What is Science?

[Jway]

Originally Posted by lemit

Jway,

A lot of those definitions of "science" dip into the definition of "scientific method." To separate the two is like separating human biology from oxygen. I think one of the problems in this discussion has been that separation and the encumbent limpness of a definition of science.

First, I would hope you realize that I am not posting as SidewalkCynic.

Secondly, in Wikipedia's first depiction of science, it is not intertwined with (scientific) method. Like myself, Wikipedia talks along lines of, "in a strict view..."

I still have no idea what the "science industry" is, except probably another straw man.

I see it as a relatively new concept. Earlier I guessed it is an(y) attempt to standardized science as discipline and education. I'm not saying that is the right way to look at the term, but given the parameters, I think I'd come close, while remaining general. Essentially, if science (for you) must be tied in with (particular) method, then I think "science industry" applies.

I have no idea why you asked about the child on the staircase. Was that to bait oversensitive science types?

Again, I'm not the one who asked that question. I did respond though that "yes" - a child exercises science when walking - down a staircase.

I predict, based on the vague proposition put forth that the child will proceed in a downward direction while walking on the staircase. It's mundane. It's perhaps shallow, but IMO, science applies.

I've heard people say to me on forums, "are you typing on a keyboard? That's science!" I've heard several such quips as "evidence" of science at work in my life / our lives. So, a person can exercise science without awareness of methodology. I grant that for some people in the room, that is debatable and or "wrong." IMO, it is common sense, and acceptance of the basics of this takes nothing away from scientific practice. I believe it actually, technically adds to it. But in my worldview, it is not only science being exercised. You can exercise science and spirituality (for example) all in the same moment. It really is just a matter of perspective.

[GAHD]

My responses to Jway's related questions are:
- do you observe much overlap or some overlap in the presented definitions?
In a broad sense, yes I do.

• #2,3,&4. They all condense down into the scientific peer-review methodology of refining theories.
• #1 &5 Condense down into; Science is storing and retrieving information.
• #7 Condenses into "Science is the structured discovery of information."
• #6 Attempts to combine all of the above.

- do you think some definitions are in harmony, while others are "wrong?"
I'll note that many of the definitions mix "science" with "scientific method", The dictionary approach to dealing with this convoluted meaning "(science's) more restricted contemporary sense..." indicates how modern usage of the terms has caused near synonymous meanings. Not surprising when you consider the evolution of word meanings in the English language itself.
EG

Speed

- if yes to the above, do you think the ones you might rule out are based on who said it?
nope. It's a matter of dialect.
- do you see conflict and disagreement in the definitions?
as above.

[lemit]

Jway,

I am really sorry about the misattribution. I don't know what I was thinking, if anything.

I'm beginning to feel a little like David Letterman. I should word-process an apology so I can cut-and-paste it onto pretty much every thread I'm on.

To whomever it may concern (probably SidewalkCynic, but I haven't done the wordprocessing yet, so I'll leave it vague), I don't think the child on the stairway is anything besides a child on a stairway. If I knew the age of the child, its experience with stairways, and such other information, I might be able to theorize, but I remember using the stairs of the antebellum house where I grew up many times that were not in any way an exercise of science.

Just to get it out of the way, I sincerely apologize to everyone, everywhere.

--lemit

[Jway]

My uncle Elroy in 'Bama says an internet apology will not do. He expects you to apologize in person. He said if you show up, he'll have vittles and possum ready for eating. If interested, just PM me and I'll give you his address. He's really good people, especially if you don't feel a need to discuss his glass eye.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Jway

Never?
American Atheists | About...

Never.
The "State Farm Insurance Company" is a corporation and as such all four words together are capitalized.
But the word "state" is not.
Nor is "farm", "insurance", or "company".

The word "atheist" is merely an adjective. It is not capitalized.

[Jway]

Are you sure atheist isn't a noun?
I've checked with two dictionaries that list it as a noun.

I interpret what you are saying as it is not intended to be a proper noun. Though you may still insist it is an adjective.

But sometimes it is capitalized.

From the link I had in previous post:

That case – Murray v. Curlett – was a landmark in American jurisprudence on behalf of our First Amendment rights. It began:

"Your petitioners are Atheists, and they define their lifestyle as follows. An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth – for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it. An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help lead to a life of fulfillment."

If I find other examples, what would you suggest I do?
Bury my head in the sand?

[GAHD]

Jway, If in that particular writing we replaced the word atheist with any other descriptor, do you really think it needs capitalization?
Eg
"Your petitioners are Southerners, and they define their lifestyle as follows..."
"Your petitioners are Savages, and they define their lifestyle as follows...."
"Your petitioners are Colorblind, and they define their lifestyle as follows...."

[SidewalkCynic]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

The word "atheist" is merely an adjective. It is not capitalized.

