What is science?

Before we can get anywhere in discussing scientific theories we need to discuss or define what is science.Science is the search for the truth, i.e. reality, via our never-ending quest for knowledge. We (or someone) observes a phenomenon and then tries to figure it out. Observe, form a hypothesis, perhaps make some predictions about that phenomenon and test that hypothesis/ predictions.

Thanks for the responses. Hopefully this will be a good dialog.Science is from the Latin scientia which means knowledge. An untruth (or lie) is not knowledge and therefore cannot be construed as science. IOW adding extra baggage to science, as in "only natural explanations are allowed" was never part or parcel of what science is.

JonF- I have not had a chance to do any other research in to the Pb post. Too busy finishing my basement.As for assertions why is it not up to the other posters to substantiate their assertions? The fact is science is knowledge. That is not an assertion. So logically if someone wants to put limits on knowledge wouldn't they have to present the case for why those limits are there? Also wouldn't they have to show that the limits are not the scientists' and therefore not to science itself?

MH:
You're actually the one adding extra baggage to the definition of science as knowledge, because 'natural' is in fact the only thing we know objectively.John Paul:
That is funny because I have added nothing to the definition of science.MH:
If you'd like to assume as a matter of course that there is anything beyond the 'natural' universe, you're welcome to do so.John Paul:
And if you would like to assume that nature is all there is (where did nature come from?) you are welcome to do so.MH:
However, until supernatural mechanisms are discovered, understood, or proven to be of some use in scientific endeavor, they aren't part of science.John Paul:
Actually Del Ratzsch has written a book that does just that. Go figure... Also we can use "calculatus eliminatus". IOW if there are 2 choices and we rule one out, what is left?Notice how I have not mentioned "supernatural" or "Bible" yet people want to add that to the discussion?Just because something exists in the "natural" world (universe) does NOT mean it arose (came into being) via purely natural processes. By limiting science to look for only natural explanations does not help increase our knowledge base.

Percy:
So if you'd like to include God as the phenomenon upon which you base your explanations, then in order to be scientific you must have evidence of God.John Paul:
I NEVER said anything about God as part of science. However if God did create us (and the universe) to not seek out that information is an injustice to mankind and science. We do NOT need science to explain God, just God's Creation. BTW I am not a christian and could care less if the designer/ creator is the God of the Bible. I am a Creationist because of the evidence. And yes there was an extended period of my life when I adhered to the theory of evolution- now I know better. As for the evidence of a designer/ Creator- life is very good evidence, as is the mathematical form all of the "natural" laws take. The only evidence I can't offer you is to sit down and meet the designer/ Creator. Unfortunately for most people that is what it would take.

sidelined:
Could you clarify how life and math sre evidence Of a God in your view?John Paul:
Good question. My view is based on the scientists of early days:
(on mathematics)
"The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the ratioal order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed to us in the language of mathematics." Johannes KeplerGalileo obeserved " the laws of nature are written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics."In his book Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty Morris Kline states this about Newton , Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus: "God had designed the universe, and it was to be expected that all phenomena of nature would follow one master plan. One mind designing a universe would almost surely have employed one set of basic principles to govern all related phenomena."(life)
Life itself is irreducibly complex. Even if we get self-replicating nucleic acids we still need a cell membrane to contain it. Not only do we need nucleic acids and a cell membrane but their are organelles to consider. Add to that there isn't anything in physics, chemistry or biology that shows non-living matter can become a living organism. So by deduction if life couldn't arise from non-life via purely natural processes (and we observe that life exists) what are the alternatives?

Rocket:
Right on target. Science doesn't seek God for the same reason it doesn't seek Zeus, Unicorns, Santa Claus, Giant Cyclops, Big Foot, Witches, Vampires, Flying Saucers, Flying Pigs etc., etc.. It's because there isn't a shred of evidence that any of them exist(ed).John Paul:
That is false. It is due to the evidence that I and millions of other people are Creationists and/ or IDists. Read the book Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design.

Percy:And what I said in my previous message was that you must have evidence supporting your explanations, and that the evidence must be apparent to us in some way, either directly through the five senses or indirectly through instruments like microscropes and thermometers.John Paul:
That evidence is very apparent to those willing to see it. It IS via the microscope that we see the specified and irreducible complexity that is life.

LM please keep this discussion in context. I was answering sidelined's question as to why mathematics was evidence for (a) God (which really wasn't what I stated).

