What is the Definition of Science?

Post Reply New Topic

1. Science is nothing else than the search to discover unity in the wild variety of nature.

2. The business of science is to find uniformities, such as the laws of motion and the law of gravitation, to which, so far as our experience extends, there are no exceptions.

3. Falsifiability is the criterion of demarcation between science and non-science.

4. Science at its core is empiricism.

5. Science is knowledge that is observable, testable, and repeatable in the present.

6. OTHER.

All of the above.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) -

sci·ence /ˈsaɪəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahy-uhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
[Origin: 1300–50; ME < MF < L scientia knowledge, equiv. to scient- (s. of sciéns), prp. of scīre to know + -ia -ia]

well, now i know why the other thread exists.

One thing to understand about science, is the method of scientific austerity.

In the scientific method, one develops a hyposthesis, then a "proof". The "Proof" is in reality a test, an attempt to disprove one's hypothesis.

By this method, one hopes to reveal any weakness in the hypothesis; if the hypothesis stands the strongest test, the hypothesis is sound and may be accepted as scientific theory (but not as FACT!). If one fails to submit a strong proof on publication, one may get royally flamed by ones peers, who are like vultures waiting for the chance to jump all over the unwary, and rip their imperfect theories to shreds!

Fact and theory are different. A theory is a tool, which has been tested, but may show shortcomings over time, and be replace by new theories.

A law, as in "law of gravity", is something that shows no exception within the universe; any exception disproves the rule.

HTH, Johnpipe

Well, the hypothesis can be accepted as a thesis, and then join other thesae (I'm guessing the grammar, don't hurt me.) to form a theory.

I could not resist.

"Theses" is plural.

*Twists arm sadistically.*

A definition must encompass all of what it defines and exclude all of what it does not define.

Hmm, flowery language here. Define or explain "unity in the wild variety of nature" a little better.



This stands up well for physics and chemistry, but not so well for biology. Biology tends to be more concerned with
understanding of specific processes, rather than general rules.
The term "Science" also includes things like Engineering, Food Science and Geology which sometimes have more specifically
practical concerns that are not limited to finding uniformities, even if the finding of uniformities underlies them. they should
not be left out in a complete definition of Science.

There are also subjects in the humanities that are concerned with finding infirmities that are not sciences.



To take this literally it would mean that everything that is falsifiable is Science, even if they are false or trivial.
To say "Wrong planet is not a web site" is falsifiable, but it is not science as science is usually understood.
Or to say "There is a cardboard box in the corner of my room" (True) is also falsifiable, but not science.

As someone so against the lingual turn in Viennese and English philosophy, it is a little ironic that Popper should be paraphrased
in an attempt to pin down a concept with a rigid definition. If we started to discuss the different ways in which the term "Science" is
used with different meanings I am sure Popper would start spinning in his grave. As Popper pointed out, biology has worked quite
well for thousands of years with out ever having a fixed definition of "Life". It does not need one for the concept to be understood
and the concept benefits from the robustness of noting being confined in a definition. No doubt he would make the same claim for
the concept of science.



Science may well be empiricism at it's core, or it may not be. Either way this is not a definition of science.
A definition must encompass all of what it defines and exclude all of what it does not define.



Science clearly isn't knowledge. Newton was science, but he can't have been knowledge as he was wrong.



It is almost impossible to define Science if you want to include everything that could possibly be called science an exclude
everything else that isn't science.

Perhaps a better question should be:
"What should science's main principle(s) be?"
Many of the numbered answers to the first question would fit this new one better.

Both of those seem fairly reasonable. The problem with trying to find exactly one narrow definition of a category is that our linguistic constructs will often either fail to account for everything traditionally included in that category or could be construed to include something outside what would normally be considered. Examples: the biological species concept, probably the most useful among sexually reproducing species, can not possibly apply to asexually reproducing organisms. However, we still recognize many different asexual species. Michael Behe's definition of science admittedly was broad enough to include astrology, which very few (if any) would consider scientific.

So, here is my definition of "natural science" (as opposed to political science, social science, etc). Natural science is anything that draws upon quantifiable observations or measurements to explain and predict phenomena in the natural world and does so with a reasonable degree of success. It relies on universal rules. This definition includes biology, chemistry, and physics. Engineering would technically be excluded because that is more the practical application of physics than actually science in itself. Mathematics would not be included, as that field doesn't rely on observations or measurement, even though it is necessary to the natural sciences.

The traditional method is certainly not reasonable.
Without falsification systems that are made in such a way that they ALWAYS explain ANY set of evidence are made legitimate.

A simple example is Freudian Oedipus complex.
With the traditional scientific method it is scientifically impossible to prove you do not have Oedipus complex.

i.e.


With the Popperian method this kind of thing does not happen.
i.e.




Another example is Marxism. There is no conceivable evidence that could refute it.
Most religions also fall foul of the Popperian method.

Scientiae verbarum et terrae habeo.

Scientiae(nominative singular) verbarum(genitive plural) et(&) terrae(genitive singular) habeo (first person present active indicative.)

Knowledge of words and of the Earth I have.

I changed it a bit from the first after translating verbae and realized it should be verbarum.

Deus scio.
"I know God."

Sciere Dei et sciere Deum non idem est.
To know of God and to know God is not the same.

Last edited by iamnotaparakeet on 17 May 2008, 7:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Letum, your Oedipus complex example fails because you straw-manned the first definition of science by skipping the first two steps. Anyways, I said both definitions seemed fairly reasonable. They both have their limitations. Popper's approach might be better, but not perfect by any means.

Yes, that's a very useful post to those of us who don't know Latin. I realize it's your new special interest but you have to take other people into account when you communicate. Translation please?

Knowledge lashing and earth to have.


http://www.tranexp.com:2000/InterTran?u ... ltt&to=eng



unfortunately that means nothing without the interpretation of the translation to go with it.


i normally don't like it when people hide behind language in one way or another to protect themselves or somehow elevate themselves without any real accomplishment. this strikes me as one of those cases but i'll let it play out first.

I got a slightly different translation when I plugged it into an online translator, but the one I got was equally nonsensical. Latin doesn't seem to lend itself to algorithmic translation methods.

Observation and experiment and inductive generalization where skipped because they where not relevant or, in Freud's case, simple.

To fill them in for you:
Freud made observations of psychiatric patients, himself and clients over a long period and carried out cognitive experiments on all
three groups. Together with traditional knowledge he induced a series of genralisations that amounted to a whole new
pseudo-science.

As I said, how Freud came up with step 3, the hypothesis is not relevant.

The traditional method may seam "fairly reasonable" to you, but regardless of that it still contains the deep flaws that gave
Christianity, Marxism, Fascism, Freudianism and other such systems an unmerited footing in the sciences because they could not be
refuted.

Fortunately the "Traditional method" and most other derivatives of logical positivism where abandoned in the wake of Popper
and are generally no longer taken seriously.

No longer does science declare absoloute truthes proved by experiment, there are now only hypothosis that are yet to be proved
false.