As long as the atheists form organizations based on promoting the agenda defined by the designation, I think it is fitting to capitalize, "Atheist."

Another reason I do this is that the atheists should be embarrassed that they are accepting of the term devised by those who oppose their agenda. Atheists did not devise the term, because why then would a person who does not know to term belief in gods as "theism," then designate himself in that root term, opposed to the agenda? And, it really gets absurd when hypothesizing the future when "theism" is dismantled, and humans still designate themselves "atheists."

And it goes further into, Atheists need to organize philosophical social groupings that promote specific logic and morality (religion).

So, if you are offended that I capitalize,"Atheism," then you are evidence that my master plan to take over the world is working.

[SidewalkCynic]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

Well, by the same logic, ...

if religions are a bastion of truth, why can they not agree on anything? Not even what to call themselves.

They have - they divide themselves into logic and morality groupings. Their problem is they are compromising the extended inference of their logic and morality by living in integrated communities. In other words, they are not isolating their philosophical social systems in an effort to determine the worthiness of the system.

[InfiniteNow]

This thread is obviously not about "what is science," but instead a new member with an axe to grind against atheism.

On that note...



Sam Harris: The Problem with Atheism - On Faith at washingtonpost.com

"My concern with the use of the term "atheism" is both philosophical and strategic. I'm speaking from a somewhat unusual and perhaps paradoxical position because, while I am now one of the public voices of atheism, I never thought of myself as an atheist before being inducted to speak as one. I didn't even use the term in The End of Faith, which remains my most substantial criticism of religion. And, as I argued briefly in Letter to a Christian Nation, I think that "atheist" is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don't need a word for someone who rejects astrology. We simply do not call people "non-astrologers." All we need are words like "reason" and "evidence" and "common sense" and "bullshit" to put astrologers in their place, and so it could be with religion."

<...>

"Attaching a label to something carries real liabilities, especially if the thing you are naming isn't really a thing at all. And atheism, I would argue, is not a thing. It is not a philosophy, just as "non-racism" is not one. Atheism is not a worldview—and yet most people imagine it to be one and attack it as such. We who do not believe in God are collaborating in this misunderstanding by consenting to be named and by even naming ourselves.

Another problem is that in accepting a label, particularly the label of "atheist," it seems to me that we are consenting to be viewed as a cranky sub-culture. We are consenting to be viewed as a marginal interest group that meets in hotel ballrooms. I'm not saying that meetings like this aren't important. I wouldn't be here if I didn't think it was important. But I am saying that as a matter of philosophy we are guilty of confusion, and as a matter of strategy, we have walked into a trap. It is a trap that has been, in many cases, deliberately set for us. And we have jumped into it with both feet.

While it is an honor to find myself continually assailed with Dan [Dennett], Richard [Dawkins], and Christopher [Hitchens] as though we were a single person with four heads, this whole notion of the "new atheists" or "militant atheists" has been used to keep our criticism of religion at arm's length, and has allowed people to dismiss our arguments without meeting the burden of actually answering them." <more at link>

Those comments were taken from a talk, the video of which is available online in its entirety at the following:

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2089733934372500371&hl=en



This is also a nice short (~3m) summary:

YouTube - Sam Harris: Is Atheism Dogmatic?

From the earlier link:

Rather than declare ourselves “atheists” in opposition to all religion, I think we should do nothing more than advocate reason and intellectual honesty—and where this advocacy causes us to collide with religion, as it inevitably will, we should observe that the points of impact are always with specific religious beliefs—not with religion in general. There is no religion in general.

<...>

The concept of atheism imposes upon us a false burden of remaining fixated on people’s beliefs about God and remaining even-handed in our treatment of religion. But we shouldn’t be fixated, and we shouldn’t be even-handed. In fact, we should be quick to point out the differences among religions.

<...>

Another problem with calling ourselves “atheists” is that every religious person thinks he has a knockdown argument against atheism. We’ve all heard these arguments, and we are going to keep hearing them as long as we insist upon calling ourselves “atheists. Arguments like: atheists can’t prove that God doesn’t exist; atheists are claiming to know there is no God, and this is the most arrogant claim of all. As Rick Warren put it, when he and I debated for Newsweek—a reasonable man like himself “doesn’t have enough faith to be an atheist.” The idea that the universe could arise without a creator is, on his account, the most extravagant faith claim of all.

Of course, as an argument for the truth of any specific religious doctrine, this is a travesty. And we all know what to do in this situation: We have Russell’s teapot, and thousands of dead gods, and now a flying spaghetti monster, the nonexistence of which also cannot be proven, and yet belief in these things is acknowledged to be ridiculous by everyone. The problem is, we have to keep having this same argument, over and over again, and the argument is being generated to a significant degree, if not entirely, over our use of the term “atheism.”