LM:
By "that evidence" I am assuming intelligent design.John Paul:
Id and / or Creation is the conclusion based on "that evidence".LM:
This is the problem with ID theory, and why it isn't science.John Paul:
From what I have read most alleged problems with ID and Creation aren't really problems at all.LM:
You must first believe without evidence that an intelligence designed things in order to believe it.John Paul:
Wrong. It IS the evidence that leads people to the conclusion a designer was involved.As Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin’s Black Box: Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.LM:
In science, you need no such pre-existing belief.John Paul:
Correct but the beliefs or philosophies of scientists do effect the conclusions they come to. Naturalism is a philosophy.LM:
Science sees a designer all right, just not an intelligent one.John Paul:
That should read "scientists (as in the scientists with a naturalistic bias) see a designer all right, just not an intelligent one." However there are many scientists that do. Also there are sciences that have have processes in place that enable us to determine whether or not an intelligent agent was involved. When those processes are applied to life the logical conclusion is ID.As for unobserved mechanisms what mechanism moved the nostrils from the tip of a snout to the top of the head? How can that be objectively tested? Ya see the door swings both ways. The theory of evolution can't be objectively tested or measured or verified. All of it grand claims have never been observed. By your logic it ain't science.

Percy:
This thread isn't about ID, so let me focus on just this one small part of your post in order to return to the evidence issue.John Paul:
This thread is about science, which ID is a part of.Now you ask about "scientific" evidence. I was unaware that there was a distinction between evidence and "scientific" evidence. Believe it or not the evidence is the same for naturalists and non-naturalists. The DNA is the same, the rocks & sediments are the same, the organisms are the same, the solar system is the same, the "natural" laws are the same, the same universe, etc. The difference is how that evidence is interpretted. Each interpretation is controlled by one's bias. If you have a naturalistic bias you would interpret the data/ evidence under that philosophy. If you are open minded you would interpret the data/ evidence and let the evidence lead you to a conclusion.Science is done via inference. The design explanatory filter is a starting point for investigations. IOW even if something makes it through that filter and it was determined that something was the product of design it does not stop further research from overturning that initial inference. The same goes for possible natural causes. What was once thought to be natural could indeed turn out to be the product of design. That said Dembski, Behe, Ratzsch, Johnson, Nelson, Bradley et al. have gone to lengths to put into literature what the design inference is all about and why the evidence is interpretted as a product of design.This message has been edited by John Paul, 05-07-2004 11:01 AM

Yes MrH evolutionists use double standards when it comes to the theory of evolution vs. any alternative. If you have been following you would have read that it was (an) evolutionist(s) that referred to measuring, and using our five senses. I was responding to that when I stated "The theory of evolution can't be objectively tested or measured or verified. All of it grand claims have never been observed."That said we all know that the major transformations claimed by evolutionists have never been observed and can't be objectively tested. However the ToE is inferred because of naturalism and the grip it has on many people, including scientists (not all). Ya see MrH I am of the very honest opinion that on a level playing field ID and Creation would be seen as at least as scientific as the ToE.

jar, by "grand claims" I am talking about the alleged "evolution" of cetaceans from land mammals or amphibs from fish, reptiles from amphibs, mammals from reptiles and birds from reptiles/ dinos. You can also put the allged "evolution" of eukaryotes from prokaryotes and metazoans from non-metazoans.BTW science is NOT about proof. But sure if we could observe one of those transformations that would add great weight to the ToE.

MrH, I am not being disingenius. Percy never stated he was referring to the ToE. Percy also said something about measurements and such.As for the alleged "overwhelming majority of the available observations...", I was once an evolutionist. This overwhelming BS was very mundane when looked at through objective eyes.As I have already stated great scientists looked at the universe under the Creation framework, ie that God Created it. They were very succesful. BTW they advanced science a great deal. Go figure...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"God had designed the universe, and it was to be expected that all phenomena of nature would follow one master plan. One mind designing a universe would almost surely have employed one set of basic principles to govern all related phenomena."--------------------------------------------------------------------------------JM:
JM: Of course, if this is true then everything is designed and we would have no reference for 'not designed'.John Paul:
We went over this before and that is as false today as it was then. There are things that are directly designed and things that are a product of design. For example clouds are not directly designed but are the product of the design of this planet.JM:
That makes ID a tautology and quite useless as a scientific endeavor.John Paul:
ID is very useful as has been presented by scientists and investigators alike. For example we are quite sure that Stonehenge is the product of design and not the result of natural processes (even if nature itself was designed). ID is much less of tautology than is natural selection- who survives? the fittest. how do we define the fittest? those who survive to produce more offspring.JM:
When ID'ists such as Paul Nelson admit that ID is not scientific but belongs in a religion or theology class that should tell you that you're not up to speed on ID.John Paul:
Yup and when you provide a reference to Paul Nelson saying that you may have some credibility. I know what he says about the ToE.