on the other hand is digital--the statement is either true or false. This presents an inductive problem, since many things have exceptions and are therefore probabilistic.

So, at the bottom, every conclusion--whether inductive or deductive--must comport with likelihood of evidence--satisfactory probability that it is true. Prefering deduction over induction thus makes little sense in science where testing of theories is feasible. But, if only a theory is being advanced, then deductive reasoning certainly provides much needed clarity.

In other words, deduciton is crystaline, but it is easy to destroy if there is a crack--a falsity anywhere: Falsus in unius, falsus an omnibus. Deduction is brittle.

Induction is fluid. It can take any shape and hold true. A fault in a fluid does not destroy the fluid.

So What makes Science Science?

I would say its evidentiary nature. Without evidence, there is no science.

[UncleAl]

"I believe science is merely the defining of information."

If you do not understand the difference between science and everything else,

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/reality.png

abandon your computer and

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/evolve.gif

voluntarily walk a different, better path. Ignorance is not a form of knowing things. Confluences of overwhelming ignorance with overweening arrogance - Enviro-whinerism, social advocacy, government - are baffled by the obvious yet possess a complete understanding of the nonexistent. God save us from the congenitally inconsequential.

As the Scots would say, "uachdar muc garadh."

[stereologist]

What children do when they walk down stairs is not science. This learning process is not science. To perfect a way of travel is engineering at best. It is an application of trial and error. Science on the other hand produces predictions that can be tested. These predictions must include falsifiable issues.

Walking has been said to be falling down in a controlled manner.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by stereologist

What children do when they walk down stairs is not science. This learning process is not science. To perfect a way of travel is engineering at best. It is an application of trial and error.

To be fair, Science could be considered a method of trials and errors, with the trials being the experiments and the errors being the falsification.

Walking has been said to be falling down in a controlled manner.

Imho, the example given of the child walking down the stairs is too ambiguous to make any certain conclusions about the science that may or may not be employed. You can certainly study walking in a scientific manner.

The Physics of . . . Walking | Physics & Math | DISCOVER Magazine

[SidewalkCynic]

Originally Posted by UncleAl

"I believe science is merely the defining of information."

If you do not understand the difference between science and everything else,

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/reality.png

abandon your computer and

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/evolve.gif

voluntarily walk a different, better path. Ignorance is not a form of knowing things. Confluences of overwhelming ignorance with overweening arrogance - Enviro-whinerism, social advocacy, government - are baffled by the obvious yet possess a complete understanding of the nonexistent. God save us from the congenitally inconsequential.

As the Scots would say, "uachdar muc garadh."

I'm not all that sure what you are getting at - your links are of no consequence. So, if science is not responsible for defining everything else, what is? You want to leave it to religion??? What are you saying?