What is science?

The following is a debate between phi and Hector Berlioz. Who is right?

PHI: I believe that science is "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

HB: I believe, sir, that you are wrong, not entirely, of course. However, it seems to me that science is information or truth that is both discovered and awiating discovery. And, therefore science can, has, and will continue to exist regardless of the presence of man.

PHI: My definition came straight from the dictionary. Are you trying to change the English language? It would seem that you are confusing science with the "phenomena" mentioned in the actual definition.

HB: I am no more altering the definition than any publication of definitions might. And I would not go so far as to accuse someone of trying to change the English language, because he observed a discrepensy in just one dictionary's definition. And in addressing your second point, you refer to science under your definition, which would obviously propose confusion; however, I did not use the word under your definition, sir.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Science is a word.

The debaters have described two valid concepts. The label attached to those concepts isn't really an important issue. If they both have the same label, that's fine with me. Language is like that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is all based around semantics; we can choose to define 'science' any way we want.

That being said, I have to agree with phi. It's generally accepted that 'science' refers to a technique or method for investigating reality, not reality itself. The fact that the sun is powered by fusion is not science in and of itself, but rather a fact that can be discovered through science. We can call facts 'scientific' if investigation through science lends support to them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree with Nasor.
And a quick quote:
"Whatever you say a thing is, it is not"
(alfred Korzybski)

 

Hector:

Ha!

I had this same, inane little conversation yesterday, honest to Baphomet's truth, but it was over two things:

1- the use of the word "anymore"

2- my definition of what makes someone narrow by assuming. Hector B's line of attack is similar, but he's worded so much better I can kill him.

And science is honesty.

 

I think phi and gendanken are closest. I consider science as

the art of sharing

which means it gets shafted way too often as sharing is not exactly the most often used means to an end in the human anarchy.

 

Science is 'the art of sharing'? Whaaa?

Don't get me wrong, I think that science and sharing are both great, but they don't necessarily have anything to do with each other. I could perform experiments in my secret underground volcano-lair and it would still be science even if I never shard the results with anyone. And it would be easy to come up with examples of sharing that don't have anything to do with science.

 

If you do those experiments very well in your underground volcano-lair, then you will record your actions in a way that will be easy for you to understand and use. Maybe you'd only be sharing with yourself but that would be the idea. If you don't perform them well enough to share with yourself at least, then it isn't science but more like megalomania, heh Captain Nemo?

If you do your experiments with the idea of furthering human knowledge in general then you will be doing so with an eye to facilitating others to repeat and corroborate and expand your research. Maybe it would have been clearer if I had said "the art of sharing information" but I cater to the idea that a scientific perspective of universe denotes that everything is ultimately information so I thought the implication could be assumed.

I've seen how you seem to equate science with popular opinion so I doubt if you understand the perspective of considering universe as an information system and science as getting more into the know. As far as you are concerned, I've seen evidence that you see science as a power play, so I am not surprised at your incredulity when faced with the possibility that science has a strong altruistic component to it.

 

So science is, at its most fundamental level, an 'art of sharing' because I must share the information with myself? Doesn't 'sharing' by definition involve more than one person?

I agree that conducting modern scietific research involves an enormous amount of data sharing, but that's merely because it's much more efficient from a research perspective if you're aware of the work that other people have already done. Science is a meathod for investigating. There isn't any reason, in principle, why someone couldn't practice science and never share the results with anyone.

What the heck are you talking about? This is vaguely insulting. When have I ever proposed that science should be based on popular opinion? Basing things on popular opinion rather than empirical evidence is pretty much the opposite of science.

Although you can't base science on popular opinion, you can base semantics on popular opinion, and that's basically what this discussion is; we're discussing the definition of the word 'science'. While there's no reason why you couldn't define 'science' in any way that you choose, I think that most people – especially scientists – would agree that 'a method of investigation based on empirical observation' is a much better definition than 'an art of sharing'.

 

"Doesn't 'sharing' by definition involve more than one person?" You were the one who described an extreme situation. Would you consider someone who did experimentation to find out things just for themselves a good scientist? It may be science but I would call it poor science. The better science is for the benefit of all. Is that difficult to understand? You were kind of describing a situation of a mad scientist. That may still be science but, heck, its mad.

The scientific method is explicitly designed to facilitate sharing. Sure some one could keep it to themself but this is not good science. See the above.

You called the idea of considering solar energy as nuclear "bizarre" as if this recognition had no relevance as to whether or not nuclear power was safe in another thread. I was inferring that so-called nuclear scientists can not be trusted, that the current development of nuclear reactors on the planet is being done for business sake, for centralized profit taking purposes, more than as a scientific solution to the need for humanity to get energy. Yes, I understood that you were calling the scientific perspective bizarre which in my mind connotes distasteful because of its not being a popular opinion. I do agree that such a situation is the opposite of science and I wouldn't mind your explaining yourself further as to how you were not denying science but you had the chance there and did not take it.

If you use the word "method" as a part of your definition of science seems to me you have left the interpretation open. What kind of method? Me thinks the method that defines whether or not a process is scientific or not is if it is designed with the idea of clarity of transmission, ease of understanding, analysis and repetition. In my eyes, this fairly well equates to sharing.

