What is Science?

[SidewalkCynic]

Moderation note: Moved the first 25 post of this thread from Question and Answer forum, because post #1 is not asking a question suitable for Q&A-style responses, but one eliciting discussion.

I believe science is merely the defining of information. And upon preliminary discussion with my atheist peer group, I find that the scientists there are offended, because the definition does not meet their satisfaction; and it appears to be that they have a tremendous regard for the industry's abstract standardization of 'scientific method,' in equal regard for their specific sub-field of research.

It is not that I am trying to disparage scientists - it is just that I am trying to standardize a proper definition of science, and then maybe, we can standardize 'scientific method' in more concrete stable terms. I believe scientific method is a series of already defined methods, such as, curiosity, hypography, designing, engineering, observation, recording, analyzing, prediction, and finally, defining the information for self and others to appreciate.

What is science?
What is scientific method?
What is the science industry?

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

[Pyrotex]

Well, mister cynic,
what if you had spent your life as a carpenter, designing new homes, cabinetry and furniture that delighted the senses, and this had earned you recognition as a great architect, a great artist and an acknowledged master on all the different kinds of woods and their attributes -- 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?

[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.

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.

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.

[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.

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?

[enorbet2]

I'm having a problem with equating science with "merely" the "defining of information" and I'm shooting for utilizing the Scientific Method (testing for "necessary and sufficient") to explain that problem, perhaps even with an eye to the Bonus..

First, let's define terms since all we have on a forum is language and it is essential in the scientific method to be certain any involved in a discussion are actually referring to the same bits if a useful conclusion is to be remotely possible:

"defining" (from Miriam-Webster's online dictionary)
< 1 a: to determine or identify the essential qualities or meaning of>

"information" (ibid)
< 2 a (1): knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction>

Defining does not necessarily imply determining whether "essential qualities" has any bearing on a given problem or even if it actually exists in reality (we can agree on a definition of a "frumious bandersantch" or a "light sabre" but only for amusement and curiosity's sake) so at best in scientific terms it is merely observation or fantasy conclusion that ends there with little room for hypothesis, experimentation, prediction, or experimentation - garbage in, garbage out (no offense intended to Lewis Carroll or Star Wars fan boys).

Information is even a little more difficult and less precise since not only does it often, and understandably, get confused with "data", with which it may overlap slightly, but especially "obtained from instruction" presents grave problems since garbage can and has been taught and still is. Witness the "Intelligent Design" poppycock still seeking validity despite deserved cynicism from within and from without.

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.

Your "child walking down a staircase" is a good example of how no conclusion can be scientifically made with such limited "defined information". It's like asking "How long is a string?".

Assuming it is the child's first time navigating stairs, hopefully he/she has observed others walking down stairs and carefully noted the details required to be successful, maybe even seen an example of someone not paying attention and paying the price. Hopefully this child has even noticed that leaping several steps requires longer legs and greater balance than they yet possess. It would be best if they had closely observed and processed the event of another similarly sized and experienced child holding on the railing and proceeding slowly and with great caution as to balance.

Throwing out useless, even dangerous information, while keeping high reliability pertinent information is essential, implying the facility to draw such conclusions perhaps by predicting that a fall down a full flight is an unacceptable risk and experimenting on a two step stair first, before concluding that the likelihood of successfully navigating a full flight of stairs will result in triumph, not tragedy. Having confidence in the reliability of both one's ability to create an unbroken line of logic, relying on no great leaps of faith, as well as the ability to execute such a plan boldly instead of unreasoned paralyzing fear is fairly essential to such a process as well. If instead, the child simply throws himself at the stairs trusting only in "if they can do it, I can do it", it isn't science, from the perspective of the child, unless that almost inevitable fall is analyzed for "what I did wrong and how can I avoid that in the future?".

