Defining Science

[Rhett]

.

Science involves the creation of definitions that dictate the placement of boundaries in the infinite. The insides of these boundaries are called 'things'. Science also involves the determination of causality, comparisons, other forms of relationships, etc, in respect to these things. The scientific method is a general description of how this procedure is to be undertaken. Science that is of the form A=A is certain knowledge, and all other science is uncertain, including all that which pertains to the past or future.


.

[DHodges]

The scientific method is a general description of how this procedure is to be undertaken.

There is not really a general scientific method. The method varies with the subject studied, and the times. Science is not a pure abstract activity; it is a human activity that happens in some (social) context. A lot of science happens at universities, so what science gets done depends on what someone is willing to fund, and the kind of things that will show results from a research grant in a reasonable amount of time, and what kind of research is likely to be useful.

Lee Smolin gives some examples in his book "The Trouble with Physics," particularly chapter 17, "What is Science?" and chapter 19, "How Science Really Works."

[Rhett]

Rhett: The scientific method is a general description of how this procedure is to be undertaken.

David: There is not really a general scientific method. The method varies with the subject studied, and the times.

At primary school i was taught a general scientific method. From memory it involved an aim, method, results, conclusion, maybe more.

D: Science is not a pure abstract activity; it is a human activity that happens in some (social) context.

Surely good science is meant to be logical, factual, evidence based stuff, free of human error. For example, an iceberg is an iceberg, not a figment of abstraction, or a social animal.

D: Lee Smolin gives some examples in his book "The Trouble with Physics," particularly chapter 17, "What is Science?" and chapter 19, "How Science Really Works."

I don't expect that Lee Smolin wants to get to the bottom of what science is really about, and he probably knows that.


.

[DHodges]

Surely good science is meant to be logical, factual, evidence based stuff, free of human error.

What Smolin was discussing in particular was string theory, and how it is not based on evidence. String theory is based on pretty wild ideas - like space being composed of eleven(ish) dimensions, instead of four - for which there is no actual evidence. Also, string theory is flexible enough to adapt to a wide variety of evidence, making it difficult to falsify.

String theory is not actually a single theory. It is a group of theories, which are assumed to be different ways of stating the same thing because of certain symmetries. This hasn't actually been proven, though. There is a hypothesized theory tying the string theories together ("M-theory") which is still more tenuous and unproven.

Smolin argues that string theory has drifted from the definition of what science is, and in fact some string theory proponents have advocated changing the whole idea of science to be more in line with what they actually do - which is based on mathematical ideas of symmetry, not on observation.

While science is eventually self-correcting, errors can take a long time to be examined when they are widely accepted and there is no known alternative. (For example, the ideas of phlogiston or the aether.)

Smolin argues that string theory has gotten a lot of resources over the last several decades, and has almost nothing to show for it. It is still not even a falsifiable theory that makes real predictions.

So, while you can argue about what science is ideally supposed to be, it is an activity engaged in by humans, and is influenced by sociological factors. If you ignore that, you may end up putting more trust in "science" than is justified. And there is a great danger there, of science turning into a kind of religion, accepted unquestioningly rather than being a method of questioning.

[Rhett]

.
I think the information you've provided is more appropriate to an essay on 21st century science than defining what science is about.

.

[ChochemV2]

I think the information you've provided is more appropriate to an essay on 21st century science than defining what science is about.

It's a pretty valid example of science throughout human history. There has never really been a completely objective form of science in which research and conclusions weren't guided by public opinion and majority opinions among the scientific community. As long as people invest so much of themselves in their theories they will never be willing to let them go without fighting even if it's contrary to evidence.

I'd define science as: Explaining the universe through impartial examination and experimentation.

The truth is more like: One intelligent human in fifty years comes up with something concrete while between epiphany's nothing actually happens except the invention of the spork and microwave.

[DHodges]

I'd define science as: Explaining the universe through impartial examination and experimentation.

That's part of it, but there is also the part of coming up with the hypotheses to test - what it is you intend to exam or verify through experiment. That defines the directions in which science will go - based on what questions people find "interesting."

[Rhett]

I'd define science as: Explaining the universe through impartial examination and experimentation.

I see this as a few steps closer to the fundamentals of science (than David's string-theory post), though still some way short of a definition.

[Rhett]

. . . there is also the part of coming up with the hypotheses to test - what it is you intend to exam or verify through experiment. That defines the directions in which science will go - based on what questions people find "interesting."

Yeah, that ties in with my mentioning of the scientific method. I didn't give an exposition on the scientific method for a number of reasons. One reason is it isn't the core process of science. Another is it's good to keep definitions brief for the sake of clarity.