What is Science?

[lemit]

My source for the first two answers is "Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary."

"What is science?" "[T]he state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding."

"What is the scientific method?" "[P]rinciples and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."

"What is the science industry?" I couldn't find that one. I've never heard the term before, and it reminds me of the cartoon industry on "The Simpsons," with black smoke billowing from its smokestacks.

"Does a child exercise science when walking - down a staircase?" No. A child walking down a staircase is, for those of you with short attention spans, a child walking down a staircase. That question could be turned into a nice riddle, but it couldn't launch a scientific investigation.

--lemit

[InfiniteNow]

surprise, surprise! everything is just a theory weird things

Want to make a scientist groan? Listen to a lecture about cutting edge research in his or her area of expertise, then say the five dreaded words: “it’s all just a theory.” From creationists to people who seem to believe that if it hasn’t been done yet, it must be impossible, habitual abusers of this phrase wield it to dismiss and demean vast swaths of modern science with a haughty sneer. In the process, they keep showing just how little grasp of the scientific method they have and impress only those who don’t know that even such basic tenets as how germs make us sick or the flow of time, are all “just theories.” In science, a theory is something that seems to be confirmed time and time again, no matter how many times we test it or how many people try to replicate it. <more at the link>

[SidewalkCynic]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah -- and one day, someone comes up and says, "carpentry is just whittling wood!"

To top it off, this someone with the cynical attitude has never built a house, a cabinet, a chair, and had only watched somebody whittle just once.

How seriously would you take this someone?

How would you answer?

Well, I would hope I could provide the more correct answer for the person who needs a more precise answer.

Sure, maybe on a particular instant I might get all upset, and irrational like grandious scientists seem to get; but if my emotions are in check and I am confident that I know what I do, and I do what I do; and I have explored all the 'philosophical' ends of what I believe to be paramount of my life, I would have an efficeint answer at the ready. I wouldn't beat the dead horse with analogies.

In other words, you just gave a straw man argument.

Off the top of my head, I would define carpentry as the technographic methods associated with wood.

carpentry
n : the craft of a carpenter: making things out of wood [syn: {woodworking},
{woodwork}]
carpenter
n : a woodworker who makes or repairs wooden objects

Now, you are posing the analogy that science is to carpentry, as if science is something that cannot be defined in efficient terms, or what???

What's your point?

[SidewalkCynic]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

I believe part of your problem is the word "merely" in that opening sentence. Science is about much more than a collection of facts or definitions, much in the same way that a house is much more than a collection of bricks.

I did not define science as a collection of information - that would be knowledge and/or technology. I defined science as the behavior/action DEFINING information - get it?

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Science is a process by which well-defined and falsifiable predictions are put forth to explain the behavior of the natural world, where those predictions are tested, false hypothesis discarded, and every idea scrutinized. These predictions are consistent and repeatable by others with differing views.

And, just how does one repeat a prediction if he is not made aware of the project?

In other words, information has to be provided for the subsequent experiements, and that information has to be defined by the previous technician.

Now, I think, that what you are doing is not seperating science from the method(s), nor are you seperating the industry from either term: science, or scientific method.

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Your assertion suggests that science is a dictionary, but it's not. It's a process... a methodology... and a rather elegant way to further our understanding of the way reality behaves.

Well, we don't have to go over how my definition read, again. What we do need to go over is what, then, is a science book?

A collection of definitions, and descriptions???

[SidewalkCynic]

Originally Posted by Tormod

The scientific method doesn't really require further definition. It is not a set of laws and regulations, but rather basic requirements for conducting experiments and reporting the results via analysis and study. This becomes more or less scientific through peer review and subsequent testing and retesting.

Wow "Basic requirements," are not the same as laws, or regulations???

Originally Posted by Tormod

As to whether a child excercises science while walking down a stairs - I wouldn't know. The act of walking is not a science unless the child does it as part of a study. But who knows what the child is thinking of? Maybe she is performing some analysis in her head while walking?

You are not confident that analysis is being conducted and that operation of the body movements is not necessarily the result of past experiements designed into an order of new experiement that ultimately results in the child achieving the ability to walk. You believe there is, probably, some other method being employed that would distinguish it from science?

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by SidewalkCynic

Sure, maybe on a particular instant I might get all upset, and irrational like grandious scientists seem to get;

Well, at least now we know what your intentions here are. You just shat all over the responses people gave you, and being a noob with so few posts under your belt, it's readily apparent that you have no desire for real discussion with the members here, and that you're just interested in pooping all over science and people who engage in its practice.