So my opinion for the answers to your questions is that I have demonstrated the scientific method, which is already standardized requiring no further discussion, which is not dependent on "already defined methods" since I think people discover or are capable of discovering the means to reliable conclusions with no training (it simply gets more refined with such input) because of trial and error experimentation and the way our brains are wired, and permeates everything reliable such as Mathematics, Business, Infrastucture, the rules of evidence in crime scene investigation and the nature of Justice, to name only a few.

An example of Science's involvement with the unknown, the undefined, or not well defined is here, from Georges Charpak: hardwired for science - CERN Courier

CERN’s immediate future lies with the LHC. What discoveries do you expect?

We expect the unknown – to see things that are not necessarily foreseen by theory. Because there are still mysteries in physics – dark matter, for example – there are answers from theoreticians and there are many questions from experimentalists like myself. If theory were completely accurate we would not need to build an accelerator.

An example of how we are wired is here We?re hard-wired for basic geometry - Science Mysteries- msnbc.com

and some of the argument on the nature of hardwiring here Are We Hardwired?: The Role of Genes ... - Google Books


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.

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?

[Jway]

1 - What is science?
> I think (modern) science is the discipline of observing, testing and forming theories based on axioms.

If viewed strictly, science is a discipline that must follow previously agreed upon methodology. Otherwise, experimentation and theories are subject to invalidation before said methodology is utilized. From this view, science's main purpose is to make predictions that are consistent and can be substantiated by any 'typical' observer. If it is detected prior to experimentation, that a proposed experiment is vague in its hypothesis and/or is not bearing predictable conclusions, the hypothesis may be deemed 'unscientific.'

2 - What is scientific method?
> This is a set of guidelines, that instruct all observers and those engaging in experimentation with how to proceed, in a linear way, to achieve scientific theories and/or to rule out data within a hypothesis, that when tested, did not meet the assumptions of the proposition.

When applied, the method falls within the discipline of science, and is thus based on fundamental axioms which may or may not be intrinsic to the given hypothesis.

From strict viewpoint, methodology must be focussed on gathering empirical data and measurable evidence. Otherwise, both hypotheses and (alleged) theories are subject to judgments of unpredictability, psuedo-science, and/or irrational claims.

3 - What is the science industry?
> I venture to say that this would be attempts to standardize science as discipline and education. Based on a desire for consistency and efficiency in advancing research in a particular field, in a particular way that is deemed by the group as "tried and tested."

IMO, this would be where scientific practice could become dogma unless checked, and checked in such a way where proposed forms of research and education are themselves subject to methodology. IMO, this can get tricky and even burdensome, but welcome to life on earth.

BONUS: does a child exercise science when walking - down a staircase?
> Yes. But it depends on factors that are perhaps of no concern to the child.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Jway

1 - What is science?
> I think (modern) science is the discipline of observing, testing and forming theories based on axioms....
BONUS: does a child exercise science when walking - down a staircase?
> Yes. But it depends on factors that are perhaps of no concern to the child.

Change the word "axioms" to "evidence".
Theories are not based on "axioms" which are a form of assumption.

I was once told that everything that a child below the age of two does to other objects, animate or inanimate, constitute a physics experiment. This includes learning to walk. In a sense, I can see that. But as the physics lessons are learned, the experiments go away.

[Jway]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

Change the word "axioms" to "evidence".
Theories are not based on "axioms" which are a form of assumption.

Evidence is what is sought and/or found.

Axioms are what what the proposition is based on, in order to proceed. Wikipedia says about axioms:

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

That we live in a physical universe and that the body's sensory perception is sufficient method for making observations is example of axioms at work. Objective proofs for such "truths" are rarely, if ever, sought and are, I believe, considered self-evident, trivial, and inconsequential concerns to many (perhaps all) scientific propositions.

[Pyrotex]

Like I said, like you said, an axiom is an assumption.

Theories are based on evidence.

[Jway]

And evidence (is) found from experiments.

Experiments based on observations.

Observations invoked from a hypothesis or proposition.

Which are based on axioms.

Looking back at what I said earlier, I can see how you got what you are saying from my posted entry. To clarify and to deal with fundamentals, I would say: I think (modern) science is a discipline based on axioms