What is Science?

[SidewalkCynic]

Originally Posted by freeztar

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.

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

Your link is, for all intents and purposes, a full rendition of the information gained by advanced studies of all aspects of the physical properties of the motion. The child does not have all that information, but does act in accordance with the information he does have - he has, probably, studied how other people move and compared it to his crawling.

How about the invention of the wheel, has then been explored around here?

[maddog]

Originally Posted by SidewalkCynic

Well, if you cannot say anything nice about the Dewey Decimal system why aren't you trying to dismantle it in favor of universal Library of Congress system?

Little good I can say about the Dewey Decimal System. It is inadequate for the task of cataloguing documents (books, journals, papers, etc) larger than say 100,000...

Originally Posted by SidewalkCynic

It is being used to fix the definition of science, and encourage others to devise classification systems they believe would be more beneficial to mankind.

The definition of science is NOT broken. If you think so, then that is you Opinion.

Originally Posted by SidewalkCynic

What obsolete system?

I took Lemit to mean the DDS. It is currently only used in Small Libraries.

maddog

[maddog]

Originally Posted by SidewalkCynic

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?

I have requoted UncleAl to clarify.

Originally Posted by UncleAl

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

I went to the trouble of using Google to translate for you:

According to Undiscovered Scotland, the name comes from the Scottish Gaelic phrase uachdar muc garadh, meaning “upper pig enclosure”.

[above translation: 2007 April 17 Lamentations on Chemistry]

maddog

[lemit]

"Upper pig enclosure" huh? I have a little Scottish blood in me. It seems to me that maybe the Scots didn't get that Gaelic sense of poetic language that the Irish and the Welsh have.

But I wanted to talk about that child, who is not doing anything except "walking - down a staircase." That's all there is to the question. A lot of things have been ascribed to the child: learning, science (which is in the question), gender (both of them), age, and a lot of other stuff that just plain isn't in the question.

Sidewalk may have made his point. His point may have been that scientists will try to analyze things they make up themselves. That's sure a valid point here.

Look at this again. Remember, there is no evidence beyond what you see in the words printed below. Tell me where you find the descriptions of the child that have been thrown around in this thread:

does a child exercise science when walking - down a staircase?

I took out the word "BONUS" because I didn't want it to distract people who seem to be distracted by almost anything.

I think I've tried this before. I think it failed. Does anybody else see that this discussion has gone beyond the evidence presented to it? Does anybody else see there isn't enough information in the question to form an answer?

Are anybody out there interested in the examining the precise information given, or does everyone want to chase phantoms?

--lemit

p.s. Yes, I know I've offended Scottish people everywhere. I apologize to all of them, including myself. I didn't mean any offense to me. I appreciate my rich history in science and medicine. I know my ancestors were, more than any others, responsible for the Industrial Revolution. Oh oh. I apologize to all those other people who thought their ancestors were responsible for the Industrial Revolution . . . .

[SidewalkCynic]

Originally Posted by lemit

Look at this again. Remember, there is no evidence beyond what you see in the words printed below. Tell me where you find the descriptions of the child that have been thrown around in this thread:

does a child exercise science when walking - down a staircase?

I think I've tried this before. I think it failed. Does anybody else see that this discussion has gone beyond the evidence presented to it? Does anybody else see there isn't enough information in the question to form an answer?

Are anybody out there interested in the examining the precise information given, or does everyone want to chase phantoms?

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.

[enorbet2]

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.

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.

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by UncleAl

Ignorance is not a form of knowing things... ...are baffled by the obvious yet possess a complete understanding of the nonexistent.

I love you, man.

[lemit]

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

[Rade]

The question has been asked:

....does a child exercise science when walking - down a staircase?....

Of course it does. Consider the view, the child at top of staircase, ready to take first step. The first foot moves, but the knowledge of how and where it will land on step, or even if step is sturdy, is uncertain. And anytime one has uncertain knowledge of an action to be taken and/or of an existent, one uses science to gain information, for Science is defined as Uncertain Knowledge.

[Larv]

Originally Posted by Rade

The question has been asked:

....does a child exercise science when walking - down a staircase?....

Of course it does. Consider the view, the child at top of staircase, ready to take first step. The first foot moves, but the knowledge of how and where it will land on step, or even if step is sturdy, is uncertain. And anytime one has uncertain knowledge of an action to be taken and/or of an existent, one uses science to gain information, for Science is defined as Uncertain Knowledge.

Then I suppose it should follow that a spider exercises engineering when it builds its web.