What is Science?

[SidewalkCynic]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

BTW, Sidewalk, you obviously do not even BEGIN to grasp what a "straw man argument" is.
Stop using it, until you do some research and figure out how to use that term correctly.

Okay then, what is the argument fallacy being employed in the instance, and why was the commentator unaware of the fallacy?

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

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

I first became aware of the axiom in 2002, and I have argued against it since then, yet, it reappears as an acceptable argument. And as you can see, even here amongst the critically minded community there are indications of solidarity in regards to this.

[SidewalkCynic]

Originally Posted by Jway

- science is the behavior
- science is a process
- science is a testable system
- science is the discipline
- science is the state
- science refers to a system
- science is structured approach

On this basis, strictly speaking, I see very little overlap. If I replaced "science" with "religion" in above short phrases, and went elsewhere and offered up my many definitions, I believe fellow humans would say, "sounds like you don't have a consistent idea of this this term you refer to." And if they were rude or abrasive, they would tell me (I think) that I obviously haven't thought this through and given the disparity, the term is nonsensical and invalid. If I said, "but, but, but you see, some of my friends, we all came up with these definitions. We are working on consensus." I think the abrasive people in the room would say, "well you and your friends have failed. One of these may be permissible, but they can't all be. Here you have it as a state, there you have it as a behavior, there an approach, here a system. It's all across the board and thus is very inconsistent."

Thank you - this is what I am getting at. There is an incredable amount of disparity as to the definition of science, which seemingly to me, is indicative of the chaotic society we endure. And I sincerely believe the definition I have devised is in the best interest of, not only society, but the scientists themselves - it eventually gives them the responsibility of defining all that there is, including political rhetoric.

[SidewalkCynic]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

My points are:
1. your initial "definition" of science obviously reflects a perspective that is somewhat naive;

Really?
All I am trying to do is clean up the diverse and inconsistant understanding of what is science. And you think that is of no concern of mine, or that the inconsistancy is fruitful to the better progression of mankind???

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

2. your initial "definition" may reflect a hostile attitude toward science;

Maybe, you are a little over-sensitive, because you lack a consice and consistant definition, and are offended that I have devised a good one that has appeared before you on an Internet discussion board and not in more scholarly publication.

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

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;

I am not out to dismantle science, I am out to dismantle theism, and the term "atheism." I am out to correct the definition of science, because I believe it suffers some amount of unintended consequences of the complex and chaotic secular integration of society.

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

4. I wanted you to see how your question looked from my viewpoint -- thus the carpentry analogy;

You are over-sensitive.

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

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?

Well, I am redefining science, you realize, so there is some disagrement as to what you and I consider to be science. In fact, what you may call high school science class is not a class about what ever it is you believe science to be, but more of a review of information defined for human use - Technology. And I can break it down into a more detailed structure:
Naturology

1. Physicology
2. Terrestriology
3. Biology

Do you require further details as to how each of those is sub-divided, or can you figure it out on your own? I mean, how far back into basic technology do I have to go to adequately answer your inquiry of my background?

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

....5b. what is your intention in being here?

To gather as much information regarding this issue for preperation of publishing the redefining of science for the better evolution of mankind.

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

....5c. how far back into the elementary basics of "science" do I need to go to begin an adequate answer to your question?

You need to go through it all, from top to bottom. I want the most concise and consistant definition to lay on the world - get it?

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

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).

Well, with you on the board, I'm sure they all retreat.

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

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

Thanks, you're doing a wonderful job of demonstrating my point that the definition of science causes just as much uproar as the definition of "religion," and of "atheism."

[Mercedes Benzene]

Originally Posted by SidewalkCynic

Really?
All I am trying to do is clean up the diverse and inconsistant understanding of what is science. And you think that is of no concern of mine, or that the inconsistancy is fruitful to the better progression of mankind???

It's impossible to come up with one, precise, agreed-on definition of what science is. I don't know why you're trying to do that here.

Science has extensive and well-documented philosophical roots. The metamorphosis of "what is science" over time shows that we cannot be in complete agreement. But what history has shown us is that science is an effort to expand our understanding of the universe through methodical research and experimentation. I would even go as far to say that a goal is to better human existence and condition.

