Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is science?
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 152 (105162)
05-04-2004 8:58 AM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Loudmouth, posted 05-04-2004 5:45 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 5 by Joe Meert, posted 05-04-2004 6:27 PM John Paul has not replied

  
AdminSylas
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 152 (105283)
05-04-2004 4:29 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Unseul
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 152 (105287)
05-04-2004 4:43 PM


Testing predictions is important. But it has to be falsifiable. There must be some way in which the theory can be proven false.
Observe, Hypothesis, Predict. Then you attempt to disprove (well usually if its ur theory u look for evidence for supporting your predictions, other people tend to be the ones trying to falsify it.
Unseul

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 152 (105305)
05-04-2004 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by John Paul
05-04-2004 8:58 AM


quote:
Science is the search for the truth, i.e. reality, via our never-ending quest for knowledge.
  —JohnPaul
I think you are mixing philosophy and science, two different fields. Science is the search for knowledge about the natural world, while philosophy is the search for Truth. I would include religion with philosophy. The two fields (science and philosophy) use different techniques for their search for the truth. In the case of science, objective data and natural mechanisms are used as an investigatory tool to investigate the natural, physical world. In philosophy, subjective experiences and subjective arguments are used as tools to investigate the greater Truths of life and metaphysical positions.
I would say that science is not a search for Truth or Knowledge, but for the truth about the natural world and knowledge about our physical reality. (notice the use of caps)
quote:
Observe, form a hypothesis, perhaps make some predictions about that phenomenon and test that hypothesis/ predictions.
Philosophy can be tested in such a way too, but through subjective metrics. Science uses objective, physically based metrics.
Your definition is a great start, but in my opinion it is not specific enough. I believe that philosophy is an important field, but can not help us investigate physical realities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by John Paul, posted 05-04-2004 8:58 AM John Paul has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 5 of 152 (105322)
05-04-2004 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by John Paul
05-04-2004 8:58 AM


Science defined
Science may be a quest for truth, but it can never achieve absolute truth. Your definition, while on the right track reminds me of science taught in middle school. The "Scientific Method" is not so regimented nor is it sequential. Much of science is really about "What the hell is that" moments. I think engineers tend to take a view of science as "I want to do this, so let me experiment until I get there". It is very method driven. Science is not so mundane, it is more of an adventure at trying to figure out how the natural world operates and developing a concepual model of the 'truth'. It must be open to testing and open to everyone. One of the failures of ye-creationism is that there is an 'a priori' assumption that the truth is known. In fact some organizations state this clearly 'All science rightly interpreted must fit the biblical interpretation prescribed by our organization'. Real science imposes no such limitations. By sticking with the natural world, science can be harmonized (if you desire) with almost any philosophy or theology. Whenever someone asks me to define science I tell them it's more about exploring that which I do not, and may not ever, know.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by John Paul, posted 05-04-2004 8:58 AM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by JonF, posted 05-04-2004 7:18 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 6 of 152 (105339)
05-04-2004 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Joe Meert
05-04-2004 6:27 PM


Re: Science defined
Much of science is really about "What the hell is that" moments.
quote:
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I've found it!), but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Joe Meert, posted 05-04-2004 6:27 PM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by John Paul, posted 05-05-2004 11:31 AM JonF has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 152 (105523)
05-05-2004 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by JonF
05-04-2004 7:18 PM


Re: Science defined
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by JonF, posted 05-04-2004 7:18 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by JonF, posted 05-05-2004 12:57 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 10 by MrHambre, posted 05-05-2004 1:20 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 05-05-2004 1:36 PM John Paul has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 8 of 152 (105550)
05-05-2004 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by John Paul
05-05-2004 11:31 AM


Re: Science defined
An untruth (or lie) is not knowledge and therefore cannot be construed as science.
Questionable. An untruth known not to be true can be knowledge since it delimits what is true. An untruth not known not to be true can be a part of science.
IOW adding extra baggage to science, as in "only natural explanations are allowed" was never part or parcel of what science is.
Does not follow. 'adding extra baggage to science, as in "only natural explanations are allowed" was never part or parcel of what science is' is an unsupported asserion and, indeed contradictory to Joe's, Loudmouth's, and Unseul's messages (without actualy responding to them). Sorry, logically you don't get to establish your argument by assertion and igmore everything others have written ... this is a discussion group.
So let's see some support for that assertion.
BTW, got any response to Distinguishing Pb from Pb????
{fixed UBB tags}
This message has been edited by JonF, 05-05-2004 11:58 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by John Paul, posted 05-05-2004 11:31 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by John Paul, posted 05-05-2004 1:15 PM JonF has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 152 (105556)
05-05-2004 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by JonF
05-05-2004 12:57 PM


Re: Science defined
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by JonF, posted 05-05-2004 12:57 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Loudmouth, posted 05-05-2004 1:34 PM John Paul has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 10 of 152 (105558)
05-05-2004 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by John Paul
05-05-2004 11:31 AM


Re: Science defined
John Paul,
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. 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. However, until supernatural mechanisms are discovered, understood, or proven to be of some use in scientific endeavor, they aren't part of science.
regards,
Esteban "Nature Boy" Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by John Paul, posted 05-05-2004 11:31 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by John Paul, posted 05-05-2004 1:51 PM MrHambre has not replied
 Message 42 by 1.61803, posted 05-10-2004 5:07 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 152 (105568)
05-05-2004 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by John Paul
05-05-2004 1:15 PM


Re: Science defined
quote:
The fact is science is knowledge.
As I said in my previous post, this is a misleading generalization. Science is knowledge about the physical world gained through objective, or intersubjective, measurements. Scientia may have been the latin root, but that doesn't mean it has to carry over wholesale to the actual definition in english. Also, science is used loosely in other fields as well, such as library sciences.
By limiting the physical sciences to natural mechanisms we are not limiting "science", just defining what "science" means in a certain context.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by John Paul, posted 05-05-2004 1:15 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 12 of 152 (105569)
05-05-2004 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by John Paul
05-05-2004 11:31 AM


Re: Science defined
John Paul writes:
IOW adding extra baggage to science, as in "only natural explanations are allowed" was never part or parcel of what science is.
I think you're stating your intrepretation of how scientists define science. What scientists actually say is 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.
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.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by John Paul, posted 05-05-2004 11:31 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Dan Carroll, posted 05-05-2004 1:47 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 15 by John Paul, posted 05-05-2004 1:57 PM Percy has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 152 (105573)
05-05-2004 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Percy
05-05-2004 1:36 PM


Re: Science defined
quote:
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.
Or at a bare minimum, be able to define the word "God".

"As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?"
-Holly

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 05-05-2004 1:36 PM Percy has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 152 (105575)
05-05-2004 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by MrHambre
05-05-2004 1:20 PM


Re: Science defined
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by MrHambre, posted 05-05-2004 1:20 PM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by sfs, posted 05-05-2004 2:29 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 152 (105579)
05-05-2004 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Percy
05-05-2004 1:36 PM


Re: Science defined
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 05-05-2004 1:36 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by sidelined, posted 05-05-2004 2:37 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 05-05-2004 4:53 PM John Paul has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024