Your definitions are wrong, as has already been explained by practically every respondent above. Closing your eyes and plugging your ears... lashing out like a prick to people who bothered offering a response to your question... doesn't change that.


Hell... even wiki disagrees with you.

Science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice.[1]

In its more restricted contemporary sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.[2][3] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word. Science as discussed in this article is sometimes called experimental science to differentiate it from applied science - the application of scientific research to specific human needs - although the two are often interconnected.

Science is a continuing effort to discover and increase human knowledge and understanding through disciplined research. Using controlled methods, scientists collect observable evidence of natural or social phenomena, record measurable data relating to the observations, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions. Scientists are also expected to publish their information so other scientists can do similar experiments to double-check their conclusions. The results of this process enable better understanding of past events, and better ability to predict future events of the same kind as those that have been tested.

Nothing in there about the "defining of information."

[SidewalkCynic]

Originally Posted by enorbet2

It seems to me that Science is far more than mere definition or mere information. It is a testable system of gathering and organization of data that rejects cruft and places odds on reliability to allow the best possible conclusions of understanding the world. It is an ever-evolving, recursive and self-correcting process, not simply a string of accepted facts.

You see, I think you are equating the industry of science with the definition of science.

Although, you make a good analysis of the conotation that "industry," brings, you basically are disregarding that what ever organization employs scientists is agenda driven, and all the rest of the descriptors. You, just are not identifying all the specifics, because they may not be available, or your idealism of science causes you to disregard.

Originally Posted by enorbet2

As for the last question I am admittedly uneasy about the term "science industry" since it seems to me to imply some static product churned out by some well-defined, agenda driven, profit seeking organization for mass consumption and I see no evidence of such a thing. Therefore, until I see some evidence, it doesn't exist for me and can't be answered.

Originally Posted by enorbet2

I am even more concerned with "atheist peer group" (you suppose utter homogeneity?) and "offended, because the (your) definition does not meet their satisfaction" since a measuring ruler is useless if we don't agree on the length of an inch or a centimeter. How can you expect to talk Math with Mathematicians if you don't accept that a triangle always has three sides?

That is, basically, what I have been trying to convey to Atheists. They are prime examples of irrational thought in support of reason - if they are a bastion of reason, why can they not decide on anything?

Not even what to call themselves

[InfiniteNow]

Howdy Troll!

Originally Posted by SidewalkCynic

That is, basically, what I have been trying to convey to Atheists. They are prime examples of irrational thought in support of reason - if they are a bastion of reason, why can they not decide on anything?

Not even what to call themselves

Just want to point out to you that atheism is not a system of beliefs, nor an ideology, but the rejection of one. Much like we don't have "a-racists" or "a-tooth fairy believers" or "a-Zeusians," it is just a term describe someone who is not theist. It is not a system of beliefs, and therefore suggesting that people need a collective label so you can more easily bash them is fallacious.

If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color.

[SidewalkCynic]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color.

Straw man argument. Bald may not be a hair color, or a tuna sandwich, but it is a hair style; whether the person has a degenerative medical condition resulting in the appearance, or not. Atheism is not a religion, just as theism is not a religion, however, those who organize under the auspices of progressing the membership to such a designation is a religion.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by SidewalkCynic

Well, I would hope I could provide the more correct answer for the person who needs a more precise answer. ... Now, you are posing the analogy that science is to carpentry, as if science is something that cannot be defined in efficient terms, or what??? What's your point?

My points are:
1. your initial "definition" of science obviously reflects a perspective that is somewhat naive;
2. your initial "definition" may reflect a hostile attitude toward science;
3. your question isn't so much a request for information or explanation, as it is an opening "salvo" in what may be a trollish attack;
4. I wanted you to see how your question looked from my viewpoint -- thus the carpentry analogy;
5. any attempt on my (our) part to answer your question must be predicated on:
....5a. how knowledgeable are you of science, its history and its practices?
....5b. what is your intention in being here?
....5c. how far back into the elementary basics of "science" do I need to go to begin an adequate answer to your question?

We have lots of folks visit here who truly have a thirst for knowledge, or curiosity about a particular subject, or something they want to share.

We also have some folks who come here with a personal vendetta against "science" (for various reasons).

I'm just trying to make your visit here as comfortable and as productive as I can. Welcome to Hypography.