Science is mere info/data?

[sanctus]

I can't explain it better, it seems to me it's always the same questioon you ask.
Tell me what you understand under philosophyzing it's implication.

[crevevo12]

OK I see that you guys are having trouble defining the realm of science. Science is about what is observable, yes it is primarily data but science can also draw conclusions from that data. Reasoning does have place in science.

The problem with most scientists they try to apply science beyond what is observable. Evolution for example.

[Fishteacher73]

There is strong evidence for evolution that is observable, both morphologically as well as molecularly..

What do you suppose is an obsevable hypothesis?

[UncleAl]

Science is a collection of mathematical models constrained by empirical observation. Science is a good wrench. What you do with the wrench is up to you, but... if you don't have the wrench you don't have anything. God helps those who help themselves to others.

"Best efforts will not substitute for knowledge," W. Edwards Deming

Compare the Third World to the First World. It's the same genome. Marxism was a planetary disaster not because it was a collection of philosophically really bad ideas (the Internet is massively Marxist in outlook - donate what you can, take what you need) but because Liberal Arts-dedicated Marx was completely ignorant of technology. Nobody will accept feudal agricultural society when Las Vegas is an equally accessible option - unless they have god pressing down real hard. Ignorance can be educated, stupidity is inescapable.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by UncleAl

God helps those who help themselves to others.

You're slipping a bit there Al, who's God?

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by TINNY

Is it correct to say that science is mere data about nature?

No, science is observation, theorization, intellectual analysis, and much much more. It generates the data, but it is not the data.

[Qfwfq]

Don't forget, folks, that Science is only the modern terminology for Natural Philosophy.

Science is Latin for knowledge, philosophy is Greek for care of knowledge. One might conclude from thence that philosophy means "care of science" but that's not exactly how it is, it's really just a matter of history. Philosophy and science are just two ways of saying knowledge and the endeavour to understand more, only in recent times natural philosophy came to be viewed as something quite separate from the other fields of philosophy.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by TINNY

...What difference is there between implications and consequences?...

It is reasonable to differentiate meaning (as in "meaning of life") from determination of cause and effect. The various bodies of knowledge that we characterize as science are mostly attempts to describe cause and effect. Much of science is descriptive (like biology for example) but as the body of science deepens, even those areas progress toward cause-and-effect models.

None of this establishes "meaning" in the sense that animals, plants, humans or the universe might have a purpose. Usually that discussion is in the realm of religion or philosophy. It is undeniably true that many folks are driven to understand the cause-and-effect elements of science because of religious or philosophical assumptions.

But cause-and-effect determinism does not establish man's purpose, and man's purpose probably cannot be determined by the scientific method.

Personally, I think "meaning" matters. It appears that some on this site do not feel that quite so strongly.

[TINNY]

so is science neutral?

[orbsycli]

Originally Posted by TINNY

so is science neutral?

i would think so, seeing as how the discovery of things can be great to the people willing to progress, and annoying to the ones who don't want to progress and discover. so science balances itself out amung the world.