 

It depends on what you mean by 'good science'. If you mean good in the moral sense, then yes, a scientist who never shared the results of his research would probably be considered lazy or selfish.

If by 'good science' you mean 'adhering to the scientific method' then whether or not a person published results would not necessarily relate to whether or not that person was a 'good scientist'. There are plenty of crackpots and scam-artists who publish (or try to publish) all sorts of outlandish things, but few would claim that these people are 'good scientists' merely because they share their data. Sharing data is great, but it's ancillary to conducting a rigorous, empirical investigation.

You could argue that sharing data will tend to improve the quality of one's research because it allows others to examine your techniques and look for possible flaws in your methods. I would agree with that, but I wouldn't say that it's impossible for someone to conduct a scientific investigation without sharing their results.

Someone conducts a scientific investigation any time they try to methodically determine the cause of a phenomena by examining empirical evidence. Suppose my car won't start. I suspect that it won't start because of a dead battery. I test my battery with a multi-meter, and it doesn't show any appreciable voltage. When I replace my old battery with a new one, my car starts properly. I have just conducted a scientific investigation. Although it seems trivial, I just conducted a scientific investigation by following the scientific method; I noticed a phenomenon (my car not starting) and came up with a hypothesis to explain it (the battery being dead). How can I test my hypothesis? I can suppose that:

1. If my car won't start because my battery is dead, then my battery shouldn't produce a voltage reading on a multi-meter.

2. Replacing my battery should allow the car to start properly.

Both of these suppositions should be accurate if my car has a dead battery, so I can test my dead-battery hypothesis. Although this is a boring example, it's exactly the same process that we use to test possible explanations for much more complicated things, like gravity or the behavior of small particles.

My point here is that science is a process for investigating things. Although sharing can make science much more efficient, it isn't a fundamental part of the process.

We were talking about the safety of nuclear power plants. You said that sunlight represents a safe form of nuclear energy. I pointed out that although the sun is indeed powered by fusion, most people don't consider solar energy to be a form of nuclear energy. It's commonly understood that 'nuclear energy' (in the context of electricity production) refers only to energy produced in earth-bound nuclear power plants. I said that it was bizarre for you to label solar energy a form of nuclear energy, with 'bizarre' in this case meaning 'unusual, strange, not ordinary'. While you could certainly make a good argument that "solar energy is a safe form of nuclear energy" is technically accurate from a physics standpoint, it's still a bizarre thing to say during a discussion about the safety of electricity-producing fission reactors.

 

Crack pots attempt to share their data in a way that obscures something, hides some truth, both from others and themselves, too often. Notice I said, the "art" of sharing and not just "sharing." You can be a member of the US army and be putting down, sharing some land mines near some villages where children live but I doubt if in the long run you are increasing the capacity for people to share. Look at the big picture.

Okay, and now that you have your car running you can go share your sweet face with some friends or transport some food home to feed your family or go to work so that you can be a productive member of society or what have you. If may seem that the act of diagnosing a car problem was separate from everything in the universe and had no relation to using that car to spread yourself around and serve your life or the life of others but that is only from an alienated perspective.

"We were talking about the safety of nuclear power plants" and that was my crux, we were not talking about the safety of nuclear energy which should be one and the same. Science places things in context. If you have made some good science it throws light on everything else rather than obscure or make the scientific perspective "bizarre." It is an absolute piece of misinformation and misunderstanding to claim that we have yet to learn how to use sustained fusion. How can we accept the hypothesis that nuclear power is safe when we are not willing to look at it as it exists in contextual relation to all else? How can we trust an enterprise when its sponsors neglect, ignore and otherwise seem adamantly incapable of using the scientific method to analyze big relationships as well as small? The fact that solar energy appears bizarre as nuclear energy underscores how far from truth many people who should be at the forefront of understanding are. Many who work with and support the idea of nuclear reactors on Earth for power do not have a scientific perspective even though they themselves claim to! It has been that way for many decades. This is a measure of the sorry state of our world. People are deluded and spread that poor perspective of universe in order to get their pay checks, in order to support the robber barons that control industries that depend on people's ignorance, gullibility and apathy to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a few. I say that the reason why solar energy as nuclear appears bizarre is because people have a vested interest in limiting our capacity to share. They want to say that solar energy is not feasible, that in essence we should only embrace the form of nuclear energy that needs highly paid professionals and higher paid owners of the industry. They are not into sharing efficiently.

Nasor, could it be that here and now you are fighting this idea that science is the art of sharing because you would like for me to quit sharing because I do not share your heartfelt perspective on some things? I mean, my hypothetical definition still stands despite your attempts to make it not so, as far as I can tell so far. Seems that every thing you bring up does not hold when considered in a larger context. I would like you to convince me otherwise if you could because my definition sure appears quite simplistic. Could you use, maybe, the scientific method to present your case so that you can more effectively share your disagreement with my idea?

