What is science?

How about:
"science is a technique of trying things out to find what works and how."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hector is wrong.

Science is a description of reality. Reality was here long before we were and may be here long after we’re gone, yet the descriptions of reality are inherent only to those who have observed it. And although reality remains but the observer ceases to exist, science would no longer have meaning.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"What scientists do" appears to be truthful as "everything is as it is" is true but useless, a tautology.

The "scientific method" is different from "science" as you agree so I am left with your last statement

"investigation of nature through empirical observation and testing"

Looking carefully at the word "empirical" I find that it is often defined using the words "observation" and experiment which I consider as suggesting testing. Seems to me then that use of the words observation and testing are redundant so I come to the following,

"investigation of nature through observation and experiment"

Hey, I'm going to take the liberty of deducting the word nature as it is implied so I now have

"investigation through observation and experiment"

I don't mind this and think it catches your intent in a concise format but your original and my attempts at making it more concise don't begin to explain anything about the "why" of science. I suppose one could argue that there is never any general answer to the question "Why science?" and one has to look at what is going on to see the particular reasons at any instance. Still my definition seems to include this. My definition depicts science as done for the sake of sharing, to facilitate sharing, to make sharing more efficient, more prevalent, easier, etc..

I believe we need to use as much science as we can to figure out how us humans share this world in order to avoid accident, to make it ever more possible that ever greater numbers of people can have a satisfying and rich life without transgressing the freedoms and wealth of others. The kind of experiments and observations I want to see done are those that are carefully designed to elicit the greatest amount of learning with the least sacrifice, the least perturbation of the observed phenomenon as is possible. Good science requires finesse, it requires an eye to big over all encompassing goals and not just business as usual.

I find my definition includes a moral component. I do believe science needs to have a direction to aim its efforts that is independent of circumstances. With my definition you do not come to a contradiction and the statement "Science can be used to suppress science" would make no sense but with your definition, one could use science to help curtail sharing, to make things less conducive to harmonious existence. I don't think we should call this science. I believe it is better left as opportunistic hegemony where knowledge is sequestered or kept from the general populous so that one person or a few can benefit from the ignorance and dependence of many.

I appreciate your effort Nasor and have used this opportunity to explore and flesh out my own perspective. I find my definition to have more utility still.

guthrie...

Yes, Kazaa is the result of science and its on-going maintenance (especially in light of the recent raids of its corporate offices and everything being done to attempt to close it down) looks like an application and a testing of peer to peer software and exactly what it can do and what the ramifications of its use and manner of implementation entail. Kazaa is one pretty big science experiment. Science is not all sharing done anywhere which is what I find unacceptable in Nasor's definition, too willy-nilly, not concrete enough. Take a look at my definition again

"the art of sharing"

concise, comprehensive, explanatory

and, might I add, controversial. I like the idea that people are driven to consider the basic understanding of science and whether or not what we consider science should have any "good" or "bad" implication in how it is practiced. Science is powerful stuff. If used solely for those who see themselves as worthy of more than others, we will not make it to the status of a long-lived species nor will our individual lives reach the pinnacle of their potentials. Such is my opinion.

Hmmm, art a science? Well, I suppose one could argue such. I have long considered art simplistically as communication through example. Art does seem to have a larger degree of open interpretation to its practice than science though so I don't know if it would be proper to try to pin it down. Science, on the contrary, I am of the opinion we need to tame it for all supportive intelligence and don't allow the destruction and calamity that can result from its use for selfish ends to prevail.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree with Phi, Nasor and a slew of other people who have replied to this interesting(but may I say one-sided) debate.

I believe that science is a tool which is used to find the way in which something reacts when submitted to a certain condition.

 

Mr. Chips: I've said this many times before, I'll say it again. Definition is determined by consensus. Your definition might have some merit, but you're the only person who uses it. Speaking as someone who practices science full time and works with scientists every day, I think that my definition much more accurately reflects what people mean when they say 'science'. You think it's important that science have a strong moral component and commitment to sharing, and maybe that would be a good idea, but that isn't how anyone (other than you) would define science. Most scientists view science as amoral; it's a tool that can be used for good or bad, just like any other tool.

 

I would like to thank you all for your pearls of wisdom on the subject. I have been most enlightnened by your views, especially those of Nasor. Which makes me very thankful for my hesitation to post my abdication; even though the slander of consecrated defeat blemishes my good name. I must admit however my dismay when everyone seemed to advocate phi's agument, but in all truth I was not surprised, he did, after all, have the backing of the American Heritage Dictionary.

You see, the whole thing started with phi and I debating against a third party about Math's existance depending on science. Phi and I, being avid amature mathmaticians, were quite ready to argue that Math is a universal truth that exists regardless of science and mankind. So, I suppose the agument got me to wonder if (and eventually hope that) "science", too, could exist without man.
However, it can't.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hector Berlioz:

Says who?
Science is what you call it because discipline demands labels.

But hydrogen continues being fundamental.
Stars continue fusing helium.
Galaxies go on forming and clouds rain.

The universe goes on expanding without us. That's a science with no name.

 

Me

what??? Discipline demands labels???

No that is the universe 'doing its thing'. Science is a communal human activity in which the nature of the universe is explored through certain methods accepted by this community.

 

That Monkey:

And why the bleeding hell do you think I said it was "a science" with no name?
Read your bilge- the second sentence in there is a label which in your taxonomic disciplines you're forced to fucking stamp on something.

A science- as in physical laws, like the wall behind you still there even though you're not lookng at it, still existing without us.

 

Naw, thats not tight enough. You see people use kazaa to share files. The fact its also sometimes a testing ground for new software is not strictly scientific, nor its total raison detre. You see, your definition is too willy nilly. If you cant see that, then you have problems. Science involves strictly controlled experiments, which is not exactly teh same as trying what works. You build a hypothesis, test it, then modify it in the light of the results. You aim to restrict your hypothesis to results that are only testable in your experiments. That does nopt require sharing. The fact that Kazzaa stuff is aimed at increasing the ease and utility of sharing is immaterial. At best, the only scientific part is making sure the software works well, which like i said is not the ultimate aim of kazzaa, which is to increase file sharing utility amongst its users.

 

I'd say that science is the dictionary definition phi provided. however, the scientific method and the accepted data recording methods were set up to promote sharing between individuals. SO, to a certain extent, I see both side of the argument from page one as true.
Science isn't sharing, but it was designed to promote it.

My favorite part about science is that it is inherently designed to change. What is "scientific fact" today will be foolish crap tomorrow. The theories and knowledge which officially fit in the topic of 'science' is completely dependant on the data at hand, and can change totaly once new information comes in. Sadly, polotics often effect this flexability, but usually, the data wins in the end.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't know if it was designed to promote it, but is certainly has greater opportunity to flourish when sharing is involved.

And I so totally agree with your final paragraph!! Carve that one in stone and place it where every college student reads it on the way to class.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!