I can show a picture of someone working in a lab to a 5-year-old, and they would tell me that it's science. Same with a picture of an astronaut repairing the Hubble telescope, or da Vinci dissecting a monkey.
If I showed them a picture of me mopping a floor, they would say that it wasn't science.
Now, I hate to say that "what science is" is obvious just by looking at it... but I'm not scared to say that it's almost that simple.

I guess I just don't see what your goal is? What do you hope to accomplish?

[GAHD]

Originally Posted by Mercedes Benzene

... science is an effort to expand our understanding of the universe through methodical research and experimentation...I can show a picture of someone working in a lab to a 5-year-old, and they would tell me that it's science. Same with a picture of an astronaut repairing the Hubble telescope, or da Vinci dissecting a monkey.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but don't you see some inconsistency here?

daVinci dissecting a monkey; learning about the monkey
Person in the lab: are they learning about things or applying their knowledge? Is it science or engineering?
an astronaut repairing the Hubble telescope: is is really science?
A mechanic repairing the rear differential on a sedan: is it really science?
An astronomer using the Hubble to learn about a distant star; that's science.

[Mercedes Benzene]

Originally Posted by GAHD

daVinci dissecting a monkey; learning about the monkey

Right. Dissection is how we first learned about anatomy. Once we got over the stigma of handling a dead body we were able to uncover how anatomical systems work. As science progressed, we were able to refine our knowledge and techniques. Now we're exploring microscopic processes in hopes of even better understanding of how life operates.

Originally Posted by GAHD

Person in the lab: are they learning about things or applying their knowledge? Is it science or engineering?

It's both application AND learning. Everything is built off of some foundation. Once you learn a technique previously discovered by someone else, you can expand! We first had to discover what exactly matter was. We moved on to discover the components of matter (like electrons). Then we learned how electrons interact. Then we can begin to classify compounds, and learn the discreet interactions between them. Soon we're saying things like: dienes react with dienophiles with a single transition state. Now we can build drugs that end up saying lives. And the biologists explore, and are able to tell us exactly why these compounds have the cellular interactions they do.

Originally Posted by GAHD

an astronaut repairing the Hubble telescope: is is really science?

Yes. Oversight made what should have been a super-telescope act like a fogged up bathroom mirror. So what did we do? We went up and re-ground the mirror until it functioned as originally planned. But how did we know what to do? Well, we were able to understand the interaction of photons with certain materials. We create terms like "focal point" or "conic constant" to explain these scientific discoveries and apply them to an engineering feat (so yes, it is engineering in practice, but it's also certainly science).

Originally Posted by GAHD

...rear differential...

Sorry, I have NO idea what that is.

[GAHD]

...rear differential...I have NO idea what that is.

It's the gearing on a rear wheel drive car that allows one wheel to spin at a different speed than another, particularly useful when you're turning.

I was making the analogy of a mechanic repairing a component of a car and an astronaut repairing a component of Hubble, is replacing defective components really a science?

[Mercedes Benzene]

Originally Posted by GAHD

I was making the analogy of a mechanic repairing a component of a car and an astronaut repairing a component of Hubble, is replacing defective components really a science?

No. I do not believe that replacing a defective part is really a science. However, the reasoning behind the replacement is scientific. I also do not think it's fair to compare replacing a car part to repairing the Hubble.
By replacing the gears in the car, you're enabling yourself to drive to the grocery store.
By replacing the mirror of a telescope, you're allowing yourself to explore the universe, and learn more about how galaxies form, about the life cycle of stars, etc. You're expanding human knowledge.

[GAHD]

What if you're using the car to test the efficiency of the drive train? Semantics and assumptions obviously play a fairly large role.

The way I look at it it's fairly cut and dry;
systematic application of knowledge is engineering.
systematic accretion of knowledge is science.

Engineering and Science often use each other but they are distinct things IMO. Distinct things that are often confused due to the close relationship they have.

[lemit]

All right, everybody. Could you take your little spat about language to another thread so we could get back to the original question?

Moderators? Could you help?

There are a few things on topic I'd like to discuss, and probably a few more apologies to give. For example, there might be a few people who would want an apology for the first paragraph here.

--lemit