 

I don't think "the art of sharing" applies to science any more than it does anything else. Is something (information) shared in scientific research? Well, yes, but if that is your standard, then we have to call... football as "the art of sharing", or warfare, or anything else. There is always some kind of exchange, be it thoughts, energy, bullets, whatever. I don't see how it applies to science more than anything else.

Sharing may be one of the tools used in science, but it is not the end product or even a necessary step in the process.

 

"football as "the art of sharing", or warfare, or anything else."

I believe one could make quite the case that these functions lead to a large picture result of less sharing.

Let me put it this way, "the art of sharing" or efficient sharing appears analogous to the mathematical concept of Shannon's entropy. It is useful to speak of sustainable information flow in information systems and to draw a distinction between that and just plain ole information. It may convey a lot of information and lead to a lot of change to yell fire in a crowded theatre but the end result is liable to be less sustained freedom. If you want you could say any one could interpret any word any way they want so that there is no point in communicating at all but that is hardly worth while. I do not believe you have offered a cogent offense against the idea that science may be "the art of sharing."

I believe sharing is the end product and a necessary continuous goal in the on-going process and actions of worthy science. I look at general systems theory and see its value in developing and weighing the merits of a subject as to its "scientificness" and I see that its striving to be a set of concepts shared by all science, common to all dealings with information in integrity, as its utility. The sharing of characteristics amongst and between all of the sciences is what gives us the ability to determine if we are being given propaganda or real science at any one moment.

I do believe that my perspective is distasteful to many because they believe they engage in science when in actuality their efforts for personal reward may very well be just business as usual and sustaining ignorance and dependence rather than seeking the superlative of scientific success, the attainment of mutually positive coexistence. Think of all that grey matter. How much more information handling could be had if we had all healthy and happy people on this planet rather than continue with engineered scarcity or sustained depravity which is a necessity of the design of current economic grossly inadequate fallacies.

Hey, I'm looking to see if there might be some way to facilitate humanity becoming rational. I see the task as directly related to the survival and success of myself, my family, my friends, all. I think this perspective on science helps more than it hurts. Convince me otherwise and I would be grateful but so far, all I hear has not given me any better insight.

 

What can I say Mr. Chips, we disagree on the definition of science. You can choose to define science any way you want, just like any other word. The definition of words is largely a matter of consensus, and I think that my definition would fit the consensus of professional scientists better than your definition, but if you don't like it then by all means define science however you wish.

Yes. You hit the nail on the head. I am disagreeing with your definition of science because your dedication to the altruistic sharing of knowledge threatens my petty, narrow-minded world view.

The very fact that you would suggest I should use the scientific method to prove the definition of a word indicates that your understanding of the scientific method is very different from mine.

 

I appreciate your attempting to stick with only that of which you are sure. Yes we appear to have different definitions of the concept of science.

I don't recall your giving us your definition that you claim is in keeping with "the consensus of professional scientists." How often has that consensus been wrong? If that is a controlling factor, then Darwin or Galileo or Copernicus and many others that we now consider as great scientists were not. Is good science what is most supportive of the aristocracy of any time period so that it gets the funds to make it into print, to be a part of the lexicon of "professionals" so that they may levy their deciding consensus opinion?

I believe I have offered a pretty clear idea of what I consider science to be and I am still at a loss to know what definition you have. You did mention something about a "method." If it is a "method", what kind of method is it? What are the goals and criteria to use to determine whether or not the method is performed well?

So that I might know exactly how I may be amiss, could you please attempt to state your definition again, Nasor?

 

Oh, I know it would be difficult to limit a definition to just four words as I have done:

"the art of sharing"

but if you, dear sir, could be so attentive as to limit the number of words you use for your definition to as few as possible then maybe we can get to see exactly what our differing opinions are, removing the possible confusing aspects of just the weight of the letters involved. This would be in keeping with the scientific method, heh, stripping the subject under study of as many inconsequentials to focus on the salient features that we wish to observe.

Then again maybe this has gone too far for you. Oh well, thanks for attempting to get me to see the error of my ways to the extent you have done so far.

 

I do agree that "the art of sharing" is an important trait that is sadly lacking in the world today. Perhaps with more of that skill, science and humanity would move forward faster...

 

Science is notoriously difficult to define. There isn’t really a good specific definition. One common definition is 'science is what scientists do'. That sounds flippant, but it really isn't very far from the truth.

The classical 'scientific method' can be summed up as:
1. Form a hypothesis to explain something
2. Make a prediction based on your hypothesis
3. Check to see if your prediction is correct; if it is, you've gathered support for your hypothesis. If not, try forming a new one.

The problem, of course, is that defining science as 'the scientific method' leaves out a lot of activities that would normally be considered science. Scientific investigation isn’t always carried out with the aim of testing a hypothesis.

I think that 'investigation of nature through empirical observation and testing' would be a decent definition.

 

Mr chips, does this mean Kazaa is science?
Would you say science is a narrow definition covering certain narrow actions done in a certain way, or is it all sharing done anywhere? Doe sit also mean that art is a science? Or are the terms interchangeable? But art is so personal, whereas you can get most people to agree on the results of the application of "science" precisely because it is